The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-16 00:00:00

DARTFORD CANAL.

Captain PECHELL .presented a petition against the
Dartford Canal Bill.
STEAM-PACKET COMPANIES.

Mr. BARRON presented a petition from Waterford
against granting any exclusive privileges to Steam-packet
Companies, and particularly against a Bill for exempting
peisons from individual responsibility.
DUBLIN STEAM-PACKET COMPANY.

Sir A., L. HAY presented a petitinn from Elgin against
the Dublin Steam-packet Company Bill.
TRINITY HARBOUR.

Sir A. L. HAY then moved the further consideration of
the Report of the Committee on the Trinity Harbour Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose for the purpose
of suggesting the postponement of the motion. Last Ses-
sion a Bill similar to the preSent had been introduced, and
he (the Attorney-General) believing then that the Harbour
of Leith might be improved, hail opposed the measure; but
he bad at the same time stated that if there was no pros•
peet during the present Session of the Harbour of Leith
being improved, he should offer no opposition to it. When
the Bill had been introduced at the commencement of the
present Session he had offered no opposition to it on that
ground, but at present prospects were considerably altered,
and he believed before the Session had closed a Bill would
.pass whereby, the Harbour of Leith would be improved
so. as to meet the views of all . parties. Under these
circumstances, he trusted there would be no objection to a
delay of one fortnight. It would be seen that on the votes
for that evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a
motion relative to, the Harbour of Leith, and he (the At-
torney-General) doubted not that it would be brought for-
ward that evening. The result of that motion would, he
trusted, he satisfactory to all parties, and the object of the
present Bill would be allowed. If the delay of a fortnight
was granted, and that no progreSs was made in the. Leith.
Harbour measure, he pledged himself not to give it any
further opposition. •
Sir A. L. HAY thought that time enough had been
lost in the progress of a Bill whip') had already passed
through two Committees. The postponement of the Bill
might benefit the City.of. Edinburgh, but would not tend
to the general advantage.
Mr. LA BOUCHERE thought time enough had been
given for the parties opposing this Bill to have made an ar-
rangement ; that not having been done, he hoped the House
woould reject the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Edinburgh, for he had spoken only in that character,
and not as a member of the.GoVernMent.
Sir E. CODRINGTON had attended the Committee
closely, and although
.he had no interest in the matter, he
was convinced that Leith was not the proper harbour, but
that Trinity was.,
Sir GEORGE cuaia:rcgretted that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was not in his place, because it was'clear
if the present Bill was to pass, and a harbour was
to, be constructed, the Bill that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man intended to propose would be of no use whatever.
He wished the Bill to be postponed for, a fortnight, not
with a view of defeating it ultimately, but in order
that there might be sufficient time for its consideration.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL merely wished to ob-
serve that notice 'had been given the earliest hour it was
possible to give it.
Mr. FRANCIS BARING denied that there had
been any unnecessary delay on the part of the
Government.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Government
had acted throughout in the most conciliatory spirit, and

4 _
I Mr; iIiANNtIiMAINI wished to call the attention of the
House 14 tleptift of the Committee on the Aberdeen
Schools WO.) He hoped the House would
411644 him, for trespassing nn their time ; but as the
Representrit Atllerdeen he fete his duty to bring
the circumstances unadf e.korisiderration, and !c was bound
to bring the verdict of the .IthrY/ to whom thfi.
was referred, under the notice of the liolise—a verdict
which proved the vicious system of legislation ithich was
at present adopted in Committees on private fills.
A discussion arose upon the second readily, of the Bill,
and upon that occasion he distinctly stated he was happy
that his Hon. Friend the Member far Aberdeen had op-
posel the principle, because the House would discuss its
merits on the ground of Principle, The House did accord-
ingly discuzs it on 'this gliround 1 and it approved the principle
of the Hill, by a majority of 46, leaving the clauses open to
be canvassed In Committee, and, of course, both the clauses
and principle open'to dismission again on the third reading,
There was no disputed fact before the Comnilft,and upon
this point he would appeal to the Hon. Member fur Har-
wich. When he (Mr. Bannerman) spoke to that Hun.
Member on the subject, he had no objection to the
details of the Bill—he admitted the utility of the
schools—but he was opposed to the Bill—(Hear, hear)
on principle, because it contained a horrid appropriation
clause.—(A laugh.) No sooner was one agitator got rid
of than another started up from Harwich, who also
had a tail—(A laugh)--rand pounced unmercifully upon
the private affairs of the la—(Much laughter.) It bad
been rejected by a majority of twe'.'we to-eight, and the
people of Aberdeen were obliged' to put with that
decision. He would now call the attention the
House to some practices which in his opinion were very dis-
graceful to it. He alluded to the circumstance of Hon.
Members coming into Committees, and, without hearing
one syllable of the evidence, voting with the political party
to which they were attached.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
bear.") That system was well worthy the attention of
the House, and was most derogatory to its dignity. It
' was a fact that the great majority of the Committee had
made up their minds before they heard the evidence et
all.—(Hear..) What he now asked of the House was
what no ordinary tribunal would refuse him, a new
(Hear, hear.) He was aware that he might be told that
he had his remedy by his petition, but at present there
was no petition before it ; and as Chairman of the Com-
mittee, he had been requested by the promoters of the Bill
to ask at the hands of the House justice. The Commit-
tee had decided that the preamble had not been proved,
and he would shortly state to the House what that preamble
was, and the evidence by which it had been supported.
The Honourable Member then read the preamble of
the Bill, and also the evidence, which he said he would
lay before any lawyer's apprentice, who, he had
no hesitation in saying, would pronounce that the
preamble had been proved. He should thereford Move
that the Bill should be recommitted, and that the Commit-
tee should be instructed to reconsider its prayer.
Mr. FERGUSSON, in seconding the motion of the
Hon. Member, confessed himself as much surprised as he
was in the decision come to by the Committee.
Captain GORDON thought the course pursued by the
Hon. Member opposite was most extraordinary and unpre-
cedented. If the Hon. Member had any personal complaint
to make of any Member of the Committee, he Must do so by
an Appeal Committee, but he must say that the course
pursued by the Honourable Member was most un-
precedented. His Honourable Friend was was perfectly
right in stating that. he (Captain Gordon) opposed
the Bill on principle ; and because he did so, and it was carried
against him on the secoud reading, was that any reason why
he should not oppose it in Committee ? The evidence was
before the House, which, lie contended, fully bore out the
Committee in the course they had adopted.
Mr. POULTER, though he thought the motion extra-
ordinary, thought that it was occasioned by circumstances
much more so. The Conimittee had overturned a solemn
principle established upon the second reading of the Bill.
Although the House of Commons had laid down a prin-
ciple, the Committee had thought proper to act in contras
vention of that principle ; and in doing so he would say they
'had exercised a most unwarrantable discretion.

Sir GEORGE•CLARK said this certainly was a most
extraordinary motion, but it was not without precedent,
because a similar one had been made in a Railway case
a few evenings ago ; but the Honourable Member, from
whom it eminated withdrew it from the feeling which
pervaded the House, and he was not allowed to do so
except upon the implied understanding that it was not to
be brought for Ward again. Now what was the objection to
the decision of the Committee ? Why, this—that they
voted upon principle. He (Sir G. Clerk) admitted that he
voted upon principle, and in doing so he maintained he acted
in conformity with the regulations of the House. There
were a hundred other odjects to which it would be more
desirable to appropriate this fund, if any deviation from the
original object was to be sanctioned. There was no doubt
but the schools could be supported by private subscriptions,
and if so the Committee would not be justified in sanction-
ing such an application. -
Mr. BANNERMAN did not intend to accuse the
members of the Committee with any improper motives.
He only charged them with having acted and an error of
judgm With reference to the reasons put forward on
•
behalf of the majority, that they disapproved of the prin-
ciple of the majority, he would only remark that in this
they undertook to set aside the decision of the House.
The SPEAKER-said in his opinion there was no reason
why tbo motion might not be made. Upon its expediency
or inexpediency the House would judge; but according to
the forms of Parliament it was quite competent for
any Hon. Gentleman to make such a proposition as was now
under consideration.

Mr: A. LEFROY—As a Memhz.‘r of the Committee
was guided in coming to a decision, by what it appeared to
hjta to be the will of the testator ; and so.eing that it was
manifestly riot his intention to have the funds diredted
to any such objects as those contemplated •by tho Bill, he,
felt. be Ind to vote against the Bill.
Sir A.NDREW L. HAY objected to the proceedings
of th,, Committee, and trusted that the House would
consent to.the re-appoiutment of a Committee.

Captain WEMI''SS supported the motion.
• ?Ir. PRINGLE defied any man to come to any otter
determination upon Life evidence than that which had been
come to by the majority of the Committee.
After a few words from Mr. GLADSTONE, which
were inaudible from the loud cries of " Question" with which
he was met.

Mr. BONIIAM would observe that, so far as the state-
ment of the Hon. Gentleman went with regard to the con-
versation he had had with him, it was substantially correct.
He did state, that he considered it a public Bill of great
impor:_ance--involving a very important and dangerous
principle, which bad been for the last two years strongly
contested in that House, the principle ef appropriation ; and
although he went determined to hear the evidence, he went
also- strongly opposed to the principal of appropriation.
Mr. FOX MAULE rose amid cries of " Question,
questi9n..". It was quite true that as a Member of the
Government be came down late in • the discussion in the
Committee, lint, at the same time, he came down with
a fall possession of all the facts of the case. The reason
of his being detained was, he could assure the House, the
attention to busineis that could not be delayed.
Strayers were then ordered to withdraw.
There appeared for the .
Original motion!
Against it

Majority for .the recommittal of the Bill
(LEFT SFFAKINO.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The Lora Chancellor took 1-is seatonthe tvcolsa:k
five o'clock.

The Leicester Small Debts Bill, and-the, otl er Bills on
the table were read a second time.

TURNPIKES (SCOTLAND) ROAD BILL.
On the motion of Lord ROSEBERY the Turnpikes
(Scotland) Roads Bill was read a second time, -and ordered
to be committed on Thursday next, the 18th- instant.
STAMP DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS.
Lord BURLINGTON presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Oldham, praying for the total abolition of
the diity on newspapers.
MEDICAL ATTENDANCE AT CORONERS'

INQUESTS.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented petitions