THIRD READING. (Hansard, 12 June 1874)

§ SIR CHARLES FORSTER
moved, in the case of this Bill, that Standing 1496 Order 242 be suspended, and that the Bill be read the third time.

§ MR. FAWCETT
suggested to postpone the consideration of the question until Tuesday.

§ MR. RAIKES
submitted that it would be most inconvenient to postpone the Bill any further. A considerable delay had already occurred in the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member for Hackney had already had an opportunity of expressing his objections to the measure.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, he thought there would be no objection to his proposal, and therefore refrained from making any statement when he asked for the postponement of the Bill. He threw himself, therefore, on the indulgence of the House, whilst he stated his reasons for applying for this brief delay in the consideration of the Bill. In the first place, he disclaimed any intention of renewing a discussion which had already been closed, but he objected to the measure as it stood, because he believed that it would cast a heavy burden upon the revenue of India, and he had only yesterday discovered that an important clause under which the Government of India obtained power to purchase the Indian railways on most favourable terms, had been omitted from the Bill. In the next place, he wished the despatch issued during the Governorship of the late Lord Mayo in relation to the subject, which was expected in this country in a day or two, to be in the hands of hon. Members, before they were called upon to form a final judgment upon the measure. The Bill was to affect the amalgamation of two companies which were altogether of a different character. He would move the adjournment of the debate until Tuesday.

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, that in substitution of the clause which had been omitted, one which was even more favourable had been inserted. It was necessary that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent by the 13th of 1497 June, and he promised that if the Motion were withdrawn, the suggestions of the hon. Member for Hackney should be fully considered in "another place." He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion, as a further delay would be attended with most serious consequences. He had already, on a former occasion, replied to the objections of the hon. Member, and showed that he was altogether mistaken in his impression upon the subject.

§ MR. MELLY
also expressed a hope that the measure would not be postponed.

§ GENEAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
thought the proposal to adjourn the debate for so short a time could not be attended with much difficulty.

MR. BECKETT-DENISON
said, he was in favour of the immediate progress of the measure.