§ Sir A. L. Haybrought in a Bill for making a Harbour and Docks at Trinity, which was read a first time. On the motion that it be read a second time on Monday,
§ The Lord Advocaterose to oppose it. He said that every one must admire the zeal with which his hon. and gallant Friend persevered in bringing forward this Bill a third time, but he doubted much whether the House would consent to pass the measure, which had been kept so long before them in consequence of the blunders of the promoters of it. There was no precedent for granting such an indulgence as the suspending of the standing orders for a private Bill of this description, and he hoped the matter would be finally disposed of by rejecting the motion.
Sir George Clerkassured the House that he was taken completely by surprise on the 666 introduction of a third Bill, and not the less so on reading that morning that the Committee had sanctioned such a proceeding. As he had left the room when the Bill was rejected, he could not say what had taken place afterwards; but this he knew, that if such an arrangement were entered into, he was no party to it. He had given his opinion before, that the parties were not entitled to the extraordinary indulgence which they sought for, and which could not be sustained by any precedent; but it would be entirely with the House to say whether they would uphold their privileges or not. In consequence of the connection of the Speaker with the place, they were precluded from having the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on the merits of this Bill. All, therefore, he would now say was, that, if they agreed to the motion, it would be opening the door to a practice that would ultimately turn out to be extremely inconvenient.
Sir George Strickland, as one of the Members of the Standing Orders Committee, was disposed to support this Bill on its own intrinsic merits, and particularly so when he was informed that it was in danger of being rejected on account of the determined opposition to it. But when he reflected that this was the third time of its being before the House, and that it was owing to the blunders of the parties, and, moreover, when he looked to the late period of the Session, he confessed he should hesitate before giving his assent to the motion. With these feelings he could not consistently support the motion of his hon. Friend.
§ Mr. Wilksconsidered, that it would be extremely hard to reject this Bill, the second reading of which was carried by a majority of 64 to 19, on a mere clerical error. The only objection was, that the copy of the printed form of the Bill did not correspond in some few immaterial particulars with the House copy, when it was well known that the latter had become a perfect nullity. If the standing orders were to be now enforced, it would be pronouncing a condemnation on the Bill, and he would impress on his hon. Friend the justice and necessity of persevering in his motion.
§ Sir James Grahamsaid, there was no necessity for urging the hon. and gallant Member to persevere, for he had already shown great intrepidity in bringing in a third Bill on the day the second was re- 667 jected. He was of opinion, that if the motion were now acceded to, it would be a signal triumph over the standing orders; and in future he should despair of upholding them. It was, therefore, in the last extremity that he would call on the Chair for an opinion on a subject of this description; but after the events of the previous day in the Committee, he should like to hear the opinion of the Speaker on the course now pursued by the promoters of the Bill.
§ Sir A. L. Haywas fully impressed with the importance of the opinion of the right hon. the Speaker, and hoped he would be induced to favour the House with it.
§ The SpeakerWhatever reluctance I may have felt, placed in the peculiar circumstances that I am under, to give an opinion with regard to this Bill, I can have no hesitation on the point, after the appeal that has been made to me. It is undoubtedly true, that this Bill appears to affect the interests of those I represent; but what I am about to say on the particular point now raised will be applicable to the general practice of the House, and will have no relation whatever to the merits of the Bill at present under consideration. This is a case where a party has already obtained the permission of the House to introduce a Bill a second time on account of an error that had been committed, and for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary expense. There is no doubt that such indulgence has been granted by the House in other cases. Indeed I could refer to a case that occurred no longer ago than last Session, in which the parties were allowed to repair an error arising from no fault of theirs, in order to avoid the expense of introducing a new Bill. When, however, the House is asked to give leave to introduce a new Bill, it is a fit and proper question for the House to consider whether the difficulty that has arisen, is not the act of the party making the application, and might have been avoided if due care and diligence had been used? It is of great importance to the House that those gentlemen who practise before it should be brought to use proper care and diligence; and it is the more necessary to enforce such care and diligence on their parts, since, in consequence of the recommendation of a Committee, the House now possesses but a slender hold upon them. Seeing that the pressure of private business is now every Session in- 668 creasing, the House should be extremely cautious in extending any indulgence to parties to private Bills, and certainly such indulgence should only be granted were the parties have employed due care and diligence. Now, applying that principle to the case before the House, I should say that here is a case where the parties to the Bill, having already obtained the indulgence of the House, have failed in the careful and diligent performance of their duty; and it appears to me, therefore, to be a case no longer entitled to any favour from the House.
§ Sir Andrew Leith Hay, after the high opinion that had been so clearly expressed, would not trouble the House further, but withdraw the Bill altogether.
§ Motion withdrawn.