The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-24 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. ADRIEN, from the Treasury, brought up certain Ac-
counts relatingto_the Customs.

Lord LOWTHER moved for a new writ for the city of
Carlisle, in the room of Sir James Graham, deceased.
Mr. P. MOORE brought up the Report of the Committee'
of the Equitable Loan Bill.—lt was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. S. WHITBREAD presented a petition from the pa-
rishes of St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell, against the
Equitable Loan Bill.
COLLIER DOCK.

Sir J. YORKE, in moving the second reading of the Collier
Dock Bill, in the Isle of Dogs, was desirous of observing upon
the increase of colliers into the port of London. He would
take as a stand of comparison the years 1803 and 1824. In the
former year the number of colliers was 4,ooo—in the year 4324
the number exceeded 7,000. This Bill was introduced to sup-
ply the deficiency of depots for colliers, and to prevent the in-
convenience of their unloading in the river. Besides, the price
of coals would be considerably reduced by a depot of this kind.
In 1816 the coals had been so high as Ave guineas a chaldron ;
by this depot the supply would be more regular, and the price
therefore more even and moderate. Since the reigns of Eliza-
beth and James due attention had not been paid to this sub-
ject, and it was one every way worthy the notice of the Legis-
lature. It was not the object of the Bill to procure any exclu-
sive privilege for this Company in the Docks they proposed to
construct in the isle of Dogs, which might not extend to other
Docks. Under these circumstances, he would put it to the
House whether this Bill, of the many that were presented to
their consideration during this Session, was not peculiarly de-
serving of support.
Lord ALTHORP opposed the BilL He had no interest in
it one way or the other, but he would oppose it on the ground
of public convenience, and its tendency to increase the price of
coals. He would move as an amendment, that this Bill be
read again this day six months.
Mr. CA LVERT also opposed the Bill on the ground of pub.
lie convenience.
Mr. CA ',CRAFT said it was not the desireof persons apply..
ing for this Bill to introduce a compulsory clause to oblige col-
liers to enter this Dock ; they only sought to prevent the
inconvenience and nuisance of colliers unloading in the stream
of the river. Any objectionable clause might be altered or
modified in the Committee, which was the proper place for
entertaining it.
Sir G. COCKBURN supported the Bill., as he was of opinion
that a great public benefit would arise from the removal of the
obstruction of the many ships out of the stream of the river,
which impeded the tide, and was otherwise attended with in.
finite inconvenience.
At this period of the discussion the Deputy Usher of the
Black Rod summoned the Speaker to hear the Royal Assent
given by Commission to several Bills.
The SPEAKER, after the absence of a quarter of an hour,
returned, and stated that the Royal Assent had been given to
the Army and Marine Mutiny Bills, and several other Public
and Private Bills.

The House then resumed, and
Sir G. COCKBURN addressed a few words more in support
of the Bill.

Alderman WOOD supported the amendment, and said.
that if the harbour-masters discharged their duty the incon”-
niences complained of in the stream of the river would not exist.lt was worthy the attention of the House that the principal
projector of this Bill was a harbour-master, so that the necessity
for this Bill gre* out of the neglect of that duty which he.
should have performed. If the compulsory clause were struck
out, however,
,there would not be, he presuMed, any opposition
to the second reading..

Mr, J. SMITH objected to the second reading, on a ground
different from those who had already spoken. The I'resident
of the Board of Trade had stated; that the exclusive privileges
of the London Docks and West India Docks should cease after
the term for which they were to enjoy them had expired. This
Bill went to create new privileges for docks ; and when the
privileges for these docks had ceased, he was unwilling to see
new privileges foi other docks introduced.
Mr. iS. WORTLEY was adverse to the compulsory clause
contained in the Bill. ,
Sir M. W. RIDLEY stated, that there was a formal objec-
tion to the clause complained of in the Bill; for it was a private
Bill, and the clause would have a public effect, as it would be
applicable to all colliers entering the port of London. Besides,
the Bill went on a presumption that the navigation of the river
required the alterations proposed in the Bill; if the navigation
of the river rendered it necessary, it would be better in the first
instance to appoint a Committee to examine that fact, before.
they'proceoded on the presumption that it was O. He thought

the Bill might pass with the exception of the compulsory clause,
which had been animadverted upon. •
After a few words from Sir S. VIVIAN, the gallery was
cleared for a division.
The House then divided—
For the second reading
Against it

- - 65
31
Majority - - —34
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

SOUTH -LONDON DOCKS.
Sir J. BRIDGES presented a petition from St. Mary's and
Michael's, Bermondsey, against the South London Docks.
MARGATE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Upon the motion for the third reading of the Margate Im-
provement Bill,
Mr. M'ILBRAHAM stated his intention of opposing the
Bill, unless a. clause was introduced to retain the Jurisdiction
of the Quarter Sessions to Dover.
Mr. CA LCRA FT said he would briefly state the object of
the Bill. It was to secure to Margate the permanent advantage
of Quarter Seasio:is at equal periods. This was secured by re-
moving the jurisdiction in cases of ariAal from Dover to Can-
terbury. Car.te.rbury was- only sixteen miles, Dover twenty_
three miles from Margate ; and at Dover Kenrick is the Judge.
—(H ear, hear ! )

Sir J. BRIDGES opposed the introduction of the clause.
Sir J. NEWPORT complained of the practice of introduc-
ing of dailies to defeat the object of a Bill at so late a period as
the third reading.

Mr. WII.BiiAIIA3I explained.
The House then .divided—
For.the third reading
Against it

. - 46

- 14

•Majoritif
The Bill was then real a third time.
B A
EQUITABLE AILL.
Mr. CALCItAFT presentedLO a petition from certain Inhabi-
tants of the parish of St. James against the Equitable Loan Bill.
Ordered to lie on the table.

• ---.32

METROPOLITAN WATER-WORKS.
A petition was presented from Bethnal-green against the Me-
tropolitan Water-works.
BARING'S DIVORCE BILL.
The House then resolved itsel f into a Committee of the whole
House on Baring's Divorce Bill, and Counsel were heard, and
witnesses examined, in favour of the Bill.
The House then resumed.
EQUITABLE LOAN BANK.
Dr. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from the pri-
soners confined in -the King's Bench and Margialsea, in
favour of the Egtiitable Loan Bank Bill.—Ordered to lie on
the table.

SHIP CANAL.
Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition from Waterford, in
favour of the Ship Canal.—Ordered to lie on the table. .
Mr. FREEMANTLE presented a petition from the Grand
Junction Water.works Company, against the Metropolitan
Waterworks.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT presented a petition from the
Auctioneers of London and Westminster against the Equitable
Loan Bill.

Mr. HOBHOlTSE.presented a similar petition from the In
habitants of Covent Garden.
CATHOLIC BILL.

Sir FRANCB BURDETT brought in a Bill for the pur-
pose of removing the disqualifications under which his Majesty's
Roman Catholic subjects labour, and moved that it be read a