HC Deb 16 July 1900 vol 86 cc40-1

As amended, considered.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Culdwell.)

MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S. W.)

I objected to this motion when it was made on Friday, and the result of my so-doing is that the Bill stands now in the position it would have occupied if the motion had not been proposed. I do-strongly protest against special facilities being granted to these companies. I do not know why we should be asked to suspend Standing Orders. I cannot understand why the promoters of this Bill should be in such a violent and hysterical hurry to get their Bill through. They have taken up a considerable amount of the time of the Committee, for I believe the Chairman and his colleagues sat nearly nine weeks upon the Bill to consider whether the preamble was proved, and in order to go through the measure line by line. I have seen a large number of statements put forward in support of the Bill containing grossly exaggerated and inaccurate assertions on matters as to which really the decision of the Committee has never been challenged. That decision has been loyally accepted by those concerned. I can only add that in another place individual towns will renew their opposition, and, therefore, under the circumstances, I do not intend to press my objection to a division.

* MR. EVELYN CECIL (Hertfordshire)

said that on behalf of Hertfordshire he wished to join in the protest made by his hon. friend against the suspension of the Standing Orders in connection with similar Bills to this one.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.