THIRD READING. (Hansard, 30 May 1893)

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
asked the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees if he would consent to postpone the Third Reading for a week to afford an opportunity for discussing the provisions of the Bill at a meeting of the inhabitants of Belgravia to be held on the 3rd of June. Attention had not, in fact, been called to the Bill before it reached the Committee stage in their Lordships' House, and, under the circumstances, it was desired that an opportunity should be afforded of considering the measure before it passed the final stage. The Bill affected all bars throughout Belgravia, and gave no compensation whatever, unlike the other cases in which bars had been removed.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL OF MORLEY)
said, the noble Lord was somewhat late in opposing the Bill at its last stage. It had been before Committees of both Houses of Parliament, unopposed, he understood, by the inhabitants of the Belgravian district, and it was now somewhat late to bring opposition to bear against it. He would ask the noble Lord whether it was worth while in the circumstances to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
said, that it was not known exactly what the Bill contained, and great opposition was raised against it. The extraordinary point was that so important a measure should have gone through its various stages without anybody knowing anything about it.

*THE EARL OF BELMORE
said that, though the Bill had been opposed before the Committees of both Houses, in the House of Lords the opposition was confined to a few bars. The Duke of Portland had opposed the Bill in the House of Commons, but not in this House; whilst the Duke of Westminster had not appeared, nor had Earl Cadogan. The only parts which were opposed in their Lordships' House were those relating to Bryanston Square, Prince's Gardens, Shepherd's Bush, and in Doughty Street, where opposition was offered by the Holborn Local Board, because something had been done in the House of Commons behind their back after they had withdrawn their opposition upon the merits of the case. The Committee passed the Bill with only one Amendment in the case of the last-mentioned bar; but they had not before them the question of the Belgravian bars, as to which there was, therefore, nothing for them to decide upon. It would be very unusual for the Bill to be postponed at this stage, and, indeed, it was difficult to see what could now be done if it were. Their Lordships would hardly be likely to recommit the Bill, even were the Third Reading postponed.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
pointed out that it was quite impossible for opposition to be taken to the Bill at the present stage, and that it was not likely that the House would re-commit it. Full notice was given of the intention to bring in the Bill, and anybody who desired to oppose it had the opportunity of going before the Select Committee. The House would hardly listen now at the last stage to any opposition which was not offered there, and it seemed hardly worth while to further postpone the Bill.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)
My Lords, I cannot help saying a few words in support of the noble Lord. Here is a Bill which has been through all its stages, and ample opportunity has been given for opposing it. At the last moment opposition is offered. It is too late for us now to postpone the Bill with the view of in some way or other altering it of throwing it out. To do so would, it seems to 1527 me, be open to great misconstruction, and I do not think there is sufficient reason for it.