§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. HENRY SAMUELSON
said, that at the present period of the Session it was quite impossible to go on with the Bill with any chance of success. He had, however, reason to hope from a statement made to the House by the Secretary to the Local Government Board during the debate on the question of appointing the Select Committee on Boundaries, that the Government were in favour of the principle of the measure, and he hoped that they would bring in a Bill embodying the main principle of his Bill if not he should certainly re-introduce his Bill next Session. He therefore moved that the Order be discharged.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Order be discharged."— (Mr. Henry Samuelson.)121
§ MR. GOLDNEY
wished to know, before the Motion was agreed to, whether the Government agreed in the principle of the Bill, which might be introduced again next Session.
said, he had not had an opportunity of consulting his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld) on the subject, but he might say that, although the question was deserving of attention, the details of the present Bill were faulty, and if it went to a division it would be his duty to vote against the second reading. What the Bill proposed to do, must he done in a different way.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS,
under the circumstances, objected to the Motion for the discharge of the Order, until the House had an opportunity of discussing and expressing an opinion on its principle. They ought to have some formal statement of the views of the Government on the subject.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
moved that in the absence of the President of the Local Government Board, the debate be adjourned.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
§ MR. RAIKES
regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was not in his place, to state whether the principle of the Bill was to become that of the Government measure.
§ MR. SAMUELSON
said, that the statement that the Government would consider the question with a view to legislation arose upon discussion of an Amendment moved by him, that the boundaries of Municipal Boroughs should be considered in the Committee on Boundaries. He could not help thinking that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches found it convenient to discuss the withdrawal of his hon. Relative's modest little Bill in order to prevent the Burials Bill from coming on.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,
in reply, said, that it might with quite as much reason be said that the Bill was being withdrawn unexpectedly, and without Notice, in order that the Burials Bill might come on. The present measure was brought in at an early period of the Session, and then, when an opportunity was afforded for discussing the 122 Bill and justifying it, the hon. Member proposed its withdrawal.
§ MR. HENRY SAMUELSON
said, that he failed to understand the utility of occupying the time of the House by a discussion of the details of a Bill which there was no chance of passing so late in the Session. He had put the Bill on the Paper for second reading on a Wednesday in the middle of the Session, and had not the House been adjourned over that day in consequence of the Ministerial resignation he would have been quite prepared to discuss and justify the measure. He did not assert that the Secretary to the Local Government Board had promised to legislate in the spirit of the Bill, but that he had expressed his approval of some such method of relieving municipal boroughs from expense in procuring an extension of their boundaries. He would introduce the Bill next Session.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID
said, he did not concur in the Bill, but could not join in the unusual course of refusing to allow the Order to be discharged.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be adjourned till this day three months."—(Mr. Henry Samuelson.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 91: Majority 94.