§ Order for Second Reading read.
MR. MAC EVOY
said, that as the Report of the Lords' Committee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill had been presented to the other House only to-day, he would not ask the House to go on with the second reading of this Bill at present if the Government promised him a day for it. Otherwise he should feel bound to divide the House. The hon. Member moved the second reading.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Mac Evoy.)
§ MR. SCHREIBER
, who had a Notice on the Paper that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, suggested that the better course would be for the Government to give a day for the discussion.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he believed that the hon. Member for Meath had several times postponed the Motion for the second reading, in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of perusing the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords before discussing the measure. He presumed that a Motion would be made for obtaining a communication of that Report to the House of Commons, and when it was in the hands of hon. Members the hon. Gentleman might find an opportunity for moving the second reading of his Bill. The Government had no object in preventing or delaying the 1697 discussion of the Bill; but, having regard to the state of Public Business, he could not promise a day for it.
§ SIR JAMES M'KENNA
thought the Bill had been postponed so frequently that, a division should take place without any further delay. He did not see why the legislation of the House should be stopped in reference to the opinion of a Committee: of the House of Lords.
§ COLONEL W. STUART moved the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel William Stuart.)
§ The House divided;—Ayes 142; Noes 85: Majority 57.
§ Debate adjourned till To-morrow.