§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)desired to know from the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the answer he had given in reference to the West Highland Railway, whether the Berriew School Bill, which would be opposed as strenuously as the West Highland Railway Bill, would be pressed to a Second Reading? He would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there were three notices on the paper for the rejection of this particular Bill.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYPerhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask me that to-morrow. A Division has been taken on the other Bill, and there has been a clear manifestation of the opinion of the Members of the House upon it.
§ MR. LEWISAm I to understand that the Bill will not be brought forward until to-morrow? It is in to-day's Paper.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI cannot promise we won't take the Second Reading to-night.
MR. T. M. HEALYI would ask the right hon. Gentleman if this Bill was mentioned in the scheme of legislation, when he obtained the whole time of the House?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI cannot remember whether this Bill was mentioned, but it certainly comes under the description of being a Departmental Bill. It would be out of order if I described the circumstances at length, but I may remind the House that it is a Bill simply dealing with a departmental error made by the late Government, which they desired to repair and which this Bill designs to repair.
§ MR. LEWISI would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he did not state that the opposition of one single Member would be sufficient to render a Bill of this kind contentious; and, whether now that three Members signify opposition to it, it does not become a contentious measure?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI do not remember saying that the opposition of one Member would be sufficient to constitute it opposed business; but in any case the opposition has only been declared by Notices on the Paper. We have not yet had an actual Debate upon it.