The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-13 00:00:00

FISHGUARD HARBOUR BILL.

Mr. P. '6IOIISON moved the second reading of the
Fishguard Harbour Bill. In doing so the House would
doubtless expect that he should make some observations on
on the subject, in consequence of the situation in which he was
placed, namely, as one of her Majest3's Ministers bring-
ing in a Private Bill on behalf and at the expense of
the Government. The circumstances connected with the
Fishguard Harbour had already been before the House, and it
only became necessary for him to state the grounds on which
he felt himself called upon to introduce the Bill. Last year,
a Bill had been introduced for the improvement of the Fish-
guard Harbour, which passed that House apparently with but
very little notice. In the autumn of that year his attention
was drawn by the Shipowners' Society and other persons to that
Bill, which certainly was one of the most extraordinary mea-
sures he had ever read. There was a clause in that Bill
which defined the limits of the proposed harbour, and
according to the provisions of that clause, the limits of the
harbour were to extend over the limits of the whole coast be-
tween certain points and Wexford, on the Irish coast. There
were two schedules to that Bill, by which it was provided that
tolls were to be paid by all vessels corning within the limits of
the harbour—those limits being the coast of Ireland on the
one hand, and Wales on the other—so that every vessel passing
up the Irish Channel would be subject to tolls on every
species of goods. He had been informed that it was very
probable that under these clauses all goods taken or brought
from Wexford would have to pay those tolls.
Of course such a Bill had not been understood, or it could not
have been entertained for a moment. He took no blame to
himself or to the Government for the passing of the Bill—
they had no opportunity of examining the private Bills which
were brought into the Mouse. lie had received a letter from
a gentleman stating the case on behalf of Captain Stevens,
the gentleman to whose care the passing of the Bill was en-
trusted. In it was stated that they had no wish for conceal-
ment—so far from it, they had sent a copy of the Bill to the
Admiralty, to the Customs, and to the Trinity House. These
establishments, however, only looked at those clauses which
affected their own interests. No copy of the Bill was
sent to the establishment over which he had the
honour to preside. It was certainly extraordinary that
the parties interested in the Bill, who must have known
the strong objection which the Government and that House
had to passing tolls—it was extraordinary that they should
not call the attention of the Government to the subject—the
more so as two of the Directors were Members of Parliament
at the time.

An Hon. Member ( Sir RICHARD PIiILLIPC, we understood)
said he was not in Parliament last Session.

Mr. P. THOMSON—At all events, the Hon. Member
for the county of Pembroke, who was a Director, had a seat in
the last Parliament, and he considered that it was his duty to
call the attention of the House to the subject. He trusted
that the House would give a second reading to the Bill,
in order to save the country from a great and unnecessary
expense, and in order that the Bill might be considered in
Committee.
Sir R. PHILLIPS (we believe) said it would be doing
great injustice to repeal the passing toll clause after parties
had been induced to advance their money on the faith that that
clause would be put in operation. He should move the Bill
be read that day six months.
An HON. NIEMBIER, who rose from the Opposition benches,
seconded the amendment. He thought it was rather too much
for the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson) to say
these Bills ought to be submitted to him at his office before
they were passed ; on the contrary, he thought it was the duty
of those who received compensation for their services to exert
themselves a little, and look after these matters. —( Hear, hear. )
He did not see the Attorney-General in his place, or he should
take the opportunity of suggesting that some substitute should
be found for an office which he regretted had been abolished
amongst the many law reforms that had of late years taken
place. The office had certainly a very odd name—it was
called " the Attorney-General's Devil."—(Great laughter. )
It was an odd name, but a useful office. It was last held
by the late Lord Tcntcrden, and the duty of the office
was to examine all Bills brought into Parliament, and
to bring the attention of the law officers of the Crown to any
thing that might appear objectionable in them. He hoped at
least the Bill would be sent to a Committee up stairs, where
it might be shown whether those who had embarked their
capital in the speculation, on the faith of the Act, would be
entitled to compensation or not, in the event of this Bill pass-
ing into law.
Mr. PEASE said there never was a measure affecting the
shipping interests of the country se deeply as this, including
as it did the whole of the Irish Channel. The toll imposed
on vessels passing through the Irish Channel by this Bill
was higher than had been enacted in other cases, except that
of Bridlington (as we understood), and then it was allowed
upon the ground that a vast sum of money had been ex-
pended upon the harbour.
Sir JAMES GRA HAM said he had the trade of this
country as much at heart as the Honourable Member opposite;
but the circumstances of this Bill were unprecedented, and
for the first time he found himself opposing a Cabinet Minister
with all the authority of a Government upon a private Biil.
The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, (Mr. P. Thomson,)
had not cited any precedent in the history of Parliament, of
a Bill which had passed through the forms of the House
in one Session, constituting and incorporating by Charter,
being repealed in a future Session, There was no ground
for any pretence of surprise on the part cf the promoters of
the Bill. The Bill had been brought in in February—it did
not leave the House till the middle of May—a copy of it was
sent to the Admiralty, and two clauses were inserted by the
Admiralty Solicitor. Two clauses also were inserted by the
Solicitor for the Trinity House, and two clauses were inserted
by the Solicitor for the Treasury, regulating the provi-
sions of the Bill, with regard to the tolls of passing ships.
But this was not all ; the Bill went up to the other House
about the middle of May ; it received several amendmeats
there; it was therefore necessary that it should be again
brought under the consideration of this House, and
it was accordingly sent back in July. So much for
the charge of its having been smuggled through Parliament.
With respect to the work itself, could it be contended that it
was a work of no public importance ? It happened to be the
nearest harbour of refuge to the Irish coast ; it had received
the warm support of the Irish Members during its progress
through the House, and he even understood that a meeting of
those gentlemen was held on the subject, at which it was
declared to be a work of very great public importance.
There was no harbour on the eastern coast of St. George's
Channel so well adapted for a place of refuge. So much
for the wo-k itself, and now one word with repect
to the gross injustice of these proceedings. He believed the
law was that the persons who had invested their money in
the work under the protection of this Act of Parliament could
be compelled by the Directors to pay up their subscription,
even after the repeal of these clauses. Now this he must say
was an act of the grossest injustice, and he hoped that the
House would not allow the Bill of the Right Hon. Gentleman
to pass in its present shape. If the Right Hon. Gentleman
would, however, consent to withdraw the Bill, he was autho-
rized on the part of those interested to state, that they were
ready to meet the Right Hon. Gentleman on amicable
grounds, and to go into the consideration of the question of
how far it might• be advantageous to pass a Bill, which while
it modified the clauses complained of in the former Act,
would secure the completion of the work, and secure to the
subscribers compensation for what they might suffer by the
alteration of the clauses of the former Bill.
Mr. Alderman Tit OM SON hoped the House would not
adopt the recommendation of the Hon. Baronet. Ile had said
that great injustice would be done to those capitalists who
had embarked their money in this undertaking. In looking
into the Bill he (Mr. T.) found that a second call could not
be made in less than six months after the preceding one; con-
sequently, had all the Company obeyed the call, but 1/. per
share could have been subscribed, and the probability was, that
after the notice given by the President of the Board of Trade,
the powers given to this Corporation by the Act of last
Session to be inexpedient and unjust, that these parties would
have proceeded to expend the call already paid. The Bill
had passed the House through inadvertence ; because, after
two Bills of a similar nature relating to Scarborough and
Bridlington had been rejected, it could not be supposed that if
the attention of the House had been directed to this Bill,
that it would have been passed. It had been stated by
the Hon. Member for Carmarthen that Fishguard was a har-
bour. That he (Mr. T.) denied, for it was only a roadstead ;
and if the House permitted this Bill to remain on the statute-
book, it would form a precedent for every insignificant fishing
town in the principality of Wales establishing a harbour, and
on this principle, that the parties should not be ac-
countable as to the mode in which the monies col-
lected should be expended. There was no provision
for the reduction of tolls. The question for the consideration
of the House .was whether the parties had made out c case to
justify the House in allowing them to tax every ship passing
up St. George's Channel, and to declare that the port of

Weaford formed part and parcel of Fishguard harbour. He
admitted that the precedent might be inconvenient, but it
was quite impossible for them to allow such an Act to re-
main upon the statute book. As an individual representing a
large shipping community, he felt himself much indebted to
the Right Hon. Gentleman for coming forward with the pre-
sent measure.
Sir G. STRICKLAND observed that the principle wry
against passim,' toils, and therefore he would support the Bill.
He contended that the Right Hon. Gentleman was fully jus-
tified in bringing it forward, as the Bill was not a private one,
but one of a public nature, which materially affected the inte-
rvals of tt large class of her Majesty's subjects.
Mr. H. RINDE observed that the only argument of the
Ii ghtHon, Bnia.;:?et (the Member for Pembroke) against the.
Bill was that it r nsun4recedented. Now he (Mr. H.) would
instance the case of the o;asgow Lottery Bill, wherein extra-
vagant powers were conferred upon a -Company, and which
tsar subsequently repealed, that would show that the present
course was not without precedent.
Mr. A. CII A PMAN considered the Aat that had passed
during the last session so atrocious, that the House would not
hesitate a moment to pass the Right Hcn. Gentleman's Bill
for the repeal of the passing toll clause.
Mr. O'CONNELL could assure the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite, that he had been misled with respect to the state-
ments made at a meeting of Irish Members relative to the Bill.
There had been a meeting with respect to a railroad to join the
harbour, but if they had known that tolls were to be inflicted
upon ships, they would have risen in a moment, and thrown
overboard railroad, harbour, and all.
Lord SANDON was decidedly in favour of the Bill, and
would give it his warmest support. It was inipossible that
Parliament knowingly could give its sanction to a Bill in':
benefit
posing such a heavy tax upon the shipping interest, with
out there being the slightest prospect of any
to be derived by that interest from the harbour in question,
He thought however, that a Committee should be appointed
to enquire into the amount of money which had bee.ll
expended upon the faith of the clause in question, la
order to that being repaid out of the public funds. I
Sir F. TRENCH most cordially supported the Bill. I
considered the former Bill, which this was intended to I-el-431,21
one of the most unjust and extravagant jobs which ha'
ever come before the House, and he took shame to hiu.),i
self for not being aware of the unjust provisions of the B"
when it was before the House, and called Hon. Member's at-
tention to it.
Lord G. SOMERSET wished to know from the Right
Hon. Gent. something more of the real merits of the case.
He should like to know whether the Government would g.ive
its sanction to a case of compensation to those parties bel
brought before the House, because they had advanced sunlael
money on the faith of that Act of Parliament being Pass
and
d
Upon the answer which he might receive would dei
his vote, because he thought justice ought to be done to those
parties.
Mr. P. THONI c°
SON, did not think that the parties to the..
Bill had done their duty, when they neglected to send a P.!,
of the Bill to the Board of Trade. He was willing, howe"o'f
to admit, that there appeared to be some degree of
hardship in the case, and if there was any questeio
compensation, that would be discussed in the Committe aye to
as
he thought it would be very difficult to make out at
warrant the House to grant money for that purpose.
Flous.
After a few words from Sir JAMES GRAHAM the
divided, and the numbers were—
For the Bill

Against it
Majority for it —_-161
NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Sir F. TRENCH said he would postpone his motion rell
tive to altering the site of the new Houses of Parliament 9
Monday next.
CANADA—LORD DURHAM.
Lord CHANDOS wished to ask the Noble SecretarY .fc°:
the Home Department whether Lord Durham was to rceet
any salary in his capacity as Governor of Canada?
lnbas-
Lord J. RUSSELL—When Lord Durham was
sador at Petersburgh he received the regular salary atttec,..
to that office; but in his present situation, as Governor
trans"
nada, his expenses will be paid—according to accounts t
mitted—upon the footing of a special messenger.
Lord CFIANDOS—But no salary.

Lord J. RUSSELL—No salary:
COUNTY RATES.
Mr. MILES wished to ask the Hon. Member for
kenny when it was his intention to bring in the Bill of wble
he had given notice, relative to County.
Mr. HUME said that it was impossible,-rates owing to the Valli
tity of business which was before the House, that he
that
bring in the Bill as soon as he had intended. He fnnnd d
there was only one Bill before it in the list for the 28th, an
he should accordingly postpone it to that day.
GRENVILLE ACT.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that, on the
of the Day for going into Committee on the eon:rao;
vcrted Elections Bill being read, he would r"" ,asom
amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Select ti
mittee, to consider the operation of the Grenville Act,remna.
to suggest remedies for the grievances arising course
Mr' V. SMITH, in answer to a question as to the cou.
he meant to pursue with respect to the Municipal Bo.andaries
Bill, said that he intended to move the second reading' en
Wednesday next. Order

FACTORIES BILL.
Lord ASHLEY said that some time since he had asked
the Noble Lord at the I_ 'ad of the Home Department, whether
it wai the intention of ti., Government to bring in any Bill for
then
enforcement of the Factories Regulation Bill. On that ?e-
-cas!on the Noble Lord had stated that it was the intentio
of the Government to introduce such a measure, but fro?'
that time to the present no Bill had been introduced;
He wished, therefore, to know at what time is
the intention of her Majesty's Government to bring
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Bill would be introdeFer,
before Easter, but it was not his intention to discuss it bew
the holidays. it forwarce:a

FRENCH DUTIES.
°rafitholPf
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to bring under the notice
Government a question of considerable interest to 'lewd of
his constituents relative to apprehensions they entertal.To
an intention, on the part of the French Government, 'to be
crease the duties on linen-cloth and linen-yarn. Itwas. them
hoped that a fair view of political economy would inuAalthere
to retreat from such a system rather than recommence it;
was such a notion on the part of the French GovernrnOn'wduty
hoped that the Government would conceive it to be the in,
to lay an additional duty on French silks and French oleros
and even to increase the duty on their wines. biect
Mr. P. THOMSON said that no sooner was the sti
brought under the consideration of the Government tha'nre-nelt
mediate steps were taken to remonstrance wizle the 'ranee
Government upon it, and he trusted that that remons''
would be productive of some good effect.
Lord S A NDON wished to ask the President of the 13;rad..
of Trade whether any peegress had been made with thc;,,,Por
nish Government with re ;aid to the discriminating "t- ality
whether a promise had been made that a system of cqn. gas
would be acted on ; and if not, whether the Government
determined to act on the principle of yetaliation?—(Hea ken
Mr. P. THOMSON said that nq.-ociations had te
_nd
place, but they had failed in producing the desired efeet,,_ges.
therefore he thought it was right they should act for themse;ye
Mr. FLEETWOOD hoped the Government hsd
no objection to lay before the House the information thatern-
been conveyed to cur Ambassador at Paris from the (3°l,jer-
mcnt of France. He had been lately in Paris, and be urg 0, to
stood that the Chamber of Commerce, instead of assent'Pe"',o
the proposition of the Minister of Commerce for the in r,beir
of the duty on linen, had declared they could not give
sanction to such a proposition without further information!,
EDINBURGH POST-OFFICE—MR. PRIMROSI!"a
Mr. HUME then rose for the purpose of bringing forwBr
the motion of which he had given notice, relative to the ai:
pointment of Mr. Primrose, as cashier, in the Edinburgh 1194.
office. It appebred that a portion of the revenues of the ri;
office, were applied to the payment of its officers, t-$
H 0
~.
the appointment of these persons never came under the eon
sideration of the House. llonourable Members would be °I„..
;prised
prised to learn that there was deducted from the revenue 11,4"
less than seven millions of the amount collected from the tai:,
which was never paid into the Exchequer. Nothing was 111,.°` t
important to the welfare of an establishment than t"4
the officers should be secured in the advantages naturally °i,
regularly arising from promAion within that establishment, f
an encouragement to attention and a recompense for fait.;'„,,
services. From the returns placed in the hands of flyer
Members that day it would seem that the a'79.vioa
relative to the appointment of Mr. Primrose' r,,
that it had taken place under the authority of the Postmasteh,
General. He (Mr. Hume) had previously inquired of L,
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the
cretary for the Home Department, neither of whorl" '
a
heard anything of the appointment. He (Mr. Hume) and
sidered that appointment a violation of the rales
regulations which had been framed by the postmaster
ral for the management of that establishment. He found
the same return that the first clerk in the Edinburgh ,_17°,5;
office had been 26 years in the service, that the second claw "-t
been fifteen years and a half, and the third clerk with a Jarila-rti
only of 701. per annum. Mr. Primrose had been appointeL'lnae
the office of cashier, with a salary of 4001. per year, w't"" d
having ever served a year in the establishment. He fo'-“),,
that his clerk, Mr. George Young, who had served norm
years, had only 1201. per annum; and Mr. Mason, th'i.
countant, after thirty years' service, had only 2001. per anal
in
certain regulations had been adopted by the Government "
1831 for the improvement of this department, and the 113"
port was signed by his Grace the Duke of Richmond, the°,,
Postmaster-General. That report established what /1,11;
thought to be a firm scale of promotion as to lii"
officers of the establishment. But, it stated that the pra"
cipal feature in the new establishment was the the
money, of an officer for the receipt of the P'""l,-,,
money, which had become necessary in consequence of t""
abolition of the office of Deputy Postmaster General, Y"h° pyri
also Cashier ; the salary was to be 4001. a year : and he
to be allowed an assistant, with a salary sufficient to secure that
services of a respectable person ; and security to the gro°u2;‘,
of 500/. was to be required. It was duo to his
Grace the Duke of Richmond to say that he steadily
adhered to the regulations which he laid down.
In another part of his evidence taken on the Ist of March ho
stated that he had made an arrangement by which the ale.
of deputy in the country, when it became vacant, should not be
filled out of the office, but that those
time
only should be
appointed to it who had been a long time in the dePortr"nt,
or who were entitled to compensation. The object of t
is
his
arrangement was to insure not only economy in the pu
expenditure, but increased efficiency in the department.
Its obvious effect would be, the holding out a strong in-
ducement to good conduct, and a reward to long and me-
ritorious services.---( Hear, hear.) He then went on to state,
that many applications had been made to him by persons out