HC Deb 29 March 1901 vol 92 cc235-6
MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is to be any business on Tuesday besides the motion for the adjournment of the House.


I think the most convenient plan for Tuesday will be to have a morning sitting at 2 o'clock in order to take the motion for the adjournment over the Easter holidays. Of course there will be a 9 o'clock sitting, if the House desires it, to carry on private business; but there will be no Government business on Tuesday except the motion for the adjournment, unless, as I do not anticipate, we are unsuccessful in obtaining the Second Reading of the Army Bill on Monday.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. He has stated that the Demise of the Crown Bill is to be taken on Monday. I would respectfully urge that this Bill raises a very serious constitutional question—namely, whether in certain cases an appointment by the Grown should carry with it vacation of seat in the House of Commons. According to one view of the law, therefore, this Bill will be for present Ministers an indemnity Bill; and I would ask whether it is desirable to push forward such a serious and controversial question on the day before the holidays; and whether it would not be better to postpone the Bill until after Easter.


I do not think that the Bill involves the grave constitutional question which the hon. Member describes; and I think that the House ought to be able very well to decide such a matter on Monday.


The right hon. Gentleman will not entertain the idea of postponement?


There is, as far as I can see, no adequate reason for postponing it.