The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-13 00:00:00

BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL moved the suspension of the stand-
ing order 179, sec. 5, in order that; he might move that this
bill be recommitted to the same committee which reported
on it on the 11th inst.
Earl GREY suggested that the noble and learned lord
had better state his case before he moved the suspension of
the standing order, as much time would be saved by such
a course.
Lord CAMPBELL said he would adopt the suggestion
of the noble earl, and he accordingly entered at some length
into the causes that had induced him to adopt the present
course. It was the opinion of those opposed to
the measure that if it were allowed to pass as it at
present stood the watermen and lightermen would lose
many of their privileges, and the interests of the public
would greatly suffer. The committee to which the bill had
been referred had, it was contended, been prematurely
'stopped. The committee were of opinion that after the
reception of the report from the Board of Trade the in-
quiry ought to close, but the opposers of the bill were of a
contrary opinion, as their counsel had not had an opportu-
nity of cross examination.
The Earl of AIRLIE, in the absence of the noble lord
the chairman of the committee, defended the course adopted.
The noble and learned lord had stated that in the
committee, counsel against the bill and several
material witnesses had not been heard. Why the
fact was that for a whole day the time of the committee
had been taken up with the examination of fourteen wit-
nesses, all called to speak to cne point, namely,
that the navigation of the Thames was of a
very difficult nature and required peculiar skill in the
watermen and lightermen. The chairman repeatedly called
for witnesses to speak on other points on which information
was wanted, but the opposers persisted in speaking only
upon the point above mentioned, and, under such circum-
stances, he considered the committee were not only
justified, but bound to stop the waste of time that was
going on. With respect to the other allegations in the
petition, there was not one that was not fully inquired into
with the exception of that of vested rights. Considering
that this bill was very strongly recommended by the Ad-
miralty and the Board of Trade, he thought great delay
and expense would be incurred if the motion of the noble
and learned lord was agreed to.
Lord TEYNHAM said the impression left on the minds
of the committee was that the monopoly ought to be
abolished, unless evidence could be given to show that it
was necessary on grounds of public policy. The noble lord
gave a long detail of what had passed in committee, and
said that the counsel for the petitioners had not asked to be
heard and had not been refused.

Lord REDESDALE rose to order. The noble lord ought
not to enter into the merits of the bill, or there would be no
end of the discussion. (Hear, hear.)
Lord TEYNHAM denied that he was doing so. He was
merely showing why the motion should not be agreed to.
Lord KINNAIRD considereditmost irregular for a com-
mittee to stop or refuse to hear a counsel. In this case the
committee had desired the counsel to call the secretary of
the company ; but he, wishing to examine other witnesses
first, had declined to do so. He hoped the house would
agree to the motion. _ _ _

-The Earl of DUCIE, another member of the committee,
said he had no objection again to serve if the bill were re-
committed ; but it would involve the company in great ex-
pense.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE did not think that the
committee had given that fair hearing to the opponents of
the bill to which they were entitled. In his official capacity
he had heard all their evidence, but must say it had not
made much impression on his mind. (Hear, hear.) The
bill if recommitted might be reported before the prorogation.
Lord VIVIAN said the committee had heard fourteen
witnesses against the bill, the master, wardens, and all the
efficers of the company, who repeated the same story usque
ad nauseam. The simple question .was, should the bill be
recommitted because it was not convetient for the learned
counsel (Mr. Hope Scott) to address the committee when
he ought to have done so. He protested in the strongest
terms against the bill being recommitted.
Lord REDESDALE said the house oughtto considerthe
effect which the carrying of this motion might have on their
proceedings generally. If committees were to make a prac-
tice of stopping counsel, an unfavourable impression would
be created out of doors as to the chance of justice being done
by their lordships. He thought a case had been made out
for recommitting the bill.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said their lordships
had hitherto placed implicit confidence in their committees,
and had never, except under very grave and peculiar cir-
cumstances, interfered with any decision they had come to.
It was obvious that great discretion must be given to those
to whom their lordships delegated its private legislation, as
to the amount of evidence they might think fit to listen to
on any particular point. In the present case it would un-
doubtedly have been better if the committee had heard Mr.
Hope Scott ; and it would perhaps be prudent to refer the
bill back to them, in order to enable Mr. Scott to deliver
his speech. (Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE observed that the
whole difficulty had arisen from the conduct of the counsel;
and if the bill were recommitted, it ought surely to be accom-
panied by a strong expression of their lordships' opinion as
to the extent to which committees were to be subjected to
the caprice of counsel. (Cheers.)
The Duke of SOMERSET said the question with which
their lordships had to deal was one of considerable difficulty.
On the one hand, they would be most anxious to uphold the
character of their committees ; but, on the other hand, they
would be no less anxious that the decisions of those com-
mittees should enjoy the confidence of the public. (Hear.)
He had himself had a very large experience on committees
of the other house, and it had always been his practice to
listen with the utmost patience to all that could be said by
that party of whose case he had begun to form an unfavour-
able opinion. At the same time it occasionally happened
that the opposing party would try to defeat a bill by delay ;
and a rule had been laid downby the Commons' committees
not to allow the same point to be proved by more than two
or at most three witnesses. In the present case the committee
had been placed under a great disadvantage by not hearing
an opening speech from counsel, to direct their attention to
the salient points of the evidence. He should therefore ad-
vise the recommittal of the bill ; and its recommittal to a
new committee.

Earl GREY thought that as the committee had fallen
into the perhaps very natural error of not hearing counsel,
the bill ought to be recommitted. At the same time, he
could not agree that the noble lords who had formed the old
committee were likely to be so prejudiced that it was at all
'necessary to send the case before a new one. To appoint a
new committee would moreover be most unjust to the pro-
moters of the bill, because their case would have to be begun
again de novo, and they would thus practically be mulcted
in a heavy sum for an error of which the committee, and
not they, had been guilty. (Hear. hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL, in reply, said he had never thought
of a new committee until he heard the declarations of the
noble lords who had served on the old one.
The motion for recommitting the bill was then agreed to.
On the motion for its recommittal to a new committee,
Lord REDESDALE supported the proposal, and ob-
served that it had always been considered a matter for the
election of counsel whether their speeches should precede or
follow the evidence they had to call.
Their lordships divided—
Content
28-16
Non-content
The bill was therefore referred back to the same com-
mittee.
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.
The Commons' reasons for disagreeing with one of the
amendments of their lordships were considered.
Lord WENSLEYDALE moved that their lordships
should not insist on their amendment.
The Earl of CARNARVON assented. The original ob-
ject of the bill was merely to postpone the date at which the
act of last year should come in force ; but during its passage
through Parliament a few other amendments had been per-
haps added to it. The act itself had been very hastily drawn,
and it no doubt contained many imperfections, but if any
hardships were found to arise, there was no reason why an-
other and more complete amendment should not be intro-
duced next year.
The amendment objected to was then abandoned.
IMPRISONMENT BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
PUBLIC OFFICES EXTENSION BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.

This bill was read a see9nd time.
AFFIDAVITS BY COMMISSION, &c., BILL.
The report of amendments on this bill was brought up
and agreed to.

INDEMNITY BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
NOTTINGHAM CHARITIES BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
ST. JAMES BALDERSLEY MARRIAGES
VALIDITY BILL.
This bill wag read a third time and passed.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
The bill was read a second time.
The house then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAS.BE, took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the Norwich (City) Water
Bill and the Falmouth Docks and Harbour Bill were con-
sidered and agreed to, and the bills were respectively
ordered to be read a third time.
The Lymington Railway Bill was read a third time.
The following bills were considered, and ordered for third
reading :—Carlisle and Penrith, &c., Roads ; Commercial
Docks Acts Amendment ; Dundee and Newtyle Railway ;
Mountsorrel Railway ; Nuneaton and Hinckley Railway'
Wear Navigation and Sunderland Docks.
The Galway Harbour and Port Act (1853) Amendment
Bill was read a second time.
BAILIEBOROUGH
Mr. BOWYER moved for copies of the resolutions of
the board of guardians adopted on and since the 16t
whichtook
place between the Poor Law Commissioners and the board
of guardians, •as well as the correspondence which took
place between the Poor Law Commissioners, and the late
Catholic chaplain, relating to the Catholic chaplaincy of the
Bailieborough Union. Agreed to.
THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said in reference to a question on
the paper to be addressed to him by the right hon. member
for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), that he would ask him (Sir
B. Hall), or rather make a request of him, namely, that he
would conclude his question with a motion. That course
would enable him to enter into an explanation of his con-
duct. instead
H
e f being
ed
restrictedn l t
concludeo a categorical
his question
with
a motion, but he would postpone putting it until theC
Sir B.
cm-
solidationF
Fund Appropriation
TO LANDppropnation (scßilleaomTeLforzm.)ard.
TITLES
This bill was withdrawn.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT—SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
This bill WM read a third time nd paned.