§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he wished to put a question to the Speaker on a point of 1593 Order in reference to a Private Bill. He was present yesterday when the Lords' Amendments to the London Riverside Fishmarket Bill were down on the Paper for Consideration; but, as there was an Amendment in his name, the Consideration was postponed until to-day. He sat upon the Front Opposition Bench, and heard everything that went on. The Speaker put the Question to the House, "That the Bill be taken into Consideration To-morrow,"—meaning that day (Thursday). But now upon looking at "the Votes and Proceedings" issued that morning he found that, instead of the word "Thursday," the word "Monday" had been inserted, and the Bill was ordered to be considered on Monday next. It seemed to him that the alteration must have been made in a manner altogether irregular; because the House had agreed that the Bill should be considered that day, and he took it that no other authority except the House itself could alter such a decision. It would be interesting to the House to know by whose officious zeal the Order of the House had been set aside. There were a great many Members who were interested in the matter, and they had been told by him that it was set down for Consideration that day, and that it would certainly be considered. Indeed, many Members had come down under the impression that the Bill was to be taken. That, however, was not altogether the point, although, as a matter of convenience, it was an important one. What he wished to urge was, that the Orders of the House had been altered by someone unknown, and without the authority of anyone in the House; and he wished to know whether such a proceeding was not altogether irregular?
§ MR. SPEAKERI apprehend that what has taken place is this—the Bill in question having been ordered to be taken into Consideration to-day, no doubt that Order should appear on the Minutes of the day, and the Bill should have been set down for Consideration this day. The promoters of the Bill, having conferred with the parties interested, have agreed, for the convenience of parties concerned, that the Consideration of the Bill should be postponed until Monday next. But, having taken that course, I think it would have been an act of 1594 courtesy, at all events, to the hon. Member who had given Notice of objection to the Bill to have notified to him in due time the postponement.
§ SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that he was not in the House when the Bill was moved, and therefore he could not speak personally as to the facts; but he believed that the Speaker had given an accurate representation of what had taken place. He thought the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had been treated with very scant courtesy, and that he had a very fair ground of complaint.
§ MR. RITCHIEwished to ask the Speaker, in reference to what had occurred, whether it was competent for him, or any other hon. Member, to move that the Votes and Proceedings be amended so that the word "Thursday" be inserted in place of "Monday," because it was perfectly certain that in the form in which it now stood the entry in the Votes was an incorrect Minute of the proceedings which took place yesterday?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member proposes to amend the Order Book. I do not see very well how that could be done, because, of course, it would involve the consideration of the Bill now, which would be quite out of Order.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had thought that the Bill might have been considered now, and then postponed until Monday, in the ordinary and regular way.