§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 4.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)I understood that an arrangement had been come to under which no business was to be taken after the Motion for Adjournment. We have already had a discussion on these understandings, and I should like to know whether the Government intend to carry out the understanding they came to with the House on this matter?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FER-GUSSON,) Manchester, N.E.The Bill now before the Committee is, I assure the hon. Gentleman, a matter of urgency, as it is necessary to give effect to the Postal Convention entered into with the French Government. The question is one that has been the subject of careful consideration, and I hope there will be no opposition to the Bill passing through the present stage.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)I would point out to the hon. Baronet that it was fully understood that no business would be taken after the Motion for Adjournment over the Easter holidays. If the Government had regarded this Bill as important they should have put it in front of that Motion, and I say that the fact of its being placed after the 1811 Motion for Adjournment clearly shows that the Government did not think it was of the urgent nature stated by the right hon. Baronet. Personally, I have no objection to the Bill, but there may be a number of hon. Members who would have wished to discuss it had they known it was to come on; and, therefore, I will move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,) Tower Hamlets, St. George'sIt is quite clear that the Government are not justified in pressing the Bill forward if there is any objection to that course. We should not have proceeded with it had we not believed that it was entirely unopposed; but, under the circumstances, we shall consent to Progress being reported.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday, 6th April.