§ Mr. Laboucheresaid, he wished to ask a question of considerable importance with regard to the made of transacting business in that House. When the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill for Scotland was before the House, he was assured that the learned Lord Advocate allowed a clause to be introduced of a very important description, at a very late hour at night, with but a very small attendance of Members present, and without any previous notice of the clause having been given to the House. The clause was to the effect that in every future railway to be constructed in Scotland, the Bill for such railway should contain a clause guaranteeing an indemnity to landed proprietors in Scotland for the loss by any turnpike road which may be affected by that railway. He believed the principle of the clause was one which had excited considerable attention among the public; but without offering any opinion as to the propriety of the clause or otherwise, he thought it was wrong that a Bill of which a Member of the Government had charge, should have a clause of such a nature introduced under the circumstances he had stated, not by the learned Lord himself, but by another Member of the House in his presence, without any previous notice of the clause having been given to the House. He wished to ask the learned Lord Advocate whether the facts were such as he had stated?
§ The Lord Advocatesaid, it was perfectly correct that in Committee on the Bill in question, at a late hour, and when there was no very large attendance of Members, the clause alluded to had been introduced. But the supporters of the Bill were not to be blamed if the House happened to be thinly attended at the time; and with respect to the clause itself, he had only to say that a similar provision had been introduced into the English Act. The clauses proposed were similar to those in all former Railway 170 Bills, with the exception of one, and he believed on that there was a compromise.