§ *MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.), who had on the Paper the following instruction—"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Improvement No. 5 from Part III. of the Bill," said he would not take up the time of the House by moving the Instruction which stood in his name. He understood that the Chairman of Committees was going to move that Standing Orders be suspended, and that the Bill be allowed to go to a Select Committee upstairs. He ought to say with regard to the motion on the Paper that the Bill was not opposed in the House of Lords, and neither had it been opposed in this House hitherto, because the vicar and churchwardens had no knowledge that part of the churchyard was going to be taken by the tramway scheme. Unfortunately, in this matter one gentleman was acting in two interests—for the corporation and for the churchwardens, and owing to a misunderstanding no petition was laid against the Bill. It was found, therefore, that unless he moved an instruction in the House the Bill would have passed through unopposed, and the 388 tramway would have carried away part of the churchyard. As he had before said, he understood the Chairman of Committees was now going to propose that Standing Order No. 83 be put in force, so as to enable the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee upstairs. Under those circumstances he would not move his instruction.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith)said the hon. Member had quite accurately described the compromise which had been arranged. He intended to report the Bill as an opposed Bill, and at the same time he would put down a motion enabling his hon. friend to present a petition. That petition would be referred to a Committee upstairs, who would hear the case.