HC Deb 30 June 1884 vol 289 cc1767-9

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Preamble be postponed."

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he had no wish to oppose the Bill; but he should certainly like to know what the object of it was. He had never seen it, and did not know whether, as a matter of fact, it had been printed.

COLONEL COLTHURST

stated that the Bill had been printed and in the hands of Members for some days.

MR. MACARTNEY

asked if any statement had been made to the House in explanation of what the provisions of the Bill were?

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, the Bill was of a very simple nature. It was designed to remedy an error which had been committed in consequence of taking the opinion of a learned counsel in regard to five or six tramways in the county of Cork. The presentment which had been made in the cases in question had been rendered invalid through an informality; and the object of the Bill was to place these tramways in the position they would have occupied if the error had not been made.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, there wore other tramways in Ireland which had run out because the Companies had not fulfilled the obligations imposed on them by the law. Why should an Act be passed simply for the county of Cork, and not extended to other counties in Ireland? He believed that in all the four Provinces of Ireland — Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connaught—tramway powers had run out solely because the provisions of the Act of Parliament had not been complied with. Under those circumstances, he did not see why a Bill should be brought in to remedy any defect in the county of Cork, and passed through the House at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. In the interests of the money of the ratepayers he felt it his bounden duty to protest against the Bill.

COLONEL COLTHURST

wished to point out that the Bill had already been read a second time, and its principle affirmed by the House, and it had now been in print for a week or 10 days before the House. Of course, it would be impossible for a private Member to bring in a Bill to remedy all the defects of the Tramways Act of last year, so far as the different localities in Ireland were affected. The mistake in this case arose from an erroneous opinion which had been given by a learned counsel, and until that moment he had not heard a word of opposition raised against the Bill. It was simply to correct a mistake which had been made by the Grand Jury in making a presentment.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he would ask one question, with the view of saving time. He understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that the Bill was introduced to obviate the consequence of a mistake which had been made by the Grand Jury. Had the Tramway Bills to which it related been passed by the Grand Jury?

COLONEL COLTHURST

Yes.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Under a misapprehension?

COLONEL COLTHURST

Yes; into which they were led by an erroneous opinion of counsel.

MR. WARTON

Such misapprehension has had the effect of preventing the Bills from being proceeded with?

COLONEL COLTHURST

Yes.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I understand the matter now, and I will withdraw my opposition.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.