§ MR. MONK
desired to express his opinion that the request of the hon. Member for Chelsea, that the Parks Bill might not be brought on immediately after the re-assembling of the House, was most reasonable, because a great number of the Members would not have returned by the date fixed for the termination of the adjournment. He regretted to observe on the part of Her Majesty's Government a growing spirit of opposition to the wishes of many of their supporters. He thought that that policy up to the present time had not been a very successful one. Recent elections throughout the country had shown that the Government had lost considerably since the last General Election, and unless Her Majesty's Government turned their attention to the more important measures of the Session, instead of pressing forward this obnoxious measure, he was afraid that not even the Ballot Bill would save them from the disagreeable necessity of crossing to the other side of the House. He did hope that the Prime Minister would give way in this particular, because the interest taken by the public in the Parks Bill was as deep as it was general; and much discontent would be felt if it were brought on when there was not a proper number of Members present to discuss it in Committee.
hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not give way in answer to the appeal just made to him. It was surely a most absurd argument to say that Business should be postponed by hon. Members who wished to attend to the interests of the House, because of absence of other hon. Members who chose to stay away on the re-assembling of Parliament.
§ MR. CORRANCE
wished to know, Whether it is proposed to proceed with the Parks Bill, which stands for Thursday, 4th April?
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY
understood that the Public Health Bill was to be placed after the Parks Bill on the 4th of April, and he thought that, considering 602 the importance of the Public Health Bill, it was hardly treated with proper respect by such an arrangement.
replied that there would be no objection to place the Public Health Bill before the Parks Bill. As to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) they were such that he hardly knew how he could enter upon their discussion. He should, therefore, confine himself to the limited matter out of which his hon. Friend's observations grew. The Government had no wish to force the Parks Bill against the wishes of the House; but the great point was, what was the wish of the House? He thought it was that the Bill should be pushed forward, and that it would conduce to the public convenience that it should go forward. It had already been protracted in Committee to an inconvenient degree. When the Amendments had been disposed of, it was proposed to reprint the Bill, so that the House and the public would both have an opportunity of considering how it stood. Under these circumstances it was very desirable that they should go forward with it on Thursday, April 4. He had already told his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Henry Hoare) that he should have been better pleased to answer his Question to-morrow, and his hon. Friend replied that he did not intend to be present to-morrow.