§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Jackson.)
§ COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)
called attention to an error that had occurred in calling the Orders of the Day. The Order for the Second Reading of the School Board Election Bill, being objected to, was set down for November 7. He had previously inquired of the Clerk at the Table whether he thought the adjourned Session would include the 7th November, and understood him to say he thought it would. But, as there was some doubt about this, and the Bill, if delayed, could not be applied, as he desired it should be, to the November elections, was there any way of correcting the error in fixing the day?
§ MR. SPEAKER
If the hon. and gallant Member intended to defer the Bill to Monday, and it has been by error set down for November 7, by the leave of the House the alteration can be made.
MR. T. M. FIEALY
May I take this opportunity to explain, Sir, that in urging my objection just now I did not know that it was the Railway Rates Bill that was before the House. I have not the slightest objection to that Bill, or to the consideration of the Lords' Amendments. I was under the impression that it was the Libel Law Amendment Bill under consideration.
§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)
Is not the Question before us, Sir, that you leave the Chair? Has not the question of the postponement of this Bill been decided?
§ MR. SPEAKER
It is not a Question to put to the House. It is a question of arrangement of Business between the hon. and gallant Member and the Clerks, and does not come before the House at large. If the hon. and gallant Member made a mistake, or the Clerk made an error in interpreting the hon. and gallant Member's wishes, as a matter of courtesy towards the hon. and gallant Member the alteration will be made.
§ MR. M. J. KENNY
But is the hon. and gallant Member entitled to make the alteration to an earlier day?
§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member knows that the House is not bound to consider the Bill on that day. These technical objections cannot be applied to every sort of triviality.
§ MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)
said, he was anxious to know what would be done with Scotch Business during the remaining fragment of the Session. Could the Lord Advocate say when the Bail Bill and the Burgh Police Bill would be taken?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)
said, that with reference to what had been said by the First Lord on the subject, he would express his willingness to defer to the wishes of Scotch Representatives as to which of the Bills that had been considered by the Standing Committee should have precedence on Wednesday.
§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)
said, if he might advert to the position of the Bill in charge of the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes), he must say he was of opinion that the interest he displayed in the measure was 1556 altogether unavailing. Whether it stood for November 7 or not, to suppose that a Bill not yet passed its second reading could become law in time for the November elections was, in the present position of things, absurd.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)
asked on what day it was proposed to take the third reading of the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill?
§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, not necessarily; but the hon. Baronet had better renew his Question on the morrow.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
asked, could any information be given as to the date when the Irish Drainage Bills would be brought on?
Question put, and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Two o'clock.