Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(By British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNESDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
NATURALISATION OF A PRINCESS.

A bill providing oaths necessary to be taken by the
Princess Guistiniani, before naturalisation, passed a second
reading and committee, on the motion of Mr. Monsell.
LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Registration of Long Leases (Scotland) bill passed
through committee.

INDUSTAIAL SCHOOLS BILL.

The house went into committee on the Industrial Schools

Lord A. HOWARD, condemned the power which was
given by the bill to the police, with regard to the inter.
pretation of the words begging or vagrancy. Unless they
defined the words more definitely, a child sweeping a
crossing and asking for money might be placed in one of
the reformatory institutions ; and in the case of a poor
family travelling to a port from whence to emigrate, and
any of its members asking for money or food on the road,
that family might be broken up and emigration prevented,
by the provisions of this measure.
Sir GEORGE GREY explained that no new power was
given by the bill, and that its object solely was that
children charged with offences under existing acts should
be liable, at the discretion of the magistrate, to be sent to
an industrial school. _

Mr. PALK considered that many of the clauses required
a more clear definition.

Mr. MooRE stated that a case had occurred of a Roman
Catholic child being placed in a reformatory, and compelled
to attend Protestant worship. The parents were refused
an application for the child when they were about to return
to Ireland, and that decision had been confirmed by the
Home Secretary.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he would make inquiry into the
case.
Mr. DE VERE objected to the measure on account of its
interference with the parental tie.
Mr. ADDERLEY observed that his bill would only operate
when the parental tie had ceased to exist.
Ultimately the sth clause, upon which the general dis-
cussion arose, was struck out.
Clause 6 was also struck out.

Clause 7 was amended by Mr. BARROW, by the insertion
of words allowing to magistrates discretion to discharge a
child without security.
On the motion of Mr. HIINLEY, the security required to
be given by the parent for the child was omitted from the
clause.
Mr. Lowy moved to limit the time for which children
should be sent to industrial institutions to two years.
After a brief discussion upon this question, a division
was taken, the numbers being—

For the amendment
Against it

Majority
Mr. HENLEY then proposed to limit the period to four
years, but withdrew his amendment after a brief discussion.
Mr. BARROW gave notice of his intention to move an
amendment at a future time. He should move to alter the
age of discharge from fifteen to twelve.
Ultimately, the clause was agreed to.
Clause eight was agreed to.
Mr, BOWYER moved to report progress, but was defeated
by a majority of 170. Discussion up to a quarter to six
o'clock, when the house resumed.
The Grand Juries (Ireland) Act, HA Amendmsnt
Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The house adjourned at ten minutes to six.

THE

MERSEY CONSERVANCY
AND DOCKS BILL.

(PROM OUR OWN REPORTZRO

HOUSE OF COMMONS, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17.
The committee re-assembled this morning at twelve
o'clock, Sir J. Graham in the chair.
Mr. Hope Scott, Q.C., addressing the committee, said :
I propose to call one or two witnesses before Mr. Shut-
tle worth is examined, and, in doing so, I think it right to
advert to what took place in this room yesterday, in my
absence, in respect to the conduct of our case.
Sir J. Graham : Do you think it really advisable that
you should address us upon that point now ? lam sorry
to interrupt you, but I must remind you that the com-
mittee came to the unanimous decision yesterday not to
prosecute that question further, but to leave the gentlemen,
in whose behalf you appear, to conduct their cass as they
think fit. I, therefore, think that it will be better for
you to call your witnesses at once.
Mr. Hope Scott : You certainly gave up that point to
us, but only under the burden of an imputation of having
committed a breach of faith, which is an imputation we
are not liable to.
Sir J. Graham : Excuse me; you were not present ;
and it would be better that you should not revive a
question on testimony which is only hearsay on your part.
Mr. Hope Scott : Allow me to state that the feeling 1
have mentioned has weighed considerably on the minds
of my colleagues who were present. I have looked through
the minutes of the evidence taken yesterday, which
extends over 48 folio pages, and I find that about one-
fourth is occupied by inquiries made by the committee.
That is a matter over which we had no control ; I do not
make any complaint ; on the contrary, I am glad to see
it, because it shows the great attention which the com-
mittee are prepared to devote to the case; but, at the
same time, I mention the fact, in order that you may
understand the difficulties which we have to contend with,
when we find such an element in the case.
Sir J. Graham: Have the kindness to call your wit-
nesses. _ _ _

Mr. Rope Scott : Certainly.
Mr. James Aspinall Tobin was then called, and said :
lam a merchant in Liverpool, and was Aayor in 1855. I
have read the evidence of Mr. Charles Sanders, Secretary
to the Great Western Railway Company, and I have to
say that 1 never uttered one word that would lead any
one to infer that the Corporation would complete the
Birkenhead Docks according to the plans of Mr. Rendel;
on the contrary, I always stated that we should ask
Parliament to sanction other plans ; and I stated that
fact to Mr. Booth, of the Board of Trade. I mentioned
the intention of the Corporation to have other plans pre-
pared, and Mr. Booth said, as far as any alteration of
plans was concerned, the Board of Trade would be very
glad to render any assistance. The alteration to which I
alluded was one in principle, not in detail.
To Mr. Webster : The alteration in principle referred

to the construction of the Great Low Water Basin. The
wish of the Corportion has been to have cheap docks at
Birkenhead to relieve commerce generally. As regards
works at the north end of Liverpool, I believe works are
being proceeded with in connection with the bill of 1855,
and I don't believe that anything else, as has baen
insinuated, is being done.
To Mr. Hope Scat • It has been the instruction of the
committee of the Corporation to Mr. Hartley to carry out
in its integrity, and in its best development, the expressed
desire of Parliament. _

By the Committee : We had no communication with the
Great Westein Company prior to the purchase of the
Birkenhead Docks. The bill of 1855 was opposed by the
Corporation of Manchester. Mr. Milner Gibson gave
notice of an ametriment on the bringing up of the report,
and in consequence the Corporation sought the aid of the
Great Western Company. lam not aware that the Great
Western Company have petitioned in favour of Mr.
Rendel's scheme ; and I am quite confident that, when the
aid of the Great Western was sought, no assurance was
given to the company on the part of the Corporation that
docks would be carried out substantially in accordance
with Mr. Rendel's plans. No such assurance could have
been given, because it would have been in entire opposi_
tion to the views of the corporation. In November, 1856,
the Great Western Company agreed to give Mr. Brunell
full powers to enter into an arrangement, if the corpora-
tion would delegate similar powers to Mr. Hartley.
Mr. Thomas Bold was the next witness examined. He
said : I am a merchant and alderman of Liverpool, and
took an interest in the transfer of the Birkenhead Docks
in 1855. My name is mentioned in Mr. Saunders's evidence
as one of the persons who gave an assurance respecting
the mode in which the works would be constructed. Mr.
Saunders's recollection in regard to such an assurance
having been given is incorrect. No assurance was ever
given that the docks would be substantially in accordance

with Mr. Rel. del's plan.
By Mr. Webster : A. low water basin was always in-
sisted upon by the Great Western company, as an impor-
tant part of the scheme, in order to give access to the
great float. I contend, however, that we give a much
better access to the great float than if we adopted Mr.
Rendall's plan. I have had repeated interviews with Mr.
Saunders. We sought the assistance of Mr. Saunders
and the Great Western company, in opposing Mr. Milner
Gibson's clause, and we obtained it.
Mr. Webster: I believe that no member of the corpo-
ration has taken a greater interest in the dock question
than yourself. Can you tell the committee what the
corporation are doing on the north shore ?
Witness : We are completing a dock sanctioned before
1855, for the completion of which money was given to us.
We are also erecting a wall.
Mr. Webster : What is to be the cost of the dock 1
Witness : I a' not prepared to answer that question.
Mr. Webster ; Will it not be upwards of £200,000?
Witness: Certainly.
' Mr. Webster : And the seawall will cost .£50,000 ?
Witness : I cannot say.
Mr. Webster : What have you expended in land ?
Witness : £23),000
, Mr. Webster ; Have there not been loud complaints on