SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 March 1861)

MR. WILLIAMS
said, this Bill having being twice postponed he had thought the House would not have again been troubled with it. Certain parties, fifty-two years ago, obtained authority to make a small branch road, called the Great Dover Road, subject to certain conditions, such as paving, lighting, and keeping the road in repair. At the expiration of the first twenty-one years, which was the usual period allowed in such cases, the parties again came before Parliament and asked for a renewal for another twenty-one years. The inhabitants of the district, upon the understanding that no further application would be made to Parliament for extension, consented to a renewal for thirty-one years, and that then there should be an end to it. Under these circumstances he thought the Bill should not be pro- 1532 ceeded with, and he moved, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ MR. MASSEY
thought it rather hard that the Bill should be opposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth, for he found his name and that of his Colleague (Mr. Roupell) on the back of the Bill. It was usual to make applications to Parliament for a renewal of turnpike Acts, and such applications underwent revision by a Committee upstairs, especially constituted for the purpose after having undergone a preliminary investigation at the Home Office. The practice with regard to road Bills was different from that relating to railway Bills and gas Bills, and it was the custom to refer them to a Select Committee. He thought no adequate reason had been given for departing from the usual course in the present instance, and that all the circumstances could be much better inquired into before a Committee.

MR. WILLIAMS
explained, that his name and that of his Colleague had been put on the back of the Bill without their authority.

§ MR. LOCKE
hoped the circumstance of having the names of the two Members for Lambeth put on the back of the Bill without their authority would not be considered as complying with the rules relating to turnpike Bills. The first irregularity affecting the present Bill was that it had not the approbation of two Members upon the back of it, as was required by the rules of the House. Besides the parties had bound themselves not to apply for a further renewal after the thirty-one years which had been granted them should expire, and words to that effect had been introduced into the Bill. In the second Bill they were also relieved from the conditions of paving, lighting, and keeping the road in repair. The road in question extended from St. George's Church to the Bricklayers' Arms, and turned out to be a bad speculation; and this extension for thirty-one years had been granted to the promoters in consideration of that circumstance. He thought, when an express stipulation had been entered into that there should be an end of the matter after thirty-one years, the House should reject the Motion for the second reading.

§ MR. CLIVE
agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last, that this application 1533 was altogether anomalous. He need not trouble the House with reading the Report of the Committee on the last Bill, but the conditions were precisely as the hon. Member for Southwark had stated them. There had been an express stipulation that the matter should cease after thirty-one years, and that there should he no further application for renewal. At the same time, he agreed with the Chairman of the Ways and Means that it would be better to let the whole matter be discussed up-stairs.

§ MR. BRIGHT,
before the Bill was read n second time, wished to ask a question. By the Rules of that House every Bill introduced into that House must have some parentage, or, in other words, the names of some Members must be on the back of the Bill. In this case, however, the Gentlemen whose names appeared on the back expressly stated that they had not given their consent to them being placed there. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Bill could be read a second time when it had been brought in in direct contravention of a rule of the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
—The Motion was made, and leave given to bring in the Bill; and it was ordered to be brought in by two Members whose names at that time were given. It would be a matter of inquiry whether there was anything incorrect on the part of the agent in giving names which he was not authorized to give. But as far as the orders of the House go the names of two Members were given; and so far the orders of the House had been complied with. It is a fit subject for inquiry, and it is one which I should be happy to pursue, as will he my duty.

§ MR. BRIGHT
—I beg leave to ask, Sir, whether it would not be competent to any Member now to move to postpone the second reading until that inquiry has taken place?

§ MR. SPEAKER
—The Question is, that the word "now" stand part of the Question. Therefore, it is still open to any hon. Member to move an adjournment.

§ MR. LOCKE
I move that this debate be now adjourned.

§ MR. BONHAM-CARTER
wished to explain how it was that he had moved the se- 1534 cond reading. The fact was he had been asked to do so at the door, because he was told the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill accidentally was not present. He had since been informed by the Parliamentary agent that he had addressed a letter to the two hon. Members for Lambeth, and that they did not decline to have their the hack of the Bill.

§ MR. ROUPELL,
in explanation, said, that he could assure the hon. Member that the letter to which he referred was not received by him until after the Bill had been introduced, and had passed its first reading. He certainly did after that receive a letter requesting him to allow his name to appear on the back of the Bill. He was sure that the House would feel with him that nothing could be more inconvenient than the practice which appeared to prevail with soma Parliamentary agents of placing the names of Members on Bills without previously asking permission, and very often in direct contravention of the wishes of those Members.