HC Deb 23 June 1915 vol 72 cc1306-7

Order for Second Reading read.

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


I think this Bill ought not to be put through. There is absolutely no necessity to proceed with it. It raises a great number of important points. I must persist in my objection to it.


May I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading? It has been agreed to by the Colonies. There has been a great deal of difficulty in adjudicating upon the prizes brought into various ports at inconvenient places in various parts of our Dominions. It has been impossible to dispose of the cargoes because you have only local jurisdiction. There is great congestion of these cargoes in many places. All we ask is that they may be transferred by order of the Court from one district to another. That is practically the whole Bill.


Does this Bill settle the controversy which took place between the present and the late Attorney-General?


It has nothing to do with it.


I wish to protest against proceeding with the Bill. I was interested in the Maintenance of Livestock Bill, and I inquired of the Whips whether they would go on with the measure, and they informed me that they would not, and they have not, but I informed some of my Friends that it would not be proceeded with, and I think they took the inference that nothing after the Maintenance of Livestock Bill would be proceeded with and they have gone home. They may be interested in this Bill.


I hope this Bill will not be interfered with. It will do one of those things about which I have had representations made to me—it will help to get these matters into Court and enable the vessels to return to the service of the country's commerce. Every day's delay of this measure may mean a day's delay to a certain ship returning into the commerce of the country.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]