HC Deb 31 July 1906 vol 162 cc877-9

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that some parts of the Bill were obscure. He did not see why the Bill should be so drafted that it was necessary to read it four or live times in order to get at the meaning.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

said this was a measure which ought to receive greater discussion than could be given to it at this hour (2 a.m.). It might involve a large expenditure of money, and if greater facilities were given to municipal authorities to obtain loans, it would mean an increase in the rates. He moved, "That this Bill be read a second time upon this day three months."

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

, in seconding the Amendment, said he did not think that a Bill dealing with £3,500,000 should be brought forward at this hour without explanation, and allowed to pass without discussion of any kind. What were hon. Gentlemen opposite for? Why were they paid high salaries? Not to come down with Bills and give the House no explanation of them. This was not the way to expedite business.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word ' now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words ' upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)

Question proposed, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said that huge sums of money had already been voted at this sitting without explanation. Why should a certain number of persons, under one of the provisions of this measure, be exempted from the ordinary duty of meeting their liabilities in connection with the principal and interest of loans? He represented a very poor district, and he certainly claimed the same exemption for it. It was the business of the Minister in charge of a Bill to give some explanation of it, especially at this hour of ten minutes past two in the morning. It was recognised even by the Members below the Gangway that they did not understand the meaning of Clause 3.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,) Monmouthshire, N.

said that it was absolutely necessary to get this Bill through before the 4th August. The hon. Member for the City of London must, at least, understand the meaning of Clause 3, because he recollected the hon. Baronet being present when an identical Bill was presented by the last Government; and no one who had the City experience of the hon. Gentleman was likely to misunderstand what the Bill or any clause of it meant. If this Bill was not passed it would cause great loss to local authorities because the latter would have to pay a higher rate of interest for the money which they wished to borrow. This was, in fact, a Bill which was passed every year.

Question put—

The House proceeded to a Division.

MR. SPEAKER

stated that he thought the Ayes had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was vexatiously claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the Ayes had it, eight members only who challenged his decision having stood up