The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-05-11 00:00:00

tip in the conduct of their Representatives or the
house, for the sake of their own weight and con-
sequence in tbe State, ought to be exercised as
purely and distinctly as their franchise was exer-
cised in giving their votes for electing a Member
of Parliament, and that • those who fur private
purposes called in persons who bad no vote to
mix in the deliberations of those who had a vote,
destroyerfor lessened the consequence of the real
electots, and wished to govern by a mob. The
separation did not deprive those who had no tote
of the right to petition, or lessen it. With the
greatest possible respect to the Petitioners; be was
bound by his Constitutional duty as a Mem-
ber of this deliberative Assembly, to suspend any
opinion upon the important subjects to which it
alluded, until after he had heard them debated.—
&Ting, therefore, to himself, such opinion as he
Was bound to form and act upou, after hearing all
the arguments that could be urged upon any pros
position that might be offered for the public good,
be was happy to second the motion fur receiving
the petition offered by his Hon. Colleague.
The Petition was accordingly brought up, and
ordered to lie On the Table.
The Order of the Day being read for the third
*Airs g of the London Deck Bill,
Mr. H. THORNTON rose, and said, that the
former Bill passed under an express clause of ma.
king reasonable compensation to all persons suse
tainieg injury from the building of. those Ducks;
knd he %sits himself one of the Committee appointed
to investigate claims, and to settle compensations.
-But he was sorry to observe that a great number
of persons, who had suffered losses in their pro-
petty and interest by the formation of thosedocks,
so tar from being compensated, were totally ruin.
ed. lie thought there never was a case to which
justice more strongly attached • the principle of
compensation. He understood !barite application
had been made upon the subject to his Majesty's
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, be under-
stood, had not yet had time to make up his mind
on the subject. lie hoped that Right Hon. Gen-
tleman 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 corn.

pcnsation.
'rho 4iIANCELLOR of the EXCUEQUPt
said, he should have no objection to defer the
; hut the subject of compensation was one so
complicated, that it would be quite impossible for
bi'', consistently with the various avocations of
his public duty, to form any opinion upon it in
so short a lime.

Sir T. TURNON said, there never was a greater
mistake thaw that of the Chancellor of the Ea.
chequer on this subject. It hail beets stated that
750,0001. had been applied for over and above the
original grant ; but the fact was, it was 906,0001.
and would be the total ruin of all the wharfingcrs
and warehousemen on the river. The Right Hon.

Gent!emit' was, from his situation, bound to pro-
tect the public from mischief arising from' honest
and industrious indivi►laali being crushed by the
power of great public bodies, who expended such
large sums more than they first applied to Parlia.
meat for to gratify that cruel propensity. life was,
therefore, fur postponing the third reading to
unday.
Mr. M MIRY ATT thought the Bill ought to
pass withimulelay. .
Mr. ROSE spoke very shortly, but in so low
a t.►nc•we could not tell whether it was in favour
of the third reading or postponement.
Mr. uITBREA D was decidedly in favour of
delay. Ho said he held documents in his hand
ss Web clearly showed the Duck Company had been
guilty of the grossest partiality and tyranny, in-
somuch that several Merchants 114 brought ac-
tions against
_them for having acted directly in
breach of the Act of Parliament 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 7501.
If these things were true, this Bill ought sot only
to be dekyed, hut should not be suffered to pass
at all. Another Bill ought to be brought in, that
the London Dock Company might clear themselves
from these charges. _ _ _

Mr. MANNING said, he hall taken great
pains tl ascertain the truth of these charges, and
the parties denied them.
Mr. W. SMITH corroborated the statement

made by Mr. Whitbread, as to the actions brought
against the London D.,ck Company. In one of
these actions it was agreed in Court that a small
sum should be taken as damages, and that a taro'
fitivilid be settled by three Barristers. AftCr the
verdict was .given, and the tariff settled under the
authority of. the Court, the Company refn:cil 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, under pretence (hat
it was root a praspoetive, -bus a retrospective regu-
lation. He was, therefore) clearly of opinion
that the third reading should Ire postponed.
Sir C. ANATCHBULL said a few words on"
the same side.
Mr. I. H. BROWNE said, he taw no reason
why the Bill should be delayed.
Mr. WHITBREAD said, that when this.ques-
tion was disposed of, he should move, that instead
of Monday', the third reading should be post_
potted to Monday se'nnight.
Mr. N. MOORE spoke on the samcsitle.
After a few words from Mr. Whitbread and Mr
Jacob, the (louse divided—
for the Motion,
Agaiust it, -
Majority - • 8
• The Bill was then read a third time; and
passed.

95.
27

.0.

SIR 1•'. 110i1DV,TT.
The SPEAKER, informed the House, that he
hail been served with a proet;ss by Sir F. Burdett,
which, if it was the pleasure of the House, the'
Clerk should read.
The Clerk then read the process of nolicC upon
de speaker, laying the damages at 30,0001.
On the, motion of the Chancellor of tile' Ezche•
suer, the process was referred to the Committee
for taking the proceedings rotative to Sir F. Bur.
deft tato masideration.