Star.
London, England, 1825-03-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

At four o'clock the SPIAXIIII took the Chair.
The Deputy Usher of the Black Rod summoned the House to
the Howse of Peers, to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission
to several Bills (for which see the Lords report).
Mr. PETER MOORE moved the third reading of the Equi-
table Loan Bill.

Mr. ROBERTSON opposed the Bill, on the ground of the ge-
neral intpolicy •f encouraging these kind of Companies.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the Bill
Against it
Majority in favour of the Bill - —27
Mr. 11. SUMNER presented a Petition from the Court of Re-
quests in Southwark, against the County Courts Bill.
Mr. LA MBTON presented a Petition from certain persons,
against the Isle of Dogs Collier Docks BilL
Mr. MANNING presented a Petition from the London Docks
Company, against the St. Catherine's Dock Bill, praying that the
Bill might be recommitted, in order that the Petitioners might have
an opportunity of opposing the Bill. -
Mr. C. CALVERT stared, that it was his intention to have
moved that the Petition alluded to by the Honourable. Member
should be referred to a Committee, but in consequence of meeting
with a Gentleman on his way to the House, who told him it was
not probable that there Would be a House, and thus the day for
making the motion was lost. He also complained of the conduct
of some Gentlemen in the Committee who voted against him, al-
though they had not attended the discussions in the Committee.
After a few words from Mr. Walla...Han, the Petition was
brought up and read.
Mr. MANNING then moved that the St. Catherine's Dock

• Z 9
- 12

Bill be recommitted.—Mr. C. CALVERT supported the motion.
Mr. HEATHCOTE thought that the Bill had been sufficiently
considered, and that it was unnecessary to recommit it.
Mr. WILBRAHAM thought the preamble of the Bill was
clearly proved by documents on the table of the House.
Mr. H. SUMNER contended that there was great neglect on the
part of the London Dock Company, and that a very strong case
ought to be made out before the Bill should be recommitted. Ile
defended the conduct of the Committee.
Mr. HUME believed that the St. Catherine's Docks, though
they might come in competition with other Docks, would be ulti-
' mately beneficial to the Public. He thought, however, that in fair-
ness and justice, the House should allow the London Docks Com-
pany to be beard, and that the Bill should be recommitted.
Mr. GRRN FELL said tht; House should be careful not to do
injustice, which it would do if they recommitted the Bill. The
London Dock Company deserved nothing nom the favour of the
House. They had hitherto acted in a very vexatious and uncandid
way. Last year they came before the Row in forms pitiperis,
complaining that the low rates charged by them allowed a division
of only 4i per Cent. and yet they had this year reduced the
rates on wine and spirits 30 per Cent. and on tobacco 50 per Cent
They were interested parties, aid deserved no particular f
from the House.

Mr. MABERLY supported the motion for recommitment.
Mr. JON ES censured the conduct of the London Dods Com-
pany, and thought they should be the last persons in the world to
complain of unfairness.
Kr. S. WORTLEY briefly opposed the recommitment.