HC Deb 10 June 1892 vol 5 cc812-3

COMMITTEE. [Progress, 9th June.]

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

(12.57.) MR. MORTON

I beg to move that Progress be reported. This is not a Bill to be pushed through Committee in the small hours without consideration. It appears to me a Bill which ought to be submitted to the consideration of a Select Committee. At any rate there should be a fair opportunity of considering a proposal which is for taking away authority from this House and transferring it to the First Lord of the Admiralty, who may dispense patronage as he pleases, we here knowing nothing about these matters. To my mind this is an objectionable alteration. We have not-had these matters properly explained, and I now move that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Morton.)

(12.59.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,) Middlesex, Ealing

I cannot conceive any reason whatever why the Bill should not pass. From the hon. Gentleman's remark it would seem he has not read the Bill, for he states that the Bill proposes to take some authority from this House and confer it upon the First Lord, but the exact reverse is the case. The almost absolute power of the Admiralty is defined and regulated by the Bill, and I hope the hon. Member, finding he is mistaken in his reading of the Bill, will not press his Motion, but will allow the Committee to proceed.

(1.0.) MR. MORTON

But we have something on the Votes every year with regard to these Naval Knights, and the question is very pertinently asked, "Who are these Naval Knights?" Seeing the manner in which the Bill was thrust through Second Reading, it certainly should have proper examination in Committee—in Select Committee, I think. Of course, I know if the Government desire to force the Bill now it is useless for me to offer any opposition; but I must say it is an almost indecent way of conducting the business of the country to carry a Bill through its stages without giving opportunity for consideration. I have read the Bill as carefully as I could, and if I have misconstrued some of the clauses, that seems to show that we require explanation, which as yet we have not had.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule, and Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

(1.3.) MR. MORTON

At any rate I think the Government should agree to postpone the final stage until Monday, so that we may have some time for consideration. Surely, there is plenty of time without hurrying the Bill through now?

Third Reading deferred till Monday next.