HL Deb 10 August 1838 vol 44 cc1151-2

The order of the day for the second reading of the Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland) Bill having been read,

Lord Lyndhurst

said, that he was surprised that the bill should be brought forward. He had been told, that it would not be pressed.

Lord Brougham

said, that this was an entirely new Municipal Bill for Scotland, consisting of seventy clauses, with two or three schedules, one of which contained the names of thirteen towns. He had not heard before of the existence of the bill. The noble Earl had not said one word to him about the alteration of the bill of 1833, which had been wholly in his (Lord Brougham's) charge. The noble Earl had never wished him to pay any attention to the former bill; and as he had not time to pay due attention to it now, he hoped that the House would agree to the motion that he would make, that the bill should be read a second time that day three months. During those three months he would direct his attention to the subject, and he thought it would have been but common decorum to have consulted him upon the bill before it was passed. He supposed that he would next hear of an amendment to be proposed in his Slave Trade Felony Act, without having had the opportunity of looking at the proposed amendment even for one hour. He would say nothing of common courtesy, because that had long passed and gone; but parliamentary decorum required that so important a bill as the present should not be read a second time, without a previous consultation, on the 10th August, on the very eve of the prorogation; and for these reasons he would save the noble Earl the trouble of going through the particulars of the bill, by moving that it should be read a second time that day three months.

The Earl of Minto

replied, that the noble and learned Lord had rather inverted the order of proceeding by moving the rejection of the bill before the second reading itself had been moved. He wished, however, to state that the bill had no new object in view, it was only intended to work out the principle of the former acts, and to enable the burghs to raise funds which were essentially necessary to carry out the objects of the Legislature in conferring the municipal franchise. Some of the clauses in the bill were precisely the same as those in the old bill, and the others were intended only to effect the object which he had stated.

Lord Brougham

said, that he wished to consider the bill, to know whether the proposed alterations really were amendments to his own act; for, judging from some recent proposals with respect to Scotch bills coming from the same quarter, he was not satisfied to take it for granted that the new bill would amend the old; and unless his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) particularly wished for the bill, he (Lord Brougham) would certainly persist in his motion.

Lord Lyndhurst

said, that so far from wishing for this bill, he was anxious to compare it with the other, to see whether the clauses in the new bill were in reality superior to those in the old; and he thought that it was rather too late in the Session, on the 10th of August, to read such a bill a second time.

The Earl of Minto

felt that there was considerable force in the objection founded on the lateness of the period at which he wished to proceed with this bill, and under the circumstances he would consent to postpone it till the next Session.

Bill postponed.