SECOND READING. (Hansard, 4 September 1893)

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he hoped the House would allow the Second Reading to be taken, leaving over discussion until a later stage.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)
said, the Financial Secretary had promised to give them an opportunity of discussing this Bill. There were questions which would have to be discussed in Committee, such, for instance, as the Endowed Schools Act; and if the Bill were read a second time the Government ought to bring on the Committee Stage at a reasonable hour. The House was aware that the Government was taking an entirely new departure, and they had a right to expect that Ministers would afford facilities for the discussion of the schools question. It involved a complete reversal of the policy of the Government when they passed the Act. Particular words were discussed and struck out of the Bill, and the Government had proceeded as if they remained. Under the circumstances, whatever time of night it came on, the Bill would have to be discussed. It was a matter of great importance, and the Government should allow ample opportunity for discussion.

§ SIR T. LEA
said that if the Bill were proceeded with to-night the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Trea- 1982 sury must undertake to allow time for discussion on the Committee stage.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, there would have to be a good deal of discussion in connection with the Ballot Act. No doubt there was plenty of time to deal with the question; but he wished to give notice to the Government that tills question would have to be discussed, whether in the daytime or in the small hours of the morning.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said that under the new arrangement Supply could go on to any hour, and if these Bills were to be taken after these subjects had been disposed of, the House would find itself dealing with them at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. He thought they should have a pledge from the Government that if the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill were allowed to be taken, the Committee stage should be commenced before midnight.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he could not give any pledge at the moment as to the time at which the Bill would be brought on in Committee; but he would suggest that any hon. Member who took objection to any particular measure proposed to be continued should give notice of his objection by putting down Amendments on the Paper. It had been laid down that no Amendment could be moved to the clauses of measures contained in this Bill. The only Amendment which could be moved would be to omit a measure from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

§ MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)
said, the Intermediate Education Act passed by the late Government was now being interpreted in a manner dissimilar to the view taken of the measure at the time of its passing. The bulk of that Act was permanent, there being only some few clauses contained in the present Bill, and it was to those clauses that objection was taken. Those who objected were not masters of the time of the House. They were at the mercy of the Government; but sufficient had transpired to-night to induce them to believe that on both sides of the House there was a desire to render the proceedings of the House for the rest of the Session as little controversial as possible. If, therefore, the Goverment wished the friendly feeling which prevailed on these matters 1983 to continue, they must meet hon. Members as far as possible. It would be difficult to deal with the Intermediate Education Act if it were not commenced until 1 o'clock in the morning. He would appeal to the Government to break off Supply at an early hour some day, so as to enable the Act to which he referred to be entered upon at a reasonable time. If the Secretary to the Treasury wished hon. Members to give notice of their Amendments he must allow them a fair opportunity for doing so.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
said, he thought that ample notice of the intention to take the Committee stage should be given, in order that hon. Members might put down Amendments, particularly to the Ballot Act, and that the Government might give effect to such as they thought reasonable. In cases where only parts of Acts were contained in the Bill surely it would be competent for the Government to withdraw some of those parts.

§ SIR F. S. POWELL
said, he thought the time had come when the Ballot Act should no longer be continued from year to year, but should be made a permanent Statute in form as it was in fact. He hope the Government would take this matter seriously into consideration; and while making it permanent, he hoped they would take into view the case of the illiterate voter. Now that they had single-Member constituencies, there was no reason why the voter should not be supposed to be literate enough to give his vote for one or even two Members on a list.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, that if the Bill were read a second time he would put the Committee stage down for that day week.