The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-03 00:00:00

Wee'
h rC
na at
woo

Ibily,
e ge'
hie"
sane

U".

:4, to

the
age
heir
ieli,
ow-
the

LITTLETON; from the Trustees.of the East Smithfield Road,
12y Mr. DENIsOix ; fiom Wm: Clay, by Mr. Buten • from
Neal. Bell and Robert, Fitzroy Bell, by Mr. Alderman HEY-
GATE ; from certain Merchants, Traders, and Shipowners in
the City of London, by Mr. Alderman HE v GATE ; and from
• certain inhabitants of the Parish of St. Botoiph, by Mr. H
Mr. GRENFELL, in moving the second reading of the Bill
for the building of a New Dock. at St. Catherine's, contended
for the necessity of the measure upon the increased trade and
navigation of the river, which required other provisions to be
made for the accommodation of goods and ships: He could
shew by a paper in his hand that such increase had taken place.
Since the year 1798, the exports and imports of the country had
increased from thirty millions to no less an amount than fifty-
six millions. The increase had been, gradual and progressive,
and was therefore likely to continue. The consequence was,
that a much greater proportion of shipping was required to be
provided for in the River Thames, than when the other Dock
Establishments had been erected. It should also be remem-
bered 'that the Act iotroduced by the Right .Hon. Gentle- .
Man, who was then President of the Board of Trade, and now
Master of the Mint, allowed. two hundred articles to be ware-
housed, which never were so before. Another reason why he
desired to see this measure carried was, that by extending. the
'iotnpetition, they should give the public. the means of obtain-
ing accommodation at a more advantageous rate. It was very
natural for such &measure to be opposed by those who pos-
sessed a monopoly, which it would be calculated to destroy ;
but
for that very reason he thought it deserved the attention
and support of the House. He conluded by moving the second
reading of the Bill.
Mr. C. CALVERT saidthat in opposin the B
Mill he could
have none of tbe. motives I
to. which the Hgon. ember last.
alluded,. for he did not possess.. one farthing of property in any
one of the docks.. The ground upon
.which be opposed it was
annply.this ; it was.proposed as an accommodation to the Mer-
chants of London, and he was convinced the Merchants of Lon-
don did not want it. He should, therefore, move as an amend-
ment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Sir J. 'YORKE said, that in seconding. the amendment he
iTust fire his squibs at this little blue-eyed, nun of St. Catha-
-lae's•—(A latigli.)—This" pretty piece of work had. engaged
eighteen Gentlemen and a hal Laughter)—.for as he had been
ilf°ruied, the affair had cost eighteen of them 50,000/. each,
arid another. 30,0001: He understood that the proposed dock
Consisted of 25 acres ground,, covered over by 1100 houses,
and population of ,10,000 souls. Tbe injury and ruin that
would be brought upon these•people was incalculable.. When
the Londnn Dock Company was formed, they wanted the same
ground, and were refused for: sund good reasons, which,
1? apprehended, would be as good. now as they were then.
he only argument which he had heard. against this was, that
e death of her late 'Majesty Queen Charlotte had removed
the objection. It was said that her Majesty, had some right of
rty there, and that the London Dock Company were re-
Leos!)
~.put of a feeling ofdelicacy that could not allow. the Royal
Quitman to be touched.. Her . Majesty was undoubtedly. now
t)ihe to a much better place, and there might be something in
Na..tFBument. He knew it was desirable to have the Thames
bellegati" as clear as possible, and that the shipping should
,pt_,Out. of the Conrse of the river ; and for that reason he
fl.tijeounic;learvaeit e.entdiastpowshetelnto support ,the making of Docks
.ons
eu by the Tower on theerisgaliwt, Olt the left, ahnadt
btlyietiipelacLeendcl(l)o:sl)lol4ckas
ere was something so much like showing the
"f3es of these eighteen Gentlemen and a.half into the my-
teries of the London Dock Company, that he should support
the amendment with all his heart.
21r. JSMITH made some observations in opposition to the
which were not audible.
Mr. HUME objected to the measure, because sufficient no-
. iice had not been given to the parties interested.
Mr. Al ANNING. said that the question was—did tbe_Poet of
Loudon require such an establ6hment or not He was satis-
fied that it did not, because the Petition from the London:
Dock Company stated that they had foundations for new
warehouses now isid, but that they met with no encourage-
Ment to continue the building of them. lie should the these
Ffisons oppose the bill.
Mr. T. WILSON maintained the expediency'of having such
an establishment erected. It was enough for him to shew that
the new dock would give superior advantages •of situation and
distance. Wheth:r it was a losing or a profitable concern to
ihe persons who engaged in it was nothing to him. All he con-
sidered
.was, that it would be for the advantage of the Port of
Lonllon.

BRIGHT opposed the bill, upon
,the ground of the se-
crecy and haste which had been observed in bringing it fur-
ward, and on account of the Standing Orders having been
suspended.

Alderman HEYGATE contended that the noose
could not consent to a measure so cruel and unjust as that noir
before them, without some paramount public necessity being
shewn. No ground whatever had been made out to justify the
ruin that would be inflicted upon such an extensive mass of.
property. The lion. Member for Penryn had stated the gene-
ral increase of the trade of the country, but that had nothing
to do with the question. lie ought to have shewn an increased
trade in the. Port of London, whereas the returns shewed a di-
minution in the number of ships which had entered it. No-
thing could be more opposed to the principles of free trade than
a Bill like the present. The object was to confer privileges
and exemptions on private individuals. The passing of it
would imply that any speculation might be indulged whenever
the Three per Cents. were at 95 ; for it was this circumstance
Which increased the quantity of money that had originated the
present Bill.
Mr. HALDIAIAND supported the- Bill. The argument
urgo by the Worthy Alderman went to support the monopoly
of pocks.

Mr.--RTTERWORTH opposed the Bill.
Mr. LITTLETON opposed the Bill on the ground stated
by the Hon. Member for Bristol. The standing orders of the
House were the only security which individuals bad for the pro-
tection of their property.
Mr. W. SMITH also oosed the Bill for the same reason.
pp
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the
question as to the Standing Order was one of considerable im-
portance; but he thought too that the Bill might be.read a
second time, leaving the question as to the interests of indivi-
duals to be considered afterwards, without any pledge to the
satiction of the Bill, if the case of individual hardshiplehould be
Made out.
-Mr. WALLACE supported the Bill, on the ground that it
related to a great public advantage, to which individual inte-
rests, must sometimes yield.
Mr. GRENFELL said, that the alledged mischiefs which
would attend the Bill, had been much exaggerated. The po-
pulation to be affected by it, had been stated to be 10,000, but
they did hot exceed 5,000.
Alderman HEYGATE explained.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Bill - - 74
Por the Amendment - 59
Majority —l5
The Bill was then read a second time, and committed.
SUPPLY.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
Order of the Day for the House going into a Committee of
Supply,
_ On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON, it was ordered that
the Wide Estimates should he referred to
the Committee.
Thediouse then went into a Committee, and
3lr. HERMES moved a vote for 4,0001. for the charges of
Newfoundland.
Mr. H UME thought the Colony was able to bear all its ex-
pellees, though he should not oppose the vote this year.
Mr. - W..HORTON said a few words, after which the vote
Was agreed to.
On the question for 17,0001. for the new buildings at 'White-
hall for the Board of Trade—
Mr. HUME ,wished to know whether a separate building was
in tended ?

•
TheI4IANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that a
separate building was intended in consequence of the decayed
state of the former one.
After a few words from Mr. W. Satins, the vote was
agreed to.
On the question for 60,0001., for the charges attending the
purchase and exhibition of Mr. Angerstein's Pictures,
Mr. AGAR ELLIS expressed his acknowledgment to Mi-
nisters for the liberality they had shewn towards the encourage-
ment of public taste in the purchase of these pictures.
Mr. BERNAL said, he thought the proposed salary of 2001.
to an Exhibitor would be insufficient to ensure a competent
person. This was mistaken economy.
Sir C. LONG said the pictures had been admirably collected.
He agreed with his Hon. Friend, that the purchase of single
pictures of acknowledged merit
would be desirable. As to
the salary, lie could only say that the Gentleman. now ap-
pointed as ,Exhibitor was ably qualified ; and was satisfied
with The joroposed salary,
which might be hereafter increased,
if it should be thought necessary.
After a few words from Colonel Davies, Mr. Agar Ellis, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hume, and Sir Charles
Long, the vote was agreed to.
On the question for 34,0501. for the outstanding charges of
the Consuls-General of Spanish America,
31f.HUM E said he did not object to the salaries; but he
hoped we should be able to adopt such regulations as would
prevent the taxation of commerce by the fees of Consuls' offices.
Mr. HUSKISSON agreed generally
with the Hon. Member ;
bui observed that nominal fees were necessary, even for the
protection of commerce itself. He should propose a regular
salaiy, so that the fees should not be looked to as a part of it.
--Extraordinary expellees, such as those attending the care or
deserted seamen, would of course be separately provided for. ,
Mr. Hug admitted that all the regulations laid down by