FIRST AND SECOND READING. (Hansard, 17 August 1857)

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, that after what had passed, he felt justified in moving for leave to bring in the Bill, to suspend Standing Orders, so as to read it a first and second time, and to refer it to the Committee of Selection.

MR. FITZROY
said, he hoped the Bill would not be allowed to proceed if a bona fide opposition should arise. He would not give a decided opinion, but he thought there was no precedent for suspending Standing 1730 Orders in the case of an opposed Bill. The House could not prejudice the interests of any party by reading the Bill a second time; but if the Dock Committee were prepared to introduce Amendments they ought to be allowed an opportunity of making their statements. He therefore hoped that means would be taken to register the opinion of the House, that in the event of a bona fide opposition, the Bill should not be pressed beyond the second reading.

§ MR. J. C. EWART
said, the Dock Committee did not oppose the principle of the Bill, but were anxious to be heard on some of the clauses.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, the safest course would be to read the Bill a second time, and then refer it to a Select Committee. He hoped that the parties before that Committee would come to an amicable arrangement; but if no such arrangement should be made, and the schedule of the Bill should be altered, he thought justice required that all the parties who had been heard before, and who might dissent from the proposed alteration, should have an opportunity of making their statements. At this period of the Session that would be impossible, and therefore the Bill ought not to be proceeded with further.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he would almost go the length of saying that not a single alteration ought to be allowed to be made in the Bill. He was ready to consent to the present course in order to get rid of a technical difficulty arising from the forms of the House, so that an arrangement known to both Houses of Parliament might be carried out; but if alterations were to be made in the Bill before the Select Committee, they might be quite contrary to the decision of the House of Lords. To send the Bill before a Committee with the view of having any of its clauses changed or modified would be to establish a very inconvenient precedent, and therefore he hoped the Bill would not be altered in any particular.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he would willingly admit the great importance of settling the long-disputed question which had arisen in regard to the conservancy of the Mersey in the present Session; but, on the other hand, it was of the utmost consequence that they should not depart from their usual mode of conducting private business. If the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, whose great experience in the business of that House, both public and private, and whose thorough acquaintance with the subject of this Bill 1731 all must acknowledge, could attend the meetings of the Select Committee, they would then have an assurance that their intentions would be properly carried into effect; but, unfortunately, the right hon. Baronet had stated that he was obliged to leave town, and therefore the House would not have the advantage of his services. For his own part, he was desirous that no technical difficulty should be thrown in the way of a satisfactory settlement of this question, but he thought that no substantial alteration should be allowed to be made in the Bill without the full cognizance of both Houses.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, that the probable absence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was not the only circumstance which ought to be taken into account. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Ewart), had intimated that a portion of his constituents wished to be heard by counsel on some of the clauses. Now, if that were to be the case in agreeing to the present proposal, he thought they were taking a step which might lead to very inconvenient consequences. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would state to the House whether he had the consent of his colleague to the proposed arrangement, and also give an assurance that if the House agreed to the second reading, the Bill would go before the Committee as an unopposed Bill, and no attempt would be made to introduce Amendments.

§ MR. J. C. EWART
stated, that the opinion of his colleague was quite in accordance with his own. He had not said that counsel were to be heard, but merely that the Dock Committee wished to state to the Select Committee some objections which they entertained to two or three of the clauses.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, he had engagements at a distance from London to-morrow, which he could not postpone, and he was afraid, therefore, it would be quite impossible for him to take any part in the further progress of this measure. He had come to the conclusion, after what had been said, that, upon the whole, the safest course would be to follow the advice of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and let the Bill go before the Select Committee as an unopposed Bill. The House had gone very far in marking its desire not to obstruct the progress of the measure. If the parties could not come to an arrangement he was afraid the further progress of the Bill, with a due regard to 1732 the interests of those concerned, must be arrested. The responsibility of so arresting it would devolve upon those who had been heard fully before two Committees, and who were yet dissatisfied with the result: and he hoped the House would let it be understood that in a future Session this question would be regarded as entirely open, and the arrangement now suggested as of no force whatever. In the meantime he would rest satisfied with having moved the second reading, and would not proceed to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, hoping that it would be allowed to go forward as an unopposed Bill.

MR. FITZROY
said, he would remind the right hon. Baronet that the course he proposed was impossible, because as soon as the Bill had been read a second time a petition would be lodged against it, thus bringing it under the category of opposed Bills. As soon as any petition was presented the Bill became at once an opposed Bill.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, that no petition had been presented, nor did he believe that any would be presented. If the Bill were opposed it must be lost, and the responsibility for that would rest upon the opponents of the Bill.

§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
suggested that some precautions should be taken to limit the time fixed for presenting petitions.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, that in order to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet he would move that Wednesday next, at two o'clock, be the latest period for receiving petitions against the Bill.

MR. FITZROY
said, he thought that was a fair arrangement. He should move that the Bill be referred to the Committee of Selection to appoint a Committee to consider it, and that the Committee should meet on Wednesday next, at three o'clock.

§ MR. HENLEY
remarked, that he believed the members of the Committee of Selection had all disappeared. If so, it would be difficult to get a Committee appointed.

§ MR. LOWE
said, he did not think the point was material. If the same parties chose to oppose the Bill upon this occasion they must understand that they had not 1733 the slightest chance of carrying their points, although they might succeed in defeating the Bill. Under existing circumstances, those Gentlemen would have no chance whatever of carrying their points before this or any other Committee, and if the Bill was lost the responsibility rested with them.