SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 May 1887)

§ MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)
I object to that proposal. I can see no advantage to be derived from postponing the Bill for so long a period, and it would certainly be exceedingly inconvenient to do so. All that the Corporation of Sheffield want is a little more time, and an adjournment for a week would be sufficient for their purpose. Why the adjournment should be for a month I cannot see.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Bill must go over until another day.

§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)
I have no authority to make any promise for another day, and I would remind the hon. Member that in the interval between now and the 14th of June there will probably be a Vacation of 14 days, for Whitsuntide, the Derby Day, and other matters, so that there would not be very much time left.

§ MR. KELLY
While I appreciate the necessity for postponing the second reading of the Bill, I have no wish to throw out the Bill for the Session, which I believe may be the result of postponing it until the 14th of June.

§ MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)
I beg to support the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I think that an earlier day will meet the requirements of the ease.

§ MR. SPEAKER
It will be competent for any hon. Member to move an earlier day for the second reading.

§ MR. KELLY
Then I will propose that the second reading be taken on Wednesday next, the 18th of May, instead of the 14th of June.

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)
I do not think that there would be any advantage obtained from deferring the second reading for a week. I understand that it is a Bill which excites a great deal of interest, although I confess that I am myself but imperfectly informed as to its provisions. I am informed that its progress has been arrested by an injunction from the Court of Chancery to restrain the promoters from going on with it in consequence of an informality in a meeting held under the Borough Funds Act. That informality is, I am told, that the meeting was held a day earlier than it should have been. It is proposed to correct that informality. I only mention this matter, in passing, as a reason why the Bill should be postponed until the 14th of June. I would remind the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) that should the postponement result in the loss of the Bill it would be only realizing the result which his own Motion, now standing on the Paper, is intended to secure.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)
Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the decision of the Court of Chancery was directed against the payment of money by the Corporation, and had nothing to do either with the merits of the Bill or the proceedings in this House. The Court would not presume to interfere with the course of legislation.

§ MR. KELLY
May I make a brief explanation?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member has already spoken. He would not be in Order in speaking again. Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?

§ MR. KELLY
No; I have no wish to do that. I desire that the Bill shall be taken on Wednesday next.