Star.
London, England, 1810-05-11 00:00:00

to his Majesty's ChaimMr of the Exchecitier, whn,
he understood, had not yet had time to make up his
mind on the subject. He hoped that Right Hon.
Gentleman would now support him in a motion to de-
fer this Bill until Monday, in order to allow him time to
form his opinion upon some plan of compensation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, he should have no objection to defer the Bill ;
but the subject of compensation was one so compli-
cated, that it would he quite impossible for him, con-
sistently with the various avocations of his public duty,
to form any opinion on it in so short a time.
Sir THOMAS TUKTON said, there never was
a greater mistake than that of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on this subject. It had been stated that
8750,000 had been applied for over and above the
original grant ; but the fact was, it was 5c900,000,
and would be the total ruin of all the wharfingers
and warehousemen on the 'river, The Right Hon.
Gentleman was, from his situation, bound to protect
the public from mischief arising from honest and in-
dustrious individuals being crushed by the power of
great public bodies, who expended such large sums
more than they first applied to Parliament for to gra.
tify that cruel propensity. He was therefore fur post-
poning the third reading to Monday,
Mr. MARRYAT observed, that there would be
na extension of the original plan, but rather a dimi-
nution. Compensation was a different question—but
he thought the House would not be the faithful
steward of the public if any further compensation was
granted, Had it not been for the. Company, there
could be no doubt that a great many additional ware-
houses would have been built by individuals, which
would have interfered with the present proprietors of
wharfs, &c. as much as the Company had done. The
previous.compensations, he contended, had been libe-
rally awarded.
_ _ _

Mr. ROSE said, that k was absolutely necessary
for the Company to erect more warehouses upon the
old plan, as at present property was often left exposed
for want of them.

Mr. WHITBREAD was decidedly in favour of
delay. He said he held documents in his hand which
clearly spewed the Dock Company had been guilty
of the grossest partiality And tyranny, insomuch that
several merchants had brought actions against them
for having acieJ directly in breach of the Act of Par-
liament under which they existed. These actions
they had defended to a certain stage, and then they
had come into Court, and paid taxed costs to the
amount of a:7SU. If these things were true, this Bill
ought not only to be delayed, but should not be sof.
fered to pass at all. Another Bill ought to be brought
in, that the London Dock Company might clear them-
selves from these charges.
Mr. MANNING stated, that the reason the Com-
pany had not been able to go tQ trial in these actions
WAS, that the questions were mixed. If there had beet
any appearance of vexation, he would willingly agree
to a Committee to inquire into the matter. B.:: all
this had nothing to do with the present Bill. He had
already delayed the Bill in hopes that a clause of com-
pensation could be introduced, but that was now
hopeless. This must be left till the next Session.—
He contended, that not more than £4.0,000 of the mo-
ney was to be employed in extending the original Flan,
the rest beitr, to pay debts and complete the old plan..
Mr. W: SMITH corroborated the statement made
by Mr. Whitbread, as to the actions brought against
the London Dock Company. In one of these actions
it was agreed in Court that a small sum should be
taken as damages, and that a tariff should be settled
by three Barristers. After the verdict was given, and
the tariff settled under the authority of the Court, the
Company refused to abide by it ; and the trial was
no sooner over than they not only resorted to their old
mode of charges, but even increased, tinder pretence
that it was not a prospective but a retrospective rept?
lation. He was, therefore, clearly of opinion, that the
third reading should be postponed.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL agreed in the necessity
of postponement, for the purpose of introducing the
clause. He hoped the House would have no objec-
tion, as the period was so short.
Mr. HAWKINS BROWNE thought that the
-charges were delayed too long ; that they were of
such a nature that even if the Bill was nut thought
of they ought to have been produced. Toe sum pro.
posed, he was convinced, was not more than adequate.
Mr. WHITBREAD did not believe that next
Monday would afford sufficient time ; be rather
thought it would be necessary to postpone it to Mon-
day se'nnight. He said that there WAS i Gentleman
in the lobby by whose authority he had it in his power
to contradict the accusation of the mixed nature of the
charges.
Mr. PETER MOORE observed, that if this mea-
sure was adopted, it would be to estab ish a second
Custom-house, more intolerable than the old ; if so,
then the peOple might truly whistle for justice.—
(Laughing)—ln a word, the great end of the whole
seemed to be private interest, which; it was the duty of
the House to prevent.
Mr. MANNING thought, that if the Committee
was revived, it ought to be unshackled.
Mr. JACOBS said, that this question deserved the
mature consideration of the House ; he would there-
fore vote for its postponement.
A division was then called for, when there appear-
ed s:-For the postponement 27—Against it 35—Ma-
jority 8.--The Bill was then, of course, read a third
time, and passed.

bIR FRANCIS BURDETT.

The SPEAKER acquainted the House, that a
process had been serveA upon him in the course of the
day, at the suit of Sir Francis Burdett. The process
being read, It proved to be a notice of declaration in
the ordinary form, upon a plea of trespass, and the
damages were laid at 430,000. This instrument was
signed ELLIS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved, that it be referred to the Committee appointed
to consider the subject to which it referred ; and he
took this opportunity of stating, that the Report of the
Committee would probably be brought up to-morrow,
when he should move to have it taken into consideration.
—The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER also informed the House, that a
proem upon the same grounds had been served upon
the Serjeant at Arms, who was ready to state the
particulars.
The CHANCELLOR of theEXCHEQUER, ap-
prehending that this process was csf a similar nature to
the notice just read, saw no necessity of roving the
reference of it to the Committee..