§ Sir Andrew L. Haypresented the Report of the Committee on the Trinity (North Leith) Harbour and Dock Bill. He said he wished to state broadly the circumstances under which the Committee reported that an "informality had occurred of such importance as to induce them to recommend the Bill to be withdrawn, otherwise it might become an improper precedent on future occasions. The manuscript copy of the Bill introduced into the House was different in some respects from the print which was afterwards circulated and which was referred to the Committee. Words had been then introduced in a way that the Committee considered informal; they would not permit the Bill in that shape to proceed, and therefore they agreed to report to the House that the Bill should be withdrawn, and another Bill introduced." He moved that a Bill be introduced to construct a Harbour and Dock in Leith.
§ The Attorney-Generalsubmitted whether the House would for a third time allow a Bill to be introduced. It was from very great indulgence that a second Bill had been allowed to be introduced in the same Session, especially when the informality had arisen from the gross negligence of the promoters of the Bill. He did not wish to charge anything beyond gross negligence. There was an unanimous vote that the Committee could not proceed with the Bill, and his hon. and gallant Friend was allowed to try his hand a third time. He trusted, however, the House would not, by permitting the introduction of this Bill, sanction such 608 gross negligence. As the necessity for the third Bill had confessedly arisen from the negligence of the promoters of the other two, he hoped the House would at once reject it.
§ Mr. Poultersupported the motion for the Bill. The ground upon which the Committee had sanctioned the application for a new Bill was totally different from that stated by the Attorney-General, and he hoped the House would allow the parties to remedy that defect.
§ Sir James Grahamsaid, the Committee could not have proceeded with the second Bill without doing great injustice to the merits of the case. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would postpone his motion till next Session.
Sir George Clerksaid, the Bill was one which, consistently with the rules of the House, could not be proceeded with. It would be one of the worst and most injurious of precedents, and he hoped it would not be sanctioned by the House.
§ The House divided on the Motion: Ayes 33; Noes 25: Majority 8.
§ Leave given. Bill brought in and read a first time.