§ MR. BOLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to order that all Petitioners against the Forth Bridge Railway Bill, whose Petitions have been deposited, or may be deposited, within three days of the meeting of the Committee, may be heard by Counsel, Agents, and witness; and, if not, why this course, which is generally adopted in respect of Bills referred to a hybrid Committee, is not to be followed in the present case?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYI intend on Monday to move for extending the period in which Petitions against the Forth Bridge Railway Bill may be lodged and the Petitioners heard, but limiting it to Petitions relating to navigation and the safety of the bridge as to construction, both of which questions the Board of Trade are anxious to have carefully inquired into, and that every opportunity may be given to people to bring their cases before the Committee. But it would be a strong measure to extend the time as the hon. Member suggests; because that would be interfering with the discretion of the Referees and the Committee as to the locus standi of Petitioners who might appear merely on grounds of competition. In 1873, when this bridge was sanctioned by Parliament, the present Bill being merely a continuation, the Referees limited the locus standi of the Caledonian Railway, excluding the ground of competition. I think my hon. Friend is in error in his view that the course he recommends is always adopted in reference to Bills referred to a Hybrid Committee. It is generally adopted in regard to Hybrid Bills; but this is not a Hybrid Bill, but a Private Bill which happens to be referred to a Hybrid Committee.