[BILL 154.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 29 June 1883)

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he objected to the second reading of this Bill being now taken. The Bill had first of all been blocked; and in the second place, he believed, the Chief Secretary had told the Irish Members that he would not take advantage of the Half-past 12 Rule. He 1982 thought the right hon. Gentleman should adhere to that promise, especially as there were now very few Irish Members present, and this was a measure which should be discussed not by a small party, but by the Leader and the whole of the Irish Party. This was not a Money Bill; and, its provision s having been explained, he submitted that it ought not now to be taken, especially after the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary.

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, the hon. Member's objection to this Bill being brought on at this time and not being a Money Bill, was quite untenable. It was not a Money Bill in the sense that it concerned very much money; but if ever there was a Money Bill in character, it was this, because it proposed to enable the Government to make a grant of £50,000 for pauper relief. As to the question of an agreement with hon. Members, the conditions were now entirely changed. Two months ago, when he brought this Bill forward, the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) put an Amendment on the Paper of importance and interest. That Amendment was not now on the Paper, but it was to the effect that no Bill would deal with poor relief in Ireland satisfactorily which did not confer additional power on the Boards of Guardians in Ireland, with a view to assimilating the English and the Irish Poor Law administration. Since that time the hon. and gallant Member had brought forward that Motion, and a debate of great interest and importance had followed, and a majority—82 to 20—had decided against the Motion. That discussion was ended; and there was now no Amendment on the Paper except that of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), to the effect that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. This was a Bill simply for the purpose of indemnifying four Boards of Guardians who had borrowed altogether £3,000, and to enable the Government to relieve those and other Boards of Guardians. The circumstances under which he had made the promise—at a time when the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County, or some Resolution analogous to it had been discussed — had been entirely changed, and he did not think the Government were now putting any strain 1983 on the House, or on any section of the House, in asking the House to advance the Bill one stage this evening.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he was not concerned to endeavour to obstruct the advance of this Bill at all, but he wished to submit a point of Order. This Bill was to a great extent, and almost entirely, a Money Bill; but over and above those portions of the Bill which dealt with what was properly the subject-matter of a Money Bill, there was a clause which referred to the indemnification of Boards of Guardians who had exceeded their powers. He wished to put to the Speaker whether the mere fact of a Bill containing clauses which related to public money was sufficient to take that Bill out of the operation of the Half-past 12 Rule? If the mere presence of such a clause was sufficient to remove a Bill from the operation of that Rule, what proportion of a Bill was it necessary to have relating to other matters in order that a Bill should not come under that Rule? It was perfectly clear that this Bill did relate to what was not necessarily the subject-matter of a Money Bill. The Bill was really a Bill to indemnify certain Boards of Guardians who had gone beyond their legal powers; and on that ground he ventured to submit that it was, at any rate, a debatable question whether this was a Bill which could not be blocked by the Half-past 12 Rule?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Bill to which the hon. Member refers deals in almost every clause with money; and because one particular clause may not refer to money, that does not bring the Bill under the Rule. Being a Money Bill, it is clearly in Order to bring it on.

§ MR. SHEIL
said, that when the Chief Secretary for Ireland asked leave to introduce the Bill he gave the House to understand that no part of the money would be devoted to the purposes of emigration.

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, he might now most positively say that neither directly nor indirectly would any of the money be applied to emigration.