HC Deb 14 July 1836 vol 35 cc187-9

Sir Andrew L. Hay moved, that a Committee be appointed to search the Lords' Journals for the proceedings that took place in that House with respect to the Trinity (North Leith) Harbour Bill.

The Attorney General

said, that he would not object to the motion, but if his hon. Friend intended to ground any measure on the application, and if, after they now had arrived at the 14th of July, he should introduce a private Bill for making a harbour at Trinity, he would certainly oppose it.

Sir A. L. Hay

said, that the application was made in consequence of some alterations which had been made in the money clauses of the Bill since it had gone to the House of Lords, and which were fatal to the Bill in its present shape. It certainly was his intention to follow up this application by re-introducing the same Bill in that House. The alterations which had been made in it were made by the Speaker of the House of Lords, without the sanction of the Committee of that House; and he would put it to the House whether it would be just or right that a Bill which had undergone the fullest consideration and had passed two Committees of that House, and the Committee of the House of Lords, should be allowed to drop on account of an informal proceeding such as he had described.

Sir G. Clerk

hoped that the hon. Mem- ber would give notice of the day when it was his intention to move for the re-introduction of the Bill. He did not think that the circumstance which had occurred in the Lords would justify such a motion. There was no instance of leave having been given to bring in a new Bill of this kind at this late period of the session, unless with the consent of all parties interested. Now, this Bill had been contested in every stage through that House, and it was not likely that the parties who opposed it would assent to its re-introduction. There were other circumstances that rendered the re-introduction of the Bill objectionable. He repeated, therefore, his hope, that the hon. Member would give ample notice of his motion.

Sir A. L. Hay

said, that he had no intention to interfere with the regular established usages of that House. He had teen informed, however, that Bills under similar circumstances had been re-introduced into that House within a fortnight of the end of the session, and carried through. After the examination of the Lords' journals he would move for the reintroduction of the Bill.

Mr. Wilks

said, that after the immense expense and labour which had been incurred in carrying this Bill through the House, it would be cruel upon the parties that their measure should be defeated on account of the extraordinary proceeding that had occurred elsewhere. He hoped, therefore, that the House would entertain favourably an application for its re-introduction.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that he was a Member of the Committee on the Bill last session, and that in his opinion a perfect case had been made out for it. The Government, however, interfered on that occasion, on account of debts which were due from the port of Leith and city of Edinburgh, and the promoters of the Bill were obliged to withdraw it, and re-introduce it this session. He had since had an opportunity of seeing the situation where this harbour was proposed to be erected, and there could not be one more admirably adapted for the purpose. It was a great object with the public that this Bill should pass, and it would surely be most unjust, that on account of a blunder or something worse that had occurred elsewhere, such a measure should be lost. As to want of notice, this was the best battled Bill that had ever perhaps been before the House.

The Attorney General

said, that his great object was to obtain a good harbour for the city of Edinburgh. It was his firm conviction that it would be for the benefit of the shareholders and of the public that this Bill should be dropped.

The motion carried, and the Committee appointed.

Back to