§ EARL GRANVILLE
My Lords, I wish to give Notice that I propose on 1796 Friday to move the adjournment of the House until the 24th of October. I do so in consequence of the course to be pursued by the Government in the House of Commons, where the same Motion for adjournment is to be made. In the House of Commons it is not the intention of the Government to bring forward any other Business than that connected with the Procedure of that House. I might have taken another course. I might have, as is often the case, moved next Friday an adjournment until a later day than that on which the House of Commons will meet. But, on the whole, we thought it more respectful to your Lordships to ask you to meet on the same day, and on that day I shall ask your Lordships further to adjourn. With regard to the Business of the House, Her Majesty's Government have no intention of asking your Lordships to transact any. Should any emergency make it desirable that Business should be done, I shall feel bound to give your Lordships proper Notice of the fact. I understand that it has been suggested that I should state whether any Bill which has been rejected by the usual form of a Motion that it be read on that day three months might not be revived through the meeting of the House in October, notwithstanding the rejection. I think that practically this question does not arise, as there are no Bills which can be affected in that way. I have also been asked whether any Bills which have not arrived at a third reading can go on to their subsequent stages in October. A question of Order of that sort will rest with your Lordships; but it is not the intention of the Government to ask your Lordships to go on with any measures or to encourage any legislation in the month of October.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, there still remains the difficulty of any single Member pushing on a measure. His right to do so would, I presume, not be affected by the course proposed by the Government. I have no intention to enter into any discussion of the noble Earl's statement; but should public affairs at that time seem to require any discussion on the part of the Opposition, we are not to be precluded by the statement of the noble Earl from then entering upon a discussion.