HC Deb 05 June 1874 vol 219 cc1053-4

said, he wished to give Notice of Motion in consequence of the advice which the Speaker had given him in private, and he was anxious, with the indulgence of the House, to explain what had taken place so that he might be quite sure he properly understood the position in which he was placed. The Order for the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill stood over for Wednesday, the 10th, and on Friday, the 12th, he proposed to move, that it was expedient that Her Majesty's Government should introduce a Bill to appoint Commissioners to inquire into Monastic and Conventual Institutions. He had been informed that as long as the Order for the Second reading of the Bill stood anterior to the Notice of Motion, that either was correct; but that if he were to postpone the Order for the Second Beading until after the Notice standing in his name, his Notice would become irregular. Inasmuch as he believed there was very little prospect for him as a private Member to obtain an opportunity to bring forward his Bill, and understanding his position, he now gave Notice, that he intended to move, on the Order being read for the Second Beading, that it be discharged. The Bill stood for second reading on Wednesday next, and in order that he might proceed regularly with the Notice for Motion that stood in his name, and elicit the opinion of the House that it was expedient the Government should introduce a Bill upon the subject, he proposed to withdraw the Bill


In answer to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, I may state that the practice of the House is this—If the House should order a Bill relating to a certain subject to be read a second time on a given day, it will not anticipate the discussion on the matter, which it has so ordered, by a Motion on the same subject. And, therefore, if the hon. Member postpones the second reading of the Bill to a later day than the Resolution of which he has given Notice, that Resolution could not be proceeded with.

Back to