The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-26 00:00:00

mittee for having so report, for had he been on that
Committee himself, he thought he should have
most likely followed the same course as that which they
had adopted. He had to observe, however, that this, al-
though a local Bill, partookvery.largely of. ,a. public na-
ture. The. Bill was to enlarge the Dock already in exist-
ence, and those Docks ans public and. not private
property. The trade 0f,.. Liverpool , had materially
increased of late years, for when.he had the - honour
of being first returned for Liverpool, the returns of
the Customs did not amount to 400,0001., while they now
actually amounted to four millions. It ave.s absolutely ne-
cessary to enlarge the docks, arithas it was a public, rather
than a private object, whicla Wis sought to be attained, he
hoped the House would tigree to dispensewith the standing
orders, and allow the Bill to be brought in. •
Sir J. YORKE said, that he could not help feeling souse
alarm at an application to suspend the standing orders of
the House; and, independent of this objection, he thought
it impolitic thus to encourage the extending of such an
overgrown town as Liverpool. Before they extended the
Docks, they should do something to rescue the entrance of
the harbour from the difficulties which at present rendered
its navigation perilous. There were many parts of the
empire, the trade of which had been diminished by the
growth of this enormous town, the Docks of which were
already five miles in extent.—(Hear.)
- Lord ALTHORP said a few words which Were inau-
dible in the gallery, but we understood him to he,against
the motion.
Mr. HUSKISSON said that he would not contend
against the practical knowledge of the Gallariti OffiCei.S-vho
had just spoken ; but the question hefirrethe House was,
whether they would enable the trustees to borrow a larger I
sum of money, they not having complied with. the, stand-
ing orders of the House? If their prayer were, ohe re-
jected on the ground of the standing orders, it would he.tan-
tamount to putting the Bill off for another session.. It would
be for the Souse to consider Whether:it miglit not be
expedient, for the sake of a great public good, to enable
them to proceed with works which had already cost one
million sterling. If the House refused to do so, they'
would be obliged to dismiss their workmen, in number
between two and three thousand, and to suspend :their
operations for h whole year for want of the necessary funds.
—He would suggest that it would be better to let them
borrow enough to finish the portion: of the works which
which were in band.
Mr. CALCRAFT feared that if they granted the pre-
sent prayer, they would expose themselves_ to constant ap-
plications of a similar nature, and thus render nugatory the
efforts of the Committee of Standing Orders. On
the whole, however, he believed it aould certainly
be advisable to allow them to raise money enough to finish
what they had begun,-but no more. he felt no jealous),
that other ports should increase rapidly . He, in fact, wish-
ed that many places would rival Liverpool, and had no
doubt that London would still be able to hold its' bead up
amongst them. . .
The motion was then agreed to without a division..
Sir W. GUISE brought up the report of the Glouces-
tershire Railway Company.—Laid on the table.
Mr. DAWSON brought up the report of the Bill for
the Incorporation of the Dublin Steam CorripanY.'
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS.
Mr. LITTLETON presented g petition from Chetider;
for the repeal of the Test and Corporation. Arts. Lord
Althorp presented a similar petition from Wellingborough,
Northamptonshire. Similar petitions were presented
from Chepatone by Sir C. Morgan. From the county
of Brecknock, by Colonel Wood. From Marsley, 'by
Sir W. Guise. By Mr. Stanley, from Warrington and
other places in the county of Lancaster. By Lord Stanley,
from Bampton, Lancashire. Mr. Baker, from Wickham.
By Col. Powell, from Upper Grintead, Cardigan. By Mr.
Dickinson, from Shepton Mallet and'other places. By Mr.
Bright, from eleven Congregations in Bristol. By Mr.
Pierce, from Devizes. By Mr. Easthope, flu=
_Chippen-
dorf, Oxfordshire, and Broughton. By Mr. Cnrteis, from
Rye, Grimsby, and different places in the county of Sussex.
And by Mr. Majoribanks, from Hythe, Kent.
SUB-LETTING ACT.

3lr. STANLEY presented a petitiou from Nenagh,
county Tipperary, against tlu Sub-letting Act. The
Hon. Member said, lie thought it his duty to state to the
House, as he had before done to the petitioner,, that he .did
not concur with the object of the petition.
Mr. STANLEY presented a petition from Nenagh,
praying for Catholic Emancipation.
THE MALT ACT.

Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the
Maltsters of Burton-upon-Trent, against the Malt
The Hon. Member also moved for a return of the number
defaulters under the Malt Act, within the last three
years.—Ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN presented a petition against the Malt
Act, from Sherborne, Dorset.
RECEIPT TAX.

Mr. M. ANGELO TAYLOR presented a petition from
Durham for the repal of the Receipt Stamp Ditty, and
concurred with the petititioners that it would be right to
do away with stamps for receipts fot all surds under 201.
Mr. BRIGHT moved for an Account of the Amount of
Revenue received for Receipt Stamps during the years
1825, 1826, and 1827 ; also an Account of the Number of
Prosecutions filed by the Collectors of Stamps, and for se-
veral other Returns connected with the Stamp Receipt
Tax. _ .

Mr. CALCRAFT said the returns for which the Hon.
Member moved were extremely voluminous, and would
costa consderable sum. He trusted, therefore, the lion.
Member had some specific object in moving for each of
those returns.
'After a few trords from Mr. BRIGHT, the returns were
oreeml.