The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-24 00:00:00

STATE MEN T BY THE LONDON DOCK
COMPANY.
On the 22d of February the Bill fur making Wet Docks at St.
.Kathatine's was read a second time in the House of Commons.
The London Duck Company being satisfied that such addi-
tional Docks were neither required by the state of the Commerce
of the Port—by the hurdlers of the Rates and Charges upon the
Landing, Housing, Bonding. and Shipping of Goods—by any
existing obstruction in the Ricer, or want of accommodation fur
the Loading and Unloading of Vessels—nor by the want of further
competition than now exists among the Dock Companies already
established, and the private Wharfs, Quays, and Vi'arehouses;
and that the construction of rich additional Docks at St. Katha-
tine's would do irreparable injury to the London Dock Company;
determined to oppose the said Bill in the Committee to which it
was referred : and accordingly instructed their Solicitor to prepare
at Petition coofura able to the standing order of the HOli. House of
the 24th of June last, which directs, that "no Petition against a
Private Bill be ref:reed to the Committee on such Rill, which shall
not distinctly specify the ground on which the Petitioners object to
the Bill or to any of the provisions thereof; and that the Petitioners,
be only heard on such grounds so stated." &c.
On in city by the Solicitor at the Private Bill Office on Friday,
the 4th March, al out three o'clock in the afternoon, it appeared
that no " filled up Bill" had been deposited., and that no notice
of the t!me of meeting of the Committee bad been given; and,
therefore, the Sel en,: wrote to the Solicitor of the Bill, requesting
to informed of the time of the meeting of the Committee, when the
same should be fixed; and on Saturday, the 3th, at or after nine
o'clock at night, an answer was sent, stating that the promoters
of the Bill proposed going into the Committee on the V 1 ednesday
following.
This ieformation was on the next day confirmed by a letter from
Mr. Dorington, the Parliamentary Agent of the London Dock
Company.
On Monday, the 7th, the Solicitor attended at the London Dock
house, where the Petition which ht.d been prepared was examined
by the Chairman and Secretary, with the view of r seertaining, with
certainty, that every part of the statements contained in it was
capable of proof ; and so minute and careful was this examination,
that the Petition was not finally settled until ten o'clock at night.
The following trimming (the filth) it was engrossed, and put
under the common Seal of the Company, and the Solicitor attended
in the lobby of the House of Commons, at four o'clock, for the
purpose of meeting an Honourable Member, by whom it was to
have been presented ; but, in consequence of a lamented event, the
Members who had assembled—from motives of delicacy and feel.
tog—dispersed without forming a House ; whereby the London
Do dr Company were deprived of the opportunity of having their
Petition presented, and referred to the said Committee on that day.
On the nieetivg of the Committee on the following day, the
Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses of the London Dock Company
presented themselves, but the Committee refused to recognise
them as Parties having any right to interfere in the proceedings,
although it waraspliined to the Chairman and the Members pre.
sent that the presenting of the Petition had been prevented by the
cause herein set forth.
Under these circumstances, and others connected with other
Petitions against the St. Katharine's Dock Bill, which for the
Name reason were prevented from being referred to the Committee in
time, no Petition whatever against the Bill was before them upon
their meeting; and therefore uo order for the hearing of Counsel lied
been made; yet three Learned Couasel appeared on behalf of the Bill;
one of whom opened the case of .he promoters thereof in a speech, in
which assertions with respect to the London Dock Company were
made without their heir.g allowed to be heard, although fully pre.
pared to answer and disprove the same by incontrovertible evi•
dance. The Intended Secretary and the intended Dock Master of
the St. Katharine's Docks were afterwards examined as witnesses,
who stated, in support of the preamble of the Bill, facts to the
prejudice of the London Dock Company, which they were prepared,
by witnesses then present, to refute or explain in the most clear and
convincing manner.
On the assent oling of the Honourable House on the same day,
the Petition of the London Dock Company was presented, and
ordered to be referred to the Commit:2e.
The follow) ig day, the tatunsel, Agent., and Witnesses of the
London Do, k Company again attended, and the Petition hawing
been read, their Counsel claimed to MUM into the investigation of
the preamble of the Bill ; but the Committee peremptorily refused
to allow them further to interfere, than by objecting to such of the
clauses as had not in n gene through on the preceding day.
It may be proper to obaere, that as the London Dock Company
Ind presented a petition agalcit the second reading, which con.
mined in substance the grounds on which they proposed to resist
the Bill in the Committee, the pr einote:s of it had abundant notice
of those grounds, although, from the cause before-mentioned, the
snore precise statement required by the " standing order" had not
reached the Committee.
The London Dock Company have been at great expense in col.
lecting evidence to be submitted to the Committee on die iovestiga.
tion of the preamble of the Bill, and are fully nrepared to sustain
she allegations in their petition. by disinterested and compataut
witnesses, and to lay before the Conro:ttee facts important to the
2-rblic as well as to the Company. They have great Interests at
nk.:.; and desiring nothing more than an impartial examination
ith the merits of the qucsnon at issue between them and the pro-
starters of the St. Katharine's Dock BM, the Company trust they
will not be debarred from a hearing upon the subject, by the
casualty which (under the detern. ti
the the Hueourable Cum-
.
enittee) has so unexpectedly intervened to prevent them from being
hitherto heard agairat the preamble thereof.
In this hope they are : uout to petition the Honourable House,
praying that the at. Katharine's Duck Bill may be recommitted..
and that they may be heard against the allegations contained in
the preamble. as well as against those other parts of the Bill by
which their intwtet• sr- affected.
London, March 21, 1625.

CLOSE OF LOTTERIES.
TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS ALL IN ONE
DAY, TUESDAY, APRIL 12,
WAND J. MEW RIGHT, the Contractors, beg to
• repeat. ast the pruevt Seiter.te is one of the last they shall
ever have the houo,,7rosuttnit to public notice, Government having
determined to pass nu ws,we Lottery Acts.
The Scheme contains
FOUR PRIZES of TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS.
With Thirty other Clipitzia, &e. &e. aninunoirtg to 290,0001. All
Sterling Money—no Blanks—ALL IN ONE DAY, 13th of
APRIL.
Tickets and Shares for the above Two Hundred Thousand
Pconds are now ea zlale at the Contractors' Offices, 37, Eurniull ;
H. Holborn ; and 38. Haymarket.
;• J. and J. Sirewrigbt sold bs Shares in the very list Lottery,
12,478, a Pam of 30,000!