TRINITY HARBOUR BILL. (Hansard, 25 July 1836)

§ Sir Andrew Leith Hay
presented a petition, signed by the merchants and inhabitants of the city of Edinburgh, in favour of the Trinity Harbour Bill. The hon. Member moved the second reading of the Bill, into the merits of which he had no occasion to enter, as the subject had been before amply discussed.

§ The Lord Advocate
presented two petitions from the Dock Commissioners of Leith, and individuals in Edinburgh, 517 against the Bill, He (the Lord Advocate) would take that opportunity of stating his reasons for opposing the second reading of the Bill. During the former session of Parliament, when the Bill was before the House, it was opposed on the ground that the parties had no right to make a harbour on the ground of the town of Edinburgh. The objection then was, that no judgment had been passed in the Court of Session of Scotland. During the present session, and while the Bill was before the Lords, the decision of the Court of Session was given, from which it appeared "that Mr. Alexander Scott had been prohibited from unloading goods, or making a dock for their reception within the bounds prescribed; and further, that he was restricted from building or erecting a harbour or dock, or performing any other work that could be construed into an encroachment on vested rights of the corporation of the City of Edinburgh." The question they had to consider was, would the House, under the circumstances, consent to the passing of a Bill for making a harbour within a harbour? He was of opinion that they would not; for it was clearly an encroachment on the rights of property, and no case had been made by the promoters of the Bill, in the present instance, to entitle the House to interfere with the property of the city of Edinburgh and in almost direct opposition to a decision of a court of law. He (the Lord Advocate) should be very sorry to be instrumental in the making of this harbour, after a report made to the House for improving the harbour of Leith, and he therefore thought it would be the grossest injustice to allow the Bill to pass. The promoters of the Bill had no right to make a harbour where it was proposed to do so, and that with the prospect of a better harbour being made. He believed there was no instance on record of any Bill being carried through the House in the manner this had been. It was opposed by the town of Edinburgh, the town of Leith, the Dock Commissioners, and the decision of a court of law, and under those circumstances he would move that it be read a second time that day six months.

§ Mr. Wilks
would take the liberty of stating, that in the whole course of his parliamentary experience he never witnessed a more extraordinary opposition than this Bill had received, and he hoped that House would not sanction such an inconvenience and injustice as the rejection of this Bill would inflict on the promoters of it. He 518 maintained, that the decision of the Court of Session did not at all bear out the claim of the Corporation of the city of Edinburgh, it merely went the length of saying that they were entitled to harbour dues, which were never refused by Mr. Scott. He was therefore fully satisfied that the House would allow the second reading.

§ Mr. Pringle
would defy the annals of Parliament to furnish a case similar to that with which it was sought to carry this Bill; and he had no hesitation in saying, that in Edinburgh it would be hailed with satisfaction to learn that this Bill had been thrown out. Various means had been resorted to, to prejudice the minds of hon. Members in reference to this Bill, and he held in his hand a paper which had been circulated, and to a few passages of which he requested to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, in order to ascertain what he meant.

Sir Andrew Leith
Hay was not to be held answerable for any Bill or paper that might be circulated.

§ Mr. Pringle
complained of the unjustifiable opposition that was offered to this Bill, and contained statements that were evidently intended to prejudice people's minds out of doors. Among the many objections to this measure was one, that the forms of the House had not been complied with, and he considered that well-founded. He would not, therefore, trouble the House further than by stating, that the Bill was not in a fit state to be carried, and that the decision of the court of law was a strong barrier against it. There was no fear but that the other harbour would be improved so as to afford every accommodation to the commercial and shipping interests, and with this prospect before them he hoped the House would not proceed further with this bungling Bill.

Sir Andrew Leith
Hay protested against the opposition given to this Bill, which was intended to promote delay, and to prevent it from being sent to the House of Lords, with any reasonable expectation of its passing this session. He should therefore move the suspension of the standing orders, and that the Bill be sent before the Committee this day.

Sir George Clerk
said, that the motion before the House was required to complete the irregularities attendant on this Bill. It would be the greatest possible in- 519 justice if the motion were to be complied with; for he had a petition, from certain individuals whose interests were so affected by it, to present against the Bill, praying to be heard by counsel, and how could that be done if it were to be committed to-day? He challenged the hon. Member to produce any one instance where a contested Bill was allowed to go through the House with the rapidity of this Bill. He therefore thought, before such an infringement was made on the property of individuals, that they should, at least, have the opportunity of defending their rights; and to enable them to do so, the House should postpone the Bill going into Committee until the usual time.

§ The Speaker
Does the hon. and gallant Member mean to ask for the suspension of the Standing Orders; and further, that a Committee on this (a private Bill) shall sit this day, during the sitting of the House? I apprehend there can be no doubt that that must be the effect of his motion; and if it be the pleasure of the House to accede to it, we shall adopt a practice which is certainly very unusual, to say the least of it.

§ Sir A. Leith Hay
saw the force of the right hon. the Speaker's remark, and would beg leave to withdraw his motion. He moved that the Bill be committed the next day.

§ The Lord Advocate
opposed the motion, and deprecated agreement to it without a precedent being produced.

§ Mr. Wilks
said, as the House had agreed to the second reading, and as the object of the opposing parties evidently was delay, he thought the House would not vitiate their own proceedings by rejecting the motion before them. He hoped the House would make an order for the Committee.

§ Mr. Pringle
said, this was the first case where the Standing Orders were moved to be suspended in the case of an opposed private Bill. He thought it rather strange, that the promoters of it should be allowed to proceed in so irregular a manner.