HC Deb 28 April 1890 vol 343 cc1629-30

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th April] "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

(11.54.) MR. DILLWYN (Swansea, Town)

I think some explanation should be given of this Bill. It appears to be a scheme made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for dividing the vicarage into two parts. I do not know why this should be done, and, I think we ought to have some reason given to us. The vicarage is now vested in the hands of King's College, Cambridge. I do not think it is competent for the House now to go into the matter. It is close upon 12 o'clock, and I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

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

I assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing very serious in this matter. The patronage of the vicar- age is in the Crown. The village of Petersham is some distance from Kew, and it is desirable that the two vicarages should be separated. That can only be done by an Act of Parliament.

MR. DILLWYN

I rise to order, Sir. I moved the adjournment of the Debate, and the right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the Bill.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

I understood that the right hon. Gentleman wished for an explanation, and I was therefore, willing to allow him to go on.

*MR. W. H. SMITH

The explanation is so simple on the face of the Bill itself, that I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his opposition. It is a matter of the very smallest importance.

MR. DILLWYN

; We are always told that these matters are of the smallest importance, but we sometimes find, when they have been passed, that they are of the greatest importance. I must, therefore, persist in my Motion.

(11.57.) House cleared for Division, but Motion agreed to without a Division.

Debate further adjourned till Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.