The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF CONINIONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKZR took the chair at twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The British and Irish Grand Junction Railway)
Lowestoft and Burgh Saint Peter Ferry and Roads
and Pulteney Town Harbour were read a third time
and passed.
The Besselsleigh Road Bill was further considered and
ordered to be read a third time.
The Caledonian and Crinan Canals Bill was read a%
second time.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
On the third reading of this bill,
Sir W. CODRINGTON opposed the third reading.
Tidal rivers like the Thames were likely to be obstructed
by the erection of wharfs, piers, and embankments, by
persons not responsible for its free navigation. The
object of the bill was to establish a Board of Conservancy,
who should have power to erect wharfs, piers, and em-
bankments, and to tax the shipping, using the river f
that purpose ; two-thirds of the tax was to
go to the board for improving the navigation of the
river and the remaining third to the Government, but
it was not specified what they were to do with the
money. The gallant officer referred to the origin of
the bill, which arose from a dispute between the Go-
vernment and the Corporation of London as to the
shores of the river, and he objected to so important a
trust as the conservancy of the river Thames being
placed in the hands of an irresponsible body—
the majority of the members of the board to
be taken from the Corporation. of London.
He contended that this bill was too important to be
unsoldered as a private bill, and urged that it should be
made a public bill and publicly discussed. He moved
the third reading of the bill this day six months.
Mr. AYRTON asked the Speaker if this bill had been
properly introduced as a private bill, considering its im-
portant operation.
The SPEAKER said that, according to Parliamentary
practice and usage, the bill (however large the interest
might be that would be affected by it) had been properly
introduced as a private bill.
Mr. Alderman CUBITT supported the second read-
ing, and gave a lengthened history of the dispute be-
tween the Corporation of London and the Government,
relative to the shores of the river, which had been under
agitation for a considerable number of years, and had
been repeatedly brought under the notice of the public.
Sir DE LACY EVANS said that since the last time
the bill was before the house many objectionable clauses
bad been omitted from it—one clause to tax steamers
above bridge. He considered this a species of retrograde
legislation, and his principal objection to the bill was
the constitution of the board, viz., seven from the Cor-
poration of London, two from the Trinity House, and
three from the Board of Admiralty, the majority of
whom could at any time out vote the Government,
being unqualified to discharge this important trust.
Mr. HENLEY supported the bill from a belief that
it would facilitate the reform of the Corporation of
London. He considered the board independently con-
stituted, and he thought the Government had made a
good bargain with the corporation for the Crown. Aa
the owner of water-side property in London, he bad
no complaint to make against the management of the
Corporation of London.
Mr. AYRTON opposed the bill, on the ground that
the board would not adequately represent the commer-
cial interests of London.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
there had been two objections urged against the bill—
one as to the form of proceeding, and the other relative
to its contents. With regard to the first, the bill was
introduced as a private bill, according to precedent, and
he instanced a similar bill for the Mersey now before the
house. A private hid gave every facility to interested par-
ties to oppose it, if they thought proper, before the
examiners. After entering into the nature of the dis-
pute, and the arrangements come to between the Co.:po
ration of London and the Crown, whereby the former
conceded the matter in issue to the Crown, the right
hon. baronet defended the constitution of tha Board,
which, instead of being sectional, was general, and the
best that could be for promoting the commerce of the
ports.
After some remarks from Sir S. TREL A.NVNEY,
Sir J. GRAHAM opposed the Inn on the ground that
the interests of the public, and the owners of private
property were not considered by the bill. Though the
clause for taxing steamers above bridge was withdrawn,
strong taxing powers were retaind, such as I,censing
landowners to make docks and wharfs, the leasing and
taking tolls of new piers and landine. places. He ob-
jected to the formation of the board and condemned the
conduct of the Government in giving to the corporation
of London a majority at the board for their concession of
Crown rights. The board ought not to be one of nomi-
nation but election by the tax-payers.
After some remarks from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER in explanation,
Sir J. DUKE said that the parties who had intro-
duced the bill, having complied with the forms of the
house, they ought not to be blamed for its being mane a
private bill, arid as objection raised to it in consequence.
Only yesterday a similiar bill was passed for the river
Clyde without opposition to its being a private bill.
Referring to the taxision by the c inservators of the
river, he stated that 60 years ago the tonnage on coasters
was from 4d. to 2.1. per ton, but it was now reduced to
ad. and id. By the bid, provision was made for the
disposal of surplus money. He defended the constitu-
tion of the board, and said that the meinb,rs of the Cor-
poration of London were capable of effectually discharg-
ing the duties that would devolve on thorn under the
bid, and that they would promote the interests of the
commercial community. He should support the third
reading of the bill.
The house divided. The numbers were—
For the third reading 172
Against it 7B

Majority 94
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
EXPENSES OF THE PFRSIAN WAR.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER pre-
seated the estimates to the amount of 500,0001. for the
expenses of the war with Persia, and also of 500,0001.
towards the military and naval operations in China, and
moved that they be referred to the Committee of Supply.
He also gave notice that in the course of the present
month be should move a resolution in Committee of
Ways and Means with the view of founding upon it a
bill for continuing the present duties upon tea and sugar
as fixed by the Act of last session for two years from the
Ist of April next. •
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the first time the house
had received any intimation of the war with Persia
being at a conclusion was when they were called upon to
pay the bill. (Hear.), He thought the house woul I
abdicate its functions, and would be unworthy of the
name of the English House of Commons if they did not
reprobate such conduct at the proper time. Such a
thing had not occurred in the whole history of the
House of Commons, from IG4O to the present day, and it
bad been reserved for a so-called liberal Government
with the present Prime Minister at its head, to throw a
slur and a stigma on the House of Commons. If the
house submitted to the conduct of the Government in
this instance, it would shOw that the noble lord had a
better appreciation of them than he (vlr. Roebuck) had.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that he understood,
in answer to a question which he had addressed to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the grant to be moved
for the Persian war was 265,0001. He wished to know
whether the 500,0001. now named in tho estimates was
to be in addition to that 265,0001., or whether the
smaller sum were included in the greater. He had un
derstood, also, that the Indian Government were to bear
half the expenses, and he wanted to know, therefore,
whether 1,000,0001. would cover the whols expenses of
the Persian war ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that it would be unusual and inconvenient for the house
to enter into a premature discussion upon the estimates
being laid upon the table. He bad merely laid brie
estimates on the table at this time as a matter of conve-
nienoe, and be would only state, in answer to the
question of the hon. baronet, that when he stated !hat
the amount to be asked this session wculd be 265,0001 ,
it was early in the session, before the termination of the
war, before the signature of the treaty of peace, and
upon the best data to which he then had access. The
sum which he now stated was inclusive of, and not ad-
ditional to, that sum. It would be the entire demand to
be made upon the souse this session, and it would re-
place the advances made by the India Board.
Mr. F. SCOTT said that by the peculiar form of the
expression used by the right bon, gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, limiting observations to the
present session, he would see* to infer there was a fur-
ther sum to be demanded in respect of this war upon a
future occasion. When the right hon. gentleman said
that it was not ut,util to raise a discussion upon laying
the estimates upon the table, he nral h
.Scott) must
ttan the course
ei n
ob-
serve that nothing could be more unusual
which the right hon. gentleman hims
adopted
with regard to this question. As the hon,aad and learned
member for Sheffield bad truly sail, the first intima-
tion of the affair which had been given te the
was that there would be 265,0001. to he paid, eeehotubs:
intimation was given to them after the war bad been
t
concluded, witboutany information having been afforded
to the country that such a thing had been undertaken.
Wasn't that somewhat unusual ? The right hon. gen-
tleman complained that anyone should call attention to
the subj- Ct because he had simply doubled the sum
which he first stated that the country would be called
upon to pay, and then he had guarded his answer to the
bon. baronet in such a manner as to imply that even
double the SUM was hut an instalment, and that in ano-
ther session the country would be asked for some un-
known amount for this unknown war. He wished dis-
tinctly to be informed whether this 500,000/. was the
whole charge which the country would be called upon to
pay fur the Persian war. He thought that the course
which had been pursued with regard to the whole Oa r
indicated more forcibly than anything that bad before
occurred, the servile condition of the Moose of Commons.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
be did not ask the house now to agree to any vote. He
heel merely presented the estimate, and had moved that
it he referred to Use corn ittee of supply, which was the
proper place for the consideration of the estimate. When
the Government asked the committee to agree to a vote
upon the subject, they would give a fullsttahtement of the
case, which would involve among other
an-
swer to the question of the hon. gentleman who
an n
who had just
sat down.

Six J. PAKINGTON rose to order. Wednesdays
were, by the rules of the house, devoted to orders, and
the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche•
clutr, no doubt not anticipating any discussion had in-
tt rfered with the regular orders of the day by making a
iurttion upon a most important subject, whic'i was t. 1.-
trensely likely to lead to a diicuaeioD, that tuvtioa wore