HL Deb 17 July 1885 vol 299 cc1051-2

Amendments reported (according to Order).

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)

said, he must repeat the protest he had formally made against the way this Bill had been revived as a public measure after having been defeated as a Private Bill. The House, he maintained, would do great injustice to the opponents of the Bill by allowing it to pass. If their Lordships did their duty, they would refuse to pass this Bill, and support the decision of their own Committee.

EARL SPENCER

said, he regretted that the mode of proceeding with this Bill had not been brought before him earlier, as it certainly ought to have been. As to the injustice which it was alleged would be done to the opponents of the Bill, he must say that he very much regretted the inconvenience to which they had been put in coming to London; but if they rejected the Bill, a much greater injustice would be done to the promoters of the Bill, who, before coming to London, had been at the trouble and expense of having- an inquiry in Ireland. He did not intend to withdraw the Bill, and he hoped their Lordships would not reverse the decision at which they had already arrived.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

said, the Bill had been inquired into and reported against by a Committee of their Lordships' House; and if they were not guided by that Report no confidence could be felt in future in the decisions of their Committees. He felt so strongly on the point that he begged to give Notice that on the third reading he would move the rejection of this Bill.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

said, a great injustice had apparently been done both to the opponents and the promoters. He hoped that some definite rule would be laid down to prevent such misunderstanding in future.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he could not help feeling that it was very unfortunate that an Act of Parliament under which this misunderstanding had arisen had been read in a different sense from what they were now told was the right one. It seemed to him that they had simply a choice of injustice—injustice to the promoters, or injustice to the opponents of the Bill; but he thought that, in all the circumstances, the least injustice would be done by allowing the Bill to proceed. He found some consolation in the fact that the Select Committee's reason for replacing the Bill was not so much that the proposed line was a bad one, as that it was not likely to pay—a consideration that he thought weighed a good deal too much with their Committees.

Bill to be read 3ª on Monday next.

House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.