The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-25 00:00:00

ROUSE OF COMMONS, JUXB 24.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
LIVERPOOL DOCKS BILL.
Lord F. EGERTON moved the further consideration of the
Report on the Liverpool Docks Bill.
Lord CLIVE moved the recommittal of the Bill on the
ground that the clause exempting the Docks from toll would
operate injuriously to other ports.
Mr. WILB R AHAM seconded the motion.
Lord SANDON opposed the re-committal. Other ports
bad been exempted from toll, and he did not see why Liver-
pool should not have the same privilege. The bondholders of
the Liverpool Dock Company had lent their money on the as-
surance, and under the security, that the whole trade should
be liable to toll. He submitted to the House, that this clause
for the exemption of the places in question, as proposed b his
Noble Friend, could not stand without notice being given to
the parties interested.
Mr. JF,RVIS supported the re-committal of the Bill.
Mr. E WART did not wish to waste the time of the House,
and therefore, as this was a question entirely relating to the
Standing Orders, he hoped the Speaker would have the kind-
ness to give the House his opinion upon the matter. It would
save much time, and he was sure the House would be satisfied

with it.
Captain EGERTON thought the House ought to weigh
the subject well before it decided upon it, otherwise it might do
great injustice to the parties.
Sir J. WR OTTE SLEY dissented altogether from the pro-
position of the Noble Lord.
Mr. BROTHERTON supp&ted the clause.
The SPEAKER said that if he understood the objec-
tion of the Noble Lord rightly, it was that the clause in ques-
tion ought never to have been introduced into the Bill, as it
was not in the power of the Committee, consistently with the
Standing Orders, to introduce such a clause. This was the
only material point for the House to consider. If there was
any alteration in a Bill, whether by way of addition or dimi-
nution, it was requisite that notice should be given, so that all
the parties who would be affected by the alteration should have
sufficient notice. Now the Committee made an alteration
with respect to tolls without notice, and this, necessarily, was
inconsistent with the Standing Orders. He hoped that the
House would always bear in mind that the Standing Orders
were made for the protection of all classes of the community,
and it ought, therefore; never to be held as a reason for suspend-
ing the Standing Orders, that the alteration that was made
would be without particular injury to individuals.—( Hear. )
After a few words from Lord CLIVE, which did not reach
the gallery,
Lord STANLEY said, if the object of the Hon. Member
for Liverpool was to throw out the Bill altogether, it would
be better to raise the question at once, and not to waste time
in discussing this particular clause.
Mr. EW ART would feel it his duty if that clause was left
out to move the rejection of the Bill altogether.—( Hear.)
Lord SANDON said it was his intention to move that all
the amendments to the Bill should be agreed to with
the exception of that clause, which related to the exemption
of certain places in Cheshire from the dock dues.
The SPEAKER thought the decision of the House should
be taken upon the other clauses first.
Mr. E WART contended that the clause in question was the
preliminary matter before the House.—( Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER said the question would be put upon each
of the amendments, and then it would be competent for the
Hun. Member to take the sense of the House upon that clause.
Mr. J. JERVIS would then be placed in a very awkward
situation, for he might not object to all the amendments, yet
be might not wish to vote for them. He would be willing t
take the Bill with all its faults ce
if the places in Cheshire were
exempted, yet he would be obliged, if the proposed course
were pursued, to vote against all the amendments.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the amendment be
taken into consideration that day six months.
Mr. E WART rose amidst loud cries of " Spoke, spoke."
He would then take the division, upon the understandin.gvid
that
it involved the principle cf the Bill.—( Hear, hear—Die.)
On the present occasion he was sure he represented the ma-
jority of the town of which he was the Member, as it was re-
presented by the Town-Council. That Town-Council came
before the House prima facie. The Bill which was pro-
owed by his Noble Colleague, took away from the Town-
Council the power vested in the old Corporations ; and the
question was, whether the power vested in a Corporation full
of abuse, shraild or should not he handed over to a Corpora-
tion in which these abuses had been removed.— -( Hear.)
His 3:s?lade. Colleague had proposed, with some apparent
.piaeszbility, that the appointment of the Manager of the docks
.of Liverpool should be in the dock-rate payers. Now the dock.
ar•te payers were a most fluctuating constituency ; on the con-
rztry the Town Council were elected by thousands of their
Vilow-townsmen. Besides this objection to the constituency
o f the Dock rate-payers there was this—the wealthy mer-
cl 'cants of Liverpool could purchase as many shares as they
ph used, and by that means they obtained an undue influence.
Inct pendent of that the Bill divided the police of the town.
Ti4e -.bid Commissioner of police gave evidence as strong as