SECOND READING. (Hansard, 27 April 1893)

§ MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)
wished to know if the Instruction he had upon the Paper was in Order, as, if so, he should debate the matter on the Instruction. He did not wish to do so on the Second Reading.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
pointed out that the Committee to which the right hon. 1288 Baronet referred had been at work, had made a final Report, and had been discharged. It was no longer in existence. To what Committee did the right hon. Baronet desire the Bill to be referred?

§ *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
To a Select Committee.

§ MR. KIMBER
asked to what Select Committee did the right hon. Baronet intend the Bill should go? He (Mr. Kimber) had the following Instruction on the Paper:— That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to omit Clause 45, and any other clauses creating new charges or rates upon houses, shops, or other property already rated, or otherwise giving powers to raise money thereon. It was obvious the result of that Motion would depend upon whether they could say "Aye" or "No" to the Motion about the Select Committee.

§ MR. SPEAKER
What kind of a Committee does the right hon. Baronet propose? Is it an ordinary Committee or a Hybrid Committee?

§ *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
I propose it in the terms standing on the Paper, with the exception that, instead of being referred to the Committee on the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, it be a Select Committee.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The question is as to the Committee to which it should be referred. I suppose the right hon. Baronet means a Hybrid Committee? If he wishes to defer it until Monday, it will now stand committed to a Committee, and he can, in the meantime, decide as to the Committee.

§ *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
I shall ask leave to refer it to a Hybrid Committee.

§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)
Is it not necessary that Notice should be on the Paper for the appointment of a Hybrid Committee?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that depended on the circumstances.

§ MR. SEXTON
On that Question I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in accordance with the Orders of the House, the Motion on the Paper being a different Motion to the one now submitted—namely, to refer it to an extinct 1289 Committee, you can now nominate a Hybrid Committee without Notice?

§ MR. SPEAKER
It was a mistake in the first instance on the part of whoever put it on the Paper. The original proposition was to refer it to the Committee on the London County Council's General Powers Bill; but that Committee having been discharged, and being no longer in existence, the right hon. Baronet now proposes to refer it to a Hybrid Committee.

§ *MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
said, he would explain how the difficulty bad arisen. The Motion was put on the Paper while the Committee to which it was proposed to refer the Bill was still in existence. But in deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who wished to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill until to-day, the promoters of the Bill deferred taking the Bill until to-day, which had brought about the difficulty.

§ MR. KIMBER
would appeal to the right hon. Baronet to let the matter stand over for a day or two, at all events, or certainly until his (Mr. Kimber's) Motion for an Instruction be discussed. ["No, no!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
Of course, if the hon. Gentleman objects, the Bill will stand over till to-morrow.

§ MR. KIMBER
I do object.

§ *MR. JAMES STUART
appealed to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his objection. The promoters of this Bill were putting down this Notice to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee really to accommodate the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The promoters had no desire that it should be referred to such a Committee, but they were anxious to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite. Having done that and having brought their friends down in order to deal with this Motion after postponing the Bill for the convenience of hon. Members opposite, it was hardly fair to ask them to again postpone the matter. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his opposition, and let the Bill be dealt with in the ordinary way.

§ MR. KIMBER
said, the Bill was postponed distinctly for the discussion of the question of betterment. It was pointed out by the Speaker that he (Mr. Kimber) had the right of moving this Instruction 1290 raising the question of betterment, and they were there for that purpose. If the Motion to refer the Bill to a particular Committee were postponed, there was nothing to prevent him moving his Instruction which stood on the Paper.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
said, he himself suggested last week that that day would be most convenient for taking the Bill; but the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken and a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench pointed out that the Bill raised large questions, and that it should, therefore, be taken at as early a period of the Session as possible, so as to give time to the Committee to fully consider the question involved. They, therefore, suggested that the Debate should be taken on Monday. Afterwards they said that Monday had been found to be an inconvenient day for them, and they asked to have the consideration of the measure postponed from Monday to Thursday. To meet the convenience of these hon. Gentlemen the Bill was accordingly deferred until to-day; and now, when they were all there and without any previous intimation, they wished to have it postponed again. These same Gentlemen having told them that they were already quite late enough in the Session with a Bill of this character and that the Committee would hardly have time to consider the questions involved, could scarcely, with consistency, ask for a further postponement.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
If the hon. Gentleman objects the Bill will stand over.

§ MR. KIMBER
intimated that he objected.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
desired to say a word or two, as he had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet. The suggestion he made was with the view to some definite day being fixed for the discussion of the principle of betterment. If they could discuss the question of betterment they had better go on with it. He understood his hon. Friend was quite prepared to discuss the question of betterment that day.

§ MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)
appealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. Kimber) to withdraw his objection. He thought the clause of the right hon. Baronet was perfectly reasonable. It was their common desire that the Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Committee. The 1291 Committee to which it was originally intended to send the Bill had ceased to exist, and now it was proposed the Bill should be referred to a similar Committee, and he could not see what object was served by not taking that course now. On both sides they had agreed to fix the date of the Second Reading for to-day, and with great earnestness he appealed to his hon. Friend not to persist in his opposition to the Motion.

§ SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICK (Kensington, S.)
would also add his voice to that of other hon. Gentlemen, and ask his hon. Friend not to persist in this objection. They had all come to a fair agreement that this question should be debated that day, and he hoped, therefore, the objection would be withdrawn.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
If the objection is still maintained it must go over.

§ MR. KIMBER
I am sorry to be persistent, but there are reasons against it.

§ *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
In these circumstances, I must withdraw my Motion.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The whole question must stand over until the next occasion when the Bill comes on, when the right hon. Baronet can move his Motion.

§ MR. KIMBER
As I understand the matter of Order, I can move my Instruction?

§ *MR. SPEAKER
There is no Committee before the House. The right hon. Baronet has intimated his intention to withdraw his Motion for the appointment of a Hybrid Committee. We do not now know what Committee the Bill is to be referred to, and the Instruction to the Committee cannot be moved until we know what it is.

§ MR. KIMBER
I really did not understand that. I did not intend to postpone my own Instruction.