HC Deb 08 August 1888 vol 330 cc8-10
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)

wished, before the Leader of the House made the Motion of which he had given Notice for the suspension of the Standing Orders in regard to that day's Sitting, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposed that that suspension should be extended beyond the Government Orders of the Day?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

said, they did not intend it to go beyond the 16th Order of the Day, and he hoped that the Sitting would not be very prolonged.

MR. SEXTON

asked whether the 14th Order—the Municipal Funds (Ireland) Bill—would be taken?

MR. W. H. SMITH

Yes.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

asked whether the Scotch Burgh Police Bill would be taken that day?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that if there was any hope of making substantial progress with the Bill, they desired to go on with it; but if the Scotch Members intimated their intention to oppose the Bill, of course they could prevent it passing at the present Sittings.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

asked if the Government proposed to take the 16th Order of the Day, no matter how late?

MR. W. H. SMITH

No; we shall not press that Order if it is the obvious wish of the House that it should be postponed.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

asked a Question as to the Indian Budget.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension as to the Indian Budget. No Motion could be made on going into Committee, and the Speaker would leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee without a Motion.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

asked the right hon. Gentleman, as that interpretation of the Rule had the effect of depriving the Native population of India of any means of submitting their grievances to the House, if he would during the Recess consider whether an exception could be made to the new Rule, so as to prevent it from having a result which was not intended, but was only accidental?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had already intimated that it would be his duty to consider that question during the Recess.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

asked, whether the Scotch Burgh Police Bill was to be stopped if only a few Scotch Members were opposed to going on with it? He wanted it to be passed after proper discussion.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that it was very difficult to make a statement that would be satisfactory to every hon. Member. About five hours had been consumed in discussing the course of Scotch Business the other day, the result of which was to prevent their making progress with that Business. What he wished to convey to the House was that if there was evidence of a general desire on the part of Scottish Members to make substantial progress with the Burgh Police Bill he should desire to press it forward in the present Sitting; but if, as he was informed, there were certain Scottish Members who intended to fight the Bill clause by clause, it was obviously impossible to ask the House to give protracted Sittings at that period. But it was the intention of the Government to pass the Bill in the course of the present Session.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, if the Bill were opposed, as he understood it would be, the right hon. Gentleman would give them some assurance that in the Autumn Session Scotch Members would have a reasonable time afforded them for discussing it.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that he conveyed that meaning yesterday when he stated that it was the intention of the Government to pass the Bill in the course of the present Session—that was before the Prorogation of Parliament.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

asked the First Lord of the Treasury to accede to the view of hon. Members on that side of the House that the Oaths Bill should not be taken at a late hour.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, if that were the view of hon. Members behind him the Bill should be taken as a further Order to-morrow.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Before the Indian Budget?

MR. W. H. SMITH

Yes, Sir.