The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-06-28 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--FmAY.

Lord LIVERPOOL DOCKS.
&import moved the further consideration of the report
11 the Liverpool Docks bill.
, Lord CLIVE said, that withoift adverting to the general
Lhierits of the bill, he would move that it be recommitted. He
id 8", because a clause had been introduced into the bill ex-
-•
11)tine Runcorn and three other ports in the Mersey from dock
and he would propose, should the bill be recommitted, to
c1141,t Ellesmere, on the Cheshire coast, also from the.same
.;'es• His object was to place the Staffordshire, Shropshire,
-ntl North Wales navigation on the same footing as that ter-
minating on the offer side of the Mersey.
heid,r• WILBRAHek seconded the motion. and said, if the bill
l'ai.t"ill be recommitted, he would propose that all the ports on
`.. Cheshire side should be exempt from dues.
4, Lord SANDON said, it wash is intention, when they came to
tne clause in question, to propose that it be struck out, as it had
Leen inserted without the due notice in such cases, and was
learefore contrary to the standing orders. The property affected
this bill, that of the bondholders, amounted to £1,400,000,
4114 that money had ben lent on
wash)te supposition that the whole
trade that entered thee Mersey able tos dock dues.
i 4 conversation ensued, in which Mr. Ewan, Mr. Brotherton,
`r• Jervis, Sir J. Wrottesle, and Mr. Egerton took part. It
reblated to the uly techni-cal point as to whether
e'aUse had been inserted contrary to the standing
question
orders.
a Th: e SPEAKER having been *appealed to for his opinion, with
71•
,eW to decide the question, said, that a motion having been
--ttuertai by the noble lord (the member for Ludlow) relative to a
Icen clause in the bill, the noble lord (the member for Liver-
,),°°l) stated, that such clause had been inserted contrary to the
.27,,_nuing orders and that it was his intention to move that it be
• -;;Leek out. The real question then for their consideration was,
.fie the clause had been contrary to the standing orders.
e• believed he was correct in stating that the notices which
1_1(1 been given given in the instance of this bill applied only to
.tttte
nations to he made respecting the constitution of the board
Xitrustees, and the management of the docks, and that no
ce had been given of any intention to propose an alteration
b 11 regard to the tolls. It; then, there was an alteration made
4,Y the ill in the tolls, whether by addition or diminution, no-
"ce should have been given to the parties interested, and whose
property would be affected by such alteration, of the intention
‘To propose it. Now, no such' notice had been given here, and
terirehended, therefore, that the clause must be struck out of
e bill. He hoped that the house would always bear in mind
nt the standing orders had been framed for the protection
. of
:I_telasses of the community, and that they never could and
• sought to be disregarded unless where some strong special
as made out, and where, in addition, it was shown that
•Thet.4,t particular departure from them would not be productive
tende• (Hear.)
d 'ne}, to those persons for whose protection they were in-
,
rd CLiva said, that such being the case, he would withdraw
caetion
_discussion then ensued as to the course of proceeding—
aeriT,!Y, whether Lord Sandon should move the amendments
ate"e, and when they came to The clause above referred to,
hovethat it be struck out, and that then Mr. Ewart 'should
„eve the rejection of the bill; or that Mr. Ewart should move
..rejection of the bill in the first instance.
aa;?,11:. Ewa eT, finally, there being loud calls for him to move,
e
,in,m ae rose to moee that the report be taken into fuhirther ton-
tneration that day six months. He felt bound bys consti-
he"rets to make that motion, and in doing so he was sure that
twe'r ties
presented their wishes, for he acted in accordance with the
to4of the town council elected by them under the municipal
irni bill. He conceived that there was a prima facie case
IL_e the bill as it came before the house. The bill related to
;:',ltnatters and local government, the administration of which
07_altvays placed in the town-council, and it proposed to take
•,,,X.,ltorn the reformed town-council powers which had been
• I,„:7:eu formerly in the old unreformed corporation of Liverpool.
77tquestion then was whether powers which had been so long
ereA in the corporation when it was an irresponsible body
,e, old be now taken away from it when the principle of respon-
f„.n'anty had been infused into its constitution—when it was a po-
in! body elected by the inhabitants, and subject to their con-
-01. (Hear.) His hon. colleague very plausibly proposed
shouldt'th appointment of the managers of the,stocks of Liverpool
_ rest with the rate-payers of these (hien. (Hear.) That
fi..`,ileabtedly was a plausible ground to go upon. (" Hear,"
Oathr the opposition.) But it was only plausible—it did not
e examination The dock-rate payers in Liverpool were a
641411 • ,Constituency, with all the evils of a small constituency,
7,oeu they were also a most fluctuating one; on the other hand,
t,.1 town-council, in whose band he (Mr. Ewart) proposed that
the Management of the docks should continue, was elected b
"thabitants of Liverpool at large. The dock-rate payery
die
not amount to as many hundreds as the municipal constis-
sixeecY did to thousands: in fact, they did not amount to one-
-B..eh of that constituency. Now there was this objection to.
h a constituency, that a wealthy merchant of Liverpool
pieß_ht, previous to a dock-election, make as many voters as he
small hand, the number of the whole constituency being sa
pion all might carry the lectton. He had anotber obj-
th the bill, namely, that i et
proposed to divide the policeec of
anysuehthing more
tewn• (Hear, hear.) There would not be upon principle
oppos'd to the good government of a town than
the a proposition. The committee on the bill called before
Rayni the chief commissioner of metropolitan police, and he
dock strongest evidence against the policy of dividing the
police from the police of the town. The superintendent

0 the police in Liverpool stated in his examination that as the
docks ran into the town, and to the extent of three mile's along-
side of it, it would be most dangerous for the security of pro-
perty and of the community, that the police should be divided
into two bodies. They had the evidence of stipendiary magis-
trates and of constables, in Liverpool, that such a division of
the police would be attended with fatal effects. The division of
the police was carried in the committee by the extraordinary
exertions and whipping-in of the hon. member for Harwich
(Mr. Henries.) Ile (Mr. Ewart) would repeat that it was con-
trary to all principles of good government, and decidedly op-
posed to those principles which the right hon. member for Tam-
worth had laid down for the regulation of an effective munici-
pal police. This part of the bill alone, if there were nothing
else objectionable in it, should be sufficient to induce the house
to reject it. He called upon the house to reject the bill, because
it went, contrary to the principle of the municipal reform bill,
to take away -from the municipal body of Liverpool powers
which that bill intended it should continue to possess. Let not
the house suppose that by the rejection of this bill it would
leave the docks of Liverpool without any ostensible govern-
ment. He had the opinion of the attorney-general and of the
most eminent lawyers;., that the whole tenour of the municipal
reform act went to show that it this bill should he rejected the
government of the Liverpool docks would revert to the town
council—to that local governing body in which alone it should
be vested.
Lord Saistiors said that his hon. colleague had stated that
this bill went to take away the powers which the municipal re-
form bill had given to the corporation of Liverpool. Now, he
(Lord Sandon) begged to say that this question would have
arisen whether the old irresponsible corporation remained, or
whether, as had been the case, the new one had taken its place.
The house, perhaps, would be led to suppose, from the speech
of the hon. member, that this was merely a struggle of party.
He was sorry to say that such au impression had been attempted
to be spread abroad amongst the public, and he was sorry to see
it countenanced by his hon.-friend the under-secretary for the
treasury coming down to the committee with two lords of the
Admiralty in his train to oppose the bill. (Hear, hear, from
the opposition. He'(Lord Sandon) conceived that he had a
right to complain of such a course of proceeding. (Hear, hear.)
It was not a bill that the house was called upon to pass for the
purposes of party, or with any party or political objects in view.
It was rather hard that a great commercial question' involving
the best mode of managing the extensive docks of Liverpool,
should be left to the chance of the balance of political_ power in
that house. It was not until his hon. colleague, in his efforts
to defeat the bill, had endeavoured to bring his political party
to support him, that the question had assumed a political cha-
racter. Such was not the desire of the promoters of the bill;
they had been most anxious to come,to a compromise with the
corporation; but the latter insisted on having a predominant
power over the trust, under such circumstances, the promot-
ers of the bill now proposed a medium line. There had been a
constant struggle on this subject between the public and the
corporation of Liverpool at the time that it was perfectly tory
in its composition. Whenever the question had formerly come
before ,the house whips and.tories had endeavoured to place the
docks more under the management of the merchants of Liver-
pool. In the years 1825 and 1526 there was a great struggle
on the subject, as the corporation then applied to parliament
for powers to make additional dock accommodation in Liver-
pool. In consequence of the opinion then expressed by Mr
Huskisson, it was then agreed as a compromise that thirteen of
the trustees should be named by the corporation, and the re-
mainder by the rate-payers. That was a considerable advan-
tage gained for the mercantile body. Since 1785 the corpora-
tion possessed no property in the docks, it had sold it all. To
show that this was not a political question in its true and pro-
per nature, he might state that there were gentlemen now in
the town council of Liverpool, who had formally put their names
to docinnents totally different from the opposition which they
now made to this measure. They formerly advocated the giving
the management of the dock property to the rate-payers; but
it now appeared that those gentlemen having got into power,
they had quite changed their opinion as to the propriety of in-
trusting the government of the docks to the corporation of
Liverpool. The honourable member here read the document
in question. It stated amongst other things, that for the
proper and efficient government of the dock estate, the ma-
naging trustees should be chosen by the rate-payers. (Hear,
hear.) That document was signed by gentlemen who were
now the leading opponents of the bill. (Hear, hear, hear.)
He knew it would be said that the corporation of Liverpool was
then an irresponsible body, but that now, being a responsible
body, the case was quite different. (Hear.) So far from the
alteration in the corporation rendering it more responsible to
the rate-payers, it was really less so. Its constituency had been
greatly enlarged, and that constituency had rival interests with
those of the dock rate-payers. Instead of proposing that the
whole of the trustees should be chosen out of the body of the
rate-payers, he (Lord Sandon) would propose as a compromise
that they should choose twelve trustees out of their own body,
and twelve out of the town council. The promoters of the bill
by no means said that they insisted upon having two bodies of
police. They objected to having £9,000 or £lO,OOO of their
money, which was the cost of their police, handed over to the
corporation, to be applied perhaps to the general police of the
town, without having a security that it would be applied to the
special police for the docks. 'I he dock trust was not in its cha-
racter a political body. It was composed of merchants, who
paid rates from £lO to thousands. He would defy any one to
affix a political character to the management of the dock estate.
He had canvassed frequently in Liverpool, but he had never
canvassed the dock agents. It was said that the Attorney-Ge-
neral had given his opinion, that if this bill should be thrown
out, the government of the docks would pass to the corporation
under the municipal reform act That certainly was contrary
to the intentions of that act and of the hon. and learned gentle-
man (Mr. Rushton) who had drawn up the clause relating to
Liverpool. The noble lord, in conclusion, contended, that if
the bill did not pass, there would be no one to manage the dock
estate, and that he had seen the opinion of two most distin-
guished members of the bar to that effect.
Mr. E. STANLEY said, that if he, as secretary of the treasury,
had brought down two lords for the purpose of defeating this
bill, there could be no doubt his friends had been most negligent
in their attendance, while he himself had been absent from two
of the most important divisions which took place in the com-
mittee. If complaint was to be made at all, it should be of the
course pursued by the noble lord (Sandon) and the right hon.
member for Harwich, wha bad no sort of interest in a possible
connexion with the town of Liverpool, but who had nevertheless
shown the most conspicuous party activity on the occasion.
With respect to the bill itself, he maintained that the rate-pay-
ers presented a most improper constituency for the docks ;
while the interest of the counsel was identical with that of the
town of Liverpool. He hoped the house would at once reject
the bill.

The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there ap-
peared—
Ayes . 173
Noes. l9i
Majority against the bill 24
_ . .

On re-admission reporters found --
Mr. P. THOMSON protesting that he had not voted noon this
bill from any party or political- motives, having looked at the
subject solely in a commercial point of view. Having, as con-
nected in some degree with the commercial concerns of the
country, been consulted upon the subject, his opinion gave, he
believed, decided satisfaction to neither party; but it was de-
cidedly opposed to the decision of the committee. This was
matter too deeply affecting the commercial interests of the
kingdom to be made the subject of party arrangement in a com-
mittee up stairs; and he thought it absolutely necessary that
next session it should be taken up in its proper shape, that the
opinion of parliament should be taken as to the constitution of
this trust, with a view to.placing the docks on a proper footing,
reducing the rate, and taking adequate security for its general
economical and satisfactory administration.

POOR LAW COMMUSIONERS.
Mr. MACLEAN wished to know whether the noble lord could
give any further information relative to the order issued to the
commissioners to prevent paupers attending the parish church
on Sundays?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply to the question, was understood
to say, that on inquiry he found that the commissioners did not
object to the paupers going to church, but to the great incon-
venience and evil arising from a number of paupers leaving the
workhouse on Sunday, who, instead of going to church, spent
their time in public houses, or wandered about the woods and
fields, causing great riot and injuring property. On other days,
they could nut do that, because they could not leave the work-
house without special permission, and that was only granted to
those who were considered worthy of the indulgence. The hon.
member must see that great inconvenience would arise from
hundreds of paupers leaving the workhouses on Sunday, and
that some check was necessary.

~
Mr. MACLEAN thought some further inquiry was necessary,
as it was hard to make the good suffer for the conduct Of the
bad.

Lord JOHN RussELL said any communications on the subject
should he sent to the Board of Commissioners.

The North American Banking Company bill was read a third
time and passed.
A conversation again arose respecting the multiplicity of bu-
siness on the paper, and the impossibility of knowing which
order of the day was likely to be brought forward.
Lord .1. Russ ELL proposed to proceed with the tithes (Ireland)
bill on Friday next; and if Mr. O'Connell's amendment of the
50th clause regarding the appointment of commissioners to apply
any surplus could not then be disposed of, to resume it on the
succeeding Monday. Be now intended to proceed with the
tithes (England) bill; then to take the lords' amendments to
the municipal corporations acts amendment bill ; afterwards the
charitable trusts bill, pluralitiei bill, &c.
The house first again resolved into committee on the tithes
(England) bill, which occupied much of the evening.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the
sugar duties bill was read a second time.
Some other bills were then advanced a stage, and the house
adjounied at a quarter past twelve o'clock.