MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the arrangement made by the latter to proceed with the Committee stage of the Tithe Bill this week still holds good?
§ *MR. GOSCHEN
In the absence of my right hon. Friend I should not like to give a definite reply at this moment to the right hon. Gentleman's question. My right hon. Friend will be in his place to-morrow, and will then be able to answer any question on the subject. I may, however, say that the arrangement holds good so far, subject to any alteration my right hon. Friend may propose.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)
I wish to ask the Secretary for War how it was that the Second Heading of the Barracks Bill was taken on Friday before the adjournment for the recess, when on Thursday, the 22nd of May, the First Lord of the Treasury stated that he would only take four other pieces of Government business? The right hon. Gentleman was then asked whether, assuming that arrangement to be accepted, no other business would be taken, and he replied that, although he had no desire to impose conditions upon the House, in the event of the four Orders in question being concluded, and the Motion adopted for taking over Tuesdays and Fridays, he would move the adjournment. The question I wish to put to the Secretary for War is whether, on the evening of Friday, the 23rd, he had overlooked the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, when he asked the House to pass the Second Reading of a very important Bill establishing a very important principle?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
I had intended to put a similar question to the First Lord if he had been here to-day. Upon questions affecting the conduct of public business I think 1758 there ought to be no mistake. I withdrew my block to the Report of the Resolution on which the Bill is founded on the distinct understanding that I would have an opportunity on the Second Reading of the Bill of raising certain Constitutional objections to the measure.
§ *MR. E. STANHOPE
Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question. There was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of the opportunity of expressing his views with regard to the measure referred to. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the course I took in the matter on Friday. What was done in reference to the Bill on that day was due entirely to my mistake. The right hon. Gentleman will have a further opportunity of raising his objections to the measure. I understood that there was no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
If the Bill met with unanimous support, and there was no opposition to it, why was it not put down as the first Order of the Day rather than that the Government should render themselves liable to be charged with breach of faith?
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, N.E., Darwen)
Will the arrangement with respect to taking the Educational Estimates to-morrow hold good?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)
Will the Committee stage of the Barracks Bill be put down for next week?
§ *MR. E. STANHOPE
I am afraid that that must be left to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury. Under the circumstances it will not be taken to-night.
§ THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,) Kent, Dartford
The Education Code will be put down for to-morrow, 1759 though no unfair pressure will be put upon hon. Members. It is intended to follow the precedent of the right hon. Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Mundella), and to discuss the Code with the Estimates.