THIRD READING. (Hansard, 11 May 1885)

§ MR. WARTON

said, that although there were very minute differences in some of the clauses, this was practically the same Bill as last year. He and several other hon. Members had complained of that Bill when it was before the House. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Stafford were amongst those who objected to it; there were other hon. Members whose names at that moment he did not recall. The Bill was postponed from time to time last Session, from Mondays to Thursdays during four or five weeks, and it had never entered into the mind of the Under Secretary of State for India, who brought it in as he had brought in the present measure, that it was a Money Bill. But one day it was suddenly read a second time as a Money Bill; having been two or three times postponed, it was taken on a Thursday, when he happened to be absent from the House. Now, he ventured to say with all respect that it was very important that the House should have, in some form or other, a well-considered and authoritative statement from the Chair as to what constituted a Money Bill. He would not at that late hour speak on the question at length, but he would inquire what were the measures which, as Money Bills, the House dealt with in an exceptional manner? For his own part, he inclined to the opinion that they were Bills essential for carrying out great operations in the interest of the country, such as the raising of money or Stock; for State purposes. A Bill like this, for the mere purpose of confiscating part of the dividends, rents, or interest of a particular Railway Company, he was inclined to think was not a Money Bill. At all events, he was glad to have the opportunity of asking the question before the House went into Committee on the Bill; and, pending the authoritative declaration he had alluded to as being desirable, all he wished to say was that, whether this was a Money Bill or whether it was not, he regarded it as a Bill that was not necessary to carry on the business of the State; it was not for taxation or any State purpose, but simply, in his opinion, a Bill for the 293 purpose of plundering a Railway Company.