The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-05-10 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY.

DUBLIN STEAM-PACKETS.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the Dublin Steam-
packet Company for leave to bring in a bill to enlarge the powers
of their act.

Sir M. S. STEWART said that he should resist this proceed-
ing, subject, of course, to the correction of the Speaker as to the
regularity of the proceeding.. A bill had already this session
been brought in on this subject, and thrown out on the third
reading, and on the largest division he had known to take place
this session on a private bill. Now it was proposed to bring in
, another bill. The proceeding he should resist as most irregular,•
except the Speaker informed him that he was in the wrong as
to his impression of its irregularity.
The SPEAKER explained that on a former day a petition had
been presented for leave to present a petition. That petition
had been referred to a committee to ascertain whether sufficient
cause could be shown for the special leave required, the time for
presenting private bills having expired; and that committee
had reported that leave ought to be given to present the petition
as prayed.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that there was not only the leave of
the committee, but that the bill sought to be introduced was not
the same as that which had been thrown out on the third reading.
Sir M. S. STEWART observed that it was on the same subject,
and, till he heard to the contrary, he must deem it the same bill
in the view of the standing orders of the house. That being his
impression, he should resist it in this preliminary stage. He
did so, not from any particular hostility to the bill, but becauie
he deemed the proceeding to be contrary to the principle and
practice of the house regarding private bills.
The SPEAKER repeated that the present petition was in per-
fect accordance with the practice and proceedings of the house.
If, after the time named for bringing in private bills, any pe.ti
tion were presented to bring in a bill, the apptitation being
founded on special circumstances, the petition was referred to a
committee to make its special report, That had been done, and
leave was given by the report of the committee to present this
petition ; the leave given was the act of the committee, not of
the house. It reported that leaae ought to Ze given-to present
the petition.
Sir M. S. STEWARI certainly Mit:light, at feast, notice ought
to have been given of the; intention to present this petition, sti
that the house might have an opportunity of deciding on the
correctness of the proceeding.
Mr. ROBINSON observed that it was important to proceed with
regularity regarding private bills;, but, as there had been a spe-
cia report, he thought there ought not to be objection to the
petition for a bill, and it being requisite to refer that petition to
a committee.

Mr. O'CONNELL said that this proceeding was quite regular,
and that it was in accordance with the frequent practice of the
house. A petition for leave td present this petition had been
presented and reported upon, the committee giving leave to
present this petition. The order for bringing in the bill within
a certain time had been dispensed with, but, according to the
report, on justifiable grounds. So much for the reeularity of
the proceeding. As to the character of the bill, so far from it
being the same bill as the one heretofore rejected' on the third
reading, he begged leave to inform gentlemen that it was not
only not the identical bill, but that it was a measure of a very
different character. It was certainly a bill to enable the com-
pany to increase their capital; but instead of doing so un-
restricted, it did so on unlimited responsibility. (Hear.)
Petition presented, and referred to a committee.
• MARINE \ircSoa•ANcEs.
Mr. RoalNsoN presented petitions from Beaumaris, Carnar-
von, and the underwriters of the city. of London, praying for a
repeal of the stamp duty on marine insurances. The honour-
able member stated, in the couhe of his speech, that the pro-
duce of the existing duty did not exceed £200,000. Formerly
when the exports amounted to £88,000,000, the produce of the
marine insurance duty was £3OO,(XX). Since that period the
exports had increased from 88 to 120 millions, while the amount
of this duty showed an inverse ratio, for it was reduced to
£200,000. Petitions ordered to be laid on the table. Stone
other petitions were then presented, and the house was counted
out at about five o'clock.