HC Deb 05 June 1885 vol 298 cc1344-5

in continuation, said: With respect to the order of Business, there are three subjects which will be proceeded with. First, there is the second reading of the Budget Bill; secondly, the second reading of the Crofters (Scotland) Bill; and, thirdly, the introduction of the Bill to which the name of "Coercion Bill" has been given. But I cannot, and do not, concur in that name, but will refer to it as the Bill which is to replace the Crimes Act in Ireland. The Budget Bill will stand, as it does now, for Monday. If that measure should occupy the whole evening on Monday, the Crofters Bill, of course, cannot be brought on that night; but it will be put down as the second Order on Monday. If the Crofters Bill is not brought on on Monday, the second reading of that Bill will stand as the first Order on Thursday, and the introduction of the Bill to replace the Crimes Act will stand as the second Business on Thursday. Perhaps I may reserve to myself the power to consider whether it would not be for the convenience of the House to make the Motion on an earlier day with respect to the Bill to replace the Crimes Act, simply for the purpose of making it an Order of the Day, and not for the purpose of discussion. If it were not proposed to discuss it at that stage, it would stand after the Crofters Bill on Monday.


It may be for the convenience of the Prime Minister to know that the Bill to replace the Crimes Act will not become an Order of the Day without considerable discussion.


May I ask if it is the intention of the Government, as, I think, the Prime Minister intimated before the House rose for the Recess, to ask for an increased possession, of the time of the House?


No, Sir; I do not make any intimation to that effect. I have not at present seen any such great cause as would justify my making that proposal at the present time.


The right hon. Gentleman has made no mention of another Bill. He said before the Recess that he intended to introduce a Bill dealing with the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. Does the Government still adhere to that intention?


It is the intention of the Government to deal with this question. But I cannot undertake to say anything about the time until we have made some further progress in the three matters to which I have just referred.