HC Deb 12 July 1916 vol 84 cc346-58

The following Notice of Motion stood on the Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—"That, on the conclusion of the Consideration of the Finance Bill, as amended, this day, that Bill may be recommitted in respect of the Amendment standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, may be considered in Committee and, immediately on its being reported to the House, as amended, on re-committal, may be considered, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of a Bill relating to Finance."

Mr. McKENNA

With regard to the Motion in my name on the Paper, I find that its terms are inconsistent with the statement I made to the House yesterday, and therefore I do not propose to move it. I shall, however, put down another Motion to-morrow, which will enable the House to save, if the House agrees to it, one day's proceedings on the Bill.

Sir E. CARSON

Would it not be well to refer that to a Select Committee?

Mr. McKENNA

No, Sir; that is a matter with which the House can deal at once.

Mr. PRINGLE

Would it not be well if there were a permanent Select Committee to keep the Government right?

Mr. J. SAMUEL

Does that mean that the Third Reading of the Finance Bill will not be taken to-morrow?

Mr. McKENNA

The Motion for the Third Reading will not be taken to-morrow. We are going to take the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill and the Report stage to-morrow in order to enable us to take the Third Reading on one day next week.

Sir F. BANBURY

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is in contravention of all the rules and customs of the House that two stages of a Money Bill should be taken on one day, and as there is a considerable volume of opinion against doing that, will he agree not to take that Motion to-morrow?

Mr. McKENNA

Of course, if the opinion of the House is against taking the two stages on one day, I should not attempt to do it, but I hope the House will hear me on the point because it is a purely formal matter.

Sir F. BANBURY

Not at all.