TRINITY HARBOUR. (Hansard, 18 July 1836)

Sir George Clerk
rose to call the attention of the House to a circular note, a copy of which he then held in his hand; it was to this effect —that from the avowed determination expressed by Sir George Clerk to oppose the Bill then under consideration, at every stage, it having been withdrawn from the House of Lords before its third reading, the writer expressed a hope that the hon. Member to whom it was addressed would attend in his place and support the second reading of the Bill on that day. He felt it due to himself to say, that the statement contained in that circular was utterly false. He knew not when or where it could be said of him that he had expressed a determination to oppose that Bill through its several stages. He objected to the Bill on the same grounds which he had slated on a former occasion —namely, the introduction of a clause which the promoters had put in, either with the view of raising higher duties than before, or in consequence of a very gross mistake. He had before said, and he should now repeat the declaration, that under such circumstances they had no right to come before the House of Commons to ask for a new Bill. Was there any precedent for parties making their own blunder a ground for proceeding anew? He did not hesitate to say, that what had occurred was either a wilful, and therefore a culpable act, or else the result of gross stupidity and neg- 255 lect. He concluded by moving that it be read a second time that day three months.

§ The Speaker
I apprehend, that if this Bill have been introduced under the circumstances which has been stated by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Edinburgh-shire, the hon. Member cannot proceed with it; and, therefore, the hon. Member must withdraw his motion.

§ Sir Andrew L. Hay
wished to understand from the Chair, whether it would be against the rules of the House that the Bill should then be read a second time?

§ The Speaker
It rests with the hon. and gallant Member to shew that the Bill has not been brought forward under circumstances which are opposed to the general rules and practice of the House.

§ Sir Andrew L. Hay
observed, that he before had stated to the House that this was not the reintroduction of a Bill rejected by the Lords; it was withdrawn from that House before it came to its last stage, and now altered in no other respect than as their Lordships wished it should be; he hoped, therefore, that the Bill would be allowed to proceed. If rejected, it would really be depriving the public of a great and substantial benefit.

§ Mr. Wilks
desired to know if they could then proceed with the Bill?

§ The Attorney-General
said, that what had occurred must have been the result of gross neglect or of barefaced fraud. There was clearly no precedent for this reintroduction of a Bill; and, even if that objection were got over, how could the House be asked to read a Bill a second time when the print did not agree with the Bill on the table, which in this instance was allowed to be the case?

§ The Speaker
It appears to me very clear that the question which the House has first to decide upon is this, is there no other printed Bill in the hands of hon. Members than that which differs from the Bill on the Table? If such be the fact, the hon. Member cannot proceed to the second reading.

§ Sir A. L. Hay
said, there was no other printed Bill.

§ The Speaker
Then we cannot proceed, because there should be printed copies made according to the Standing Orders, and the invariable practice of the House.