The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-26 00:00:00

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.

Lord PORTMAN moved that the house go into com-
mittee on this bill.
The house having gone into committee,
Lord RAVENSWORTH moved that the proviso to
clause 39 be struck out of the bill. '
[LEFT SITTIN a.l

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(THIS DAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
The Lords' amendments to the Electric Telegraph
Company's Bill were considered.
The following bills were read a third time and
passed :—Barrow Harbour, Furness Railway, and
Keighley and Kendal Road.
The following bills were considered and ordered to be
read a third time :—Bradford Corporation Water ; New
River Company and Trustees of the River Lee (No. 2).
BIRKENHEAD AND LIVERPOOL DOCKS BILL.
On the consideration of the above bill,
Mr. HORSFALL moved that it be read a third time
on Thursday next. _ _ _

Mr. MII:NER GIBSON said he wished to introduce
an amendment. He considered it right to support the
committees of the house generally ; but with respect to
this particular measure he believed the committee had
not the public interests represented before them, and
it was for the conservation of the public in
terests that he wished to have an amendment
added to the bill. A commission had been appointed to
inquire into the dues levied upon ships and goods in
various parts of the United Kingdom, and it was the
intention of Parliament to legislate upon that report ;
and it was recommended by the Board of Trade that
any arrangement that might now be sanctioned with
respect to the Birkenhead Docks might not embarrass
any measures that Parliament might see necessary to
carry into effect. The right hon. gentleman concluded
by moving to insert certain words in the bill, the effect
of which was that the Corporation of Liverpool should
not have the power of diverting the dues raised on
shipping from maritime to mere corporation purposes.
Mr. G. BUTT opposed the amendment.

Mr. LABOUCHERE expressed a hope that the house
would support the decision which the committee, after
sitting nearly three months, had arrived at, and pass the
bill as it now stood.

Mr. BRIGHT supported the amendment.
Mr. BOUVERIE, believing that the Corporation of
Liverpool had out-generalled the Board of Trade on
this bill, said he should support the amendment.
Mr. WALPOLE supported the bill as it came from
the committee.
Mr. CHAMBERS, who addressed the house amidst
repeated cries of "divide," proceeded to point out the am-
biguous construction of the clause, and stated it to be
his intention to support the amendment.
Mr. HORSFALL regretted the hon. member for
Manchester had moved this amendment, and had im•
pugned the conduct of the committee. The committee,
after much care and attention, agreed to this clause,
adding to it the special report alluded to by the hon.
member for Manchester. The retention of this clause
was of such vital importance, that the promoters of the
bill were advised that if the amendment of the right
hon. gentleman the member for Manchester be carried
it must be fatal to the bill, because it would prejudice
the rights of the corporation.
Mr. G. VERNON defended the construction of the
clause, contending that the words used were plain and
comprehensive.
After some remarks from Mr. RICE in favour of the
clause,
Mr. CARDWELL said that but one clear meaning
appeared to pervade the house, and to be the same as that
which originally pervaded the committee, that this bill
should stand on its own merits to effect the important
object for which it was intended, and that nothing in the
operation of the bill should be pleaded in bar
hereafter to any public measures the Crown might
think proper to introduce in conformity with the recom-
mendation of the commissioners, which had been laid on
the table. He thought that house was not a good tri-
bunal for deciding on the legal application of specific
words, and he felt a difficulty in appreciating the precise
effect between the words of the clause and the amend-
ment. When his right hon. friend laid on the table the
measure of Government he believed that measure would
receive the full and dispassionate consideration of the
house, unprejudiced by the fact that the clause had been
introduced into a private bill. Believing that to be an
understood thing, he thought it was undesirable to pre-
judice the matter by a division, and that his right hon.
friend would do wisely to accept the clause in the words
in which the committee had presented it.
Mr. GIBSON said that being the understanding he
would withdraw the amendment.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn, and the
bill read a third time.
EAST KENT RAILWAY (EXTENSION TO
DOVER) BILL.

On the Sneaker putting the question that this bill be
read a third time,
Mr. BROCKMAN opposed the third reading of the
bill, believing that whilst there was a line to Folkestone
the public did not require one to Dover, and complained
that the South-Eastern Company had not been beard
against the bill. He proposed the re-committal of the
bill.
Captain EGERTON, chairman of the committee, de-
fended their conduct. The reason the committee re-
fused to hear the South-Eastern Company was that no
Pr`lPertv belonging to them was affected by this bill.
udiNtlirrc:FlTZßOY considered no case had been made
the re-committalof this bill.
'fir' denied
ented that the property of the South
Eastern Railway was not affected by this bill. lie
proceeded to show
that the line in question passed be-
tween the term:" of i
the South Eastern Railway at

Dover and the pier where passengers embarked and dis-
embarked from the steamers. It also passed over the
flags in front of the Lord Warden Hotel, which be-
longed to the South-Eastern Company, although
leased for a number of years. The hon. gentleman con-
tended that the South-Eastern Company ought to have
been heard against this bill.
Mr. RICH explained that the pledge given by the
company had reference to the construction of a main
line, and not the branches. What he now complained
of was the branches.
After a few words from Mr. LUSHINGTON,
Mr. RICE was surprised at the opposition of the
hon. member for Richmond, recollecting the pledge
given by the South-Eastern Company, of which the hon.
member was chairman, not to oppose the formation of
such a bill.
Mr. RICH denied that the company had violated any
pledge.
Mr. RICE read the pledge, given by the Company
under their seal to the House of Lords, not to oppose
the construction of a direct line of railway to Dover.
(Hear from Mr. Rich.) With regard to the injury
complained of, in respect of the line passing in front of
the Lord Warden Hotel, he found it would pass at the
back of the property, and was approved of by the tenant
of the hotel.
Mr. JAMES MACGREGOR addressed the house,
describing this bill as one of the most extraordinary
that had been brought before the house. He thought
it a strange proceeding on the part of the committee not
to hear the South-Eastern Company against this bill
whose property was affected by it.
The amendment was ultimately withdrawn, and the
bill read a third time.

Petitions were presented by Sir T. Ackland against
the Church Rate Bill, and by Mr. Spooner against the
grant to the College of Maynooth. Several other peti-
tions were presented against the Church Rate Bill.
The house then resumed itself into committee on the
Metropolis Local Management Bill.
On clause 158 being proposed, which gave power to
the Board of Works to make bye laws,
Sir B. HALL proposed to amend it, for the purpose
of giving a similar power to the Metropolitan Board.
The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as
amended was ordered to stand part of the bill.
Clauses up to 160 were agreed to, with a few verbal
amendments.

Clause 161, relative to penalties on Gas Companies,
was withdrawn.

Clauses 162 to 173 inclusive were agreed to.

Sir B. HALL said that all these clauses were now in
operation in the metr,polis, and he would take care to
inform the house upon clauses which involved any new
matter. This, however, would not arise until towards
the end of the bid.

On clauso 174, making provision for damages and com-
pensation to be determined by a justice of the peace,
when not otherwise provided for by the act,
Mr. HENLEY objected to such an arrangement, act
the amount of compensation which might be awarded
by the justice was not defined, and suggested some other
tribunal.

Sir B. HALL did not see how the matter could be re-
ferred to any other authority except o. justice of the
peace, but in order to meet the view of his right hon.
friend he would substitute the words " metropolitan
polic3magistrate" for those of "justice of the peace," and
would take care to embody in the clause some provision
for a higher tribunal, where the damages exceeded a cer-
tain amount.

The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.

The remaining clauses, with some slight amendments,

were also ordered to stand part of the bill ; which was
fixed to come into operation on the Ist December next.
The postponed clauses were then proceeded with.

On clause 19,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY objected that there was no
governing power in the corporate body. All the mem-
bers were co-eual. Supposing it was necessary to sue
the board, who would the right hon. hart. propose
should I e sued. Must the whole board be proceeded
against ?

Sir B. HALL said his idea in this matter was to act
upon the same principle as v. al in operation in boards of
guardians. If, however, any hon. member could sug-
gest any improvement in this clause which should ac-
comphsh the object he had in view, he should be most
happy to adopt the alteration.
After some further discussion,—the clause was agreed
to, Sir B HALL promising to take steps to amend it
in the report.
Clause 21, which was one of the postponed clauses,
and which proposed that two members of the Metropo-
litan Board should be selected for the City, was agreed
to by insetting three instead of two.

Causes 22 a,nd 23 were struck out.

Clause 24 was agreed to with a few verbal amend-
ments.

Clause 25 was postponed.

On cause 26 being put, which proposed that the no-
mination of the chairman of the Central Board should
be referred to the Secretary of State,
Sir B. HALL proposed to amend it by inserting that
that officer should be appointed by the Central Board,
and that he should receive a salary of not less than
1,5001. a-year, and not exceeding 2,0001.
Lord R. GROSVENOR objected to the proposition
that the central board should decide on the salary, of
their chairman.

After some observations from Sir W. CLAY, Mr. B.
BARING, and Viscount EBRINGTON,
Mr. HENLEY thought the best course to pursue
would be to postpone the further consideration of the
clause till the Committee had determined upon the num-
ber of members that should constitute the Board.

The further consideration of the clause was then post-
poned.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave
to sit again on Thursday, at 12 o'clock.