§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
1011§ MR. DILLWYN (Swansea)said, he understood from the Government that they were not to proceed with any Bills to-night. To this Bill he had a strong objection, and he was convinced that it could not be properly discussed in the time which remained to them. He therefore begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)said, that the Bill was of an extremely simple character; and, therefore, he hoped that the House would agree to proceed with the second reading. There was certainly no understanding that they should not proceed with Bills of such a limited character.
§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)said, he must support the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, because this was an ecclesiastical measure, which had been introduced without any explanation.
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)said, it seemed to him that if hon. Members were anxious for information, the best course for them to pursue was to withdraw the Motion for Adjournment, and thus enable the First Lord of the Treasury to explain the provisions of the Bill.
§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)said, it could not be contended by any Member of the House that even if the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate were withdrawn, the Bill could be properly and adequately discussed in the 10 minutes which were at their disposal. If the Government were anxious that this Bill should be discussed, why did they not bring it on at a reasonable hour of the night? The practice of introducing Bills without explanation, and then moving the second reading without explanation, was one against which the House was called upon to protest. Personally, he would give no countenance to the practice.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Debate adjourned till To-morrow.