SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 June 1878)

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, two Inclosure Bills were brought before the House last night, when one of them was passed a stage, though not without much remonstrance, on the ground that there had been no opposition to it before the Select Committee. He understood, however, that this Orford Bill was objected to by a Committee upstairs. The evidence taken before the Committee had not been printed and circulated; and, in these circumstances, whatever the Standing Order of the House of Lords might be, he thought it would be impossible to go on with the Bill at present. He, therefore, moved the adjournment of the debate.

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
hoped the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion. In consequence of the Standing Order of the House of Lords, there would be a difficulty in passing the Bill this Session if the second reading were not now agreed to. He would give an undertaking that the evidence adduced before the Select Committee should be printed and placed in the hands of hon. Members before the next stage of the Bill was taken.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
thought it was rather unsatisfactory that the House should be called upon to proceed at once with a Bill of this kind in consequence of a Standing Order of the House of Lords.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the circumstances of the evidence not having yet been printed was not owing to any fault on the part of the promoters. The simple fact was that the printer of the House had not been able to get through the work. He had, however, received a letter from Mr. Hansard, who undertook that the evidence should be in the hands of hon. Members on Wednesday morning. He entirely agreed that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer observed last night, the Rules made ''elsewhere'' were extremely harsh, not only to this House, but to the public at large. Indeed, the Government would exert their influence in order to bring about a revision of those Rules. In this particular case, however, he thought no hardship would be inflicted on the opponents of the Bill if the second reading were now passed.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the Secretary of State had just remarked that the Rule of the House of Lords was mischievous in regard to the public. He begged the House to take note of that expression. The Rule was introduced into the other House on the 4th of February and adopted on the 5th; but the Government then offered no opposition to it. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it might be hoped that the Government would use their influence to get the Rule rescinded. If it were not rescinded, the Government ought to introduce their Bills early in the Session, so that this House might have ample opportunity for discussing them.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, he agreed with much that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and he had no doubt that the Home Secretary would see that the restriction imposed by the other House would be removed. It should be borne in mind, however, it was not common but commonable land that this Bill dealt with, and there was great difference between the two. By the liberality of an individual, a large recreation ground had been set out for the benefit of the public, and more than an equivalent would be 1350 given them. It would be a great advantage that this commonable land should be inclosed.

§ MR. DILLWYN
objected to the second reading, on the ground that the reasons for the passing of the Bill had not been stated to the House.

§ MR. HARDCASTLE
remarked, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the Bill, that the Standing Orders of the House of Lords interfered very much with the Business of the House. The Manchester Waterworks Bill, for instance, had been thrown out on the ground that the Notices should have been served last November of Amendments which, in fact, were not proposed by the promoters of the Bill at all, but were forced upon them by a Committee of this House sitting in May.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that it was essential for the transaction of Parliamentary Business that some day should be fixed, after which Private Bills would not be proceeded with, otherwise the other House would have a number of Bills sent up so late in the Session that it would be impossible to deal with them properly. He was not prepared to say, however, that the day which had been fixed by the other House was necessarily the best.

§ MR. RYLANDS
opposed the second reading, on the ground that if they were to advance the Bill a stage they might be taking a line which, if they had the evidence before them, they would not have taken.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) had seized upon a phrase of his right hon. Friend and made it the topic for a severe attack upon the Government. But, in these matters, it must be borne in mind that the Standing Orders were made in conformity with the usual practice of both Houses, and upon the authority of those Gentlemen who took the lead in the regulation of Private Business, and that the attention of the Government was not attracted to alterations of this kind until some circumstances forced it upon their notice. He could only say, as he said last night, the Government were very desirous to bring about an accommodation between the Rules and Orders of the other House of Parliament and the proceedings of the House of Commons so as to avoid such difficulties as they 1351 now found themselves confronted with. But, as the Chairman of Committees had pointed out, it was necessary to have certain days fixed, after which Business was not to be taken, and the question was whether or not the days were conveniently fixed. It was difficult to say à priori; but after what they had seen to-day it might be that the day fixed by the House of Lords, the 18th of June, was too early. At all events, it was a matter for consultation between the authorities of the two Houses, in order to see whether some modifications might not be introduced. He promised last night, and he promised again, that in concert with the authorities of the House, the Government would endeavour to see whether some modifications might not be made so as to give effect to the Rule with the least inconvenience to the Business of the House. They had always to choose between difficulties, and they were very much in the position of the man who had to put five horses into four stalls. With reference to the Bill, he understood that the Report of the proceedings and the evidence would be delivered at the Vote Office for circulation on Wednesday. He did not think that any harm would be done if the Bill were read a second time.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in this Motion. Whether they approved or disapproved the Rule which had been established in ''another place,'' they must all recognize the fact of its existence, and must remember that this matter involved the convenience of many parties, and might lead to considerable expense. It might be more convenient to be in possession of the evidence before the second reading; but if they read the Bill a second time now, and did not part with the control over it till the next stage, they might still either amend or reject it if necessary.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, there was no reason why the House should have been driven into a corner like this, for the scheme was prepared before the meeting of Parliament. He understood that, according to precedent, the present Bill would be withdrawn, and a new Bill introduced in the House of Lords.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he did not think there was any necessity for the House to be driven into a corner in regard to the Bill, nor did he altogether assent to the doctrine laid down by the Chancellor of 1353 the Exchequer, that the House should give way. But he hoped this Motion would not be pressed, the Government having promised to use their influence to obtain, if not the removal, at all events the modification, of the Rule objected to.