HC Deb 29 June 1852 vol 122 cc1360-2

Order for Third Reading read (Queen's Consent signified).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."

MR. HUTT

said, he should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read this day month. The promoters of the measure had proceeded in violation of an injunction granted by the Court of Chancery, and the Committee had upset the decision without any sufficient grounds, and saddled the bondholders with the costs of the whole proceedings.

MR. HEADLAM

said, he should support the proposal of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) and beg to second the Amendment. The Bill contained a gross and undoubted violation of a clear undertaking which had been entered into by its promoters. An injunction had been obtained from Vice-Chancellor Parker forbidding those parties from doing what they proposed to do by that measure, and they had subsequently acquiesced in that injunction. He should further observe that there could be no immediate object gained by then reading the Bill a third time, as it could not possibly pass through the House of Lords in the present Session.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

CAPTAIN BOLDERO

said, he was in favour of the Bill. It had received in all its main provisions the unanimous approval of the Select Committee to which it had been referred. He had himself been a Member of that Committee, and he could undertake to say, that he and the Gentlemen who had served with him had bestowed upon the subject the most careful inquiry. The injunction to which the hon. Member who had last addressed the House had referred, was an injunction of the ordinary kind, and had been obtained without an inquiry into the merits of the case. He had further to state, that the injunction had been obtained, not with respect to that part of the Bill which had been retained, but with respect to that part of it which had been struck out.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he would support the Amendment, unless he heard some explanation of the gross breach of good faith on the part of the promoters. Instead of explaining that charge against them, the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Boldero) had made a most serious charge against Vice-Chancel-lor Farker, and said he had granted an injunction, but had never entered into the merits of the case.

MR. WILSON PATTEN

would support the third reading. He never saw an opposition to a Bill conducted in a more dilatory manner. He believed the Committee had done their duty, and had taken the greatest pains to arrive at a just conclusion.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, he must say that this was not a common case, for there was the decision of a Court of Justice that the expenses of the Bill ought not be paid out of certain funds; but a Committee of that House had practically upset the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. He (Sir F. Baring) was one of a Commission who had originally inquired into the merits of the case. The Commission referred the matter to two eminent engineers, and they expressed themselves decidedly against the plan; yet this Bill, founded on this very plan, was pushed forward in the most obstinate and determined manner. He hoped the Government would state their views on the subject.

MR. HENLEY

said, that with regard to the merits of the question, he was not prepared to give the House any opinion either one way or the other. He had given the consent of the Crown in the matter in conformity with the usual practice on such occasions.

MR. CHRISTOPHER

said, that the conservators of the Mersey had not expressed any opinion on the way in which the Bill affected the navigation of that river, though they had recommended a different plan for the docks from that of the promoters.

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS

said, the Bill appeared to come before the House under somewhat peculiar circumstances. The fact was, that a clause had been put into the Bill nullifying and stultifying the decision of one of the ablest of our Equity Judges, who had made an absolute andgene-ral injunction on the subject. It was not fair to pass the Bill until a satisfactory explanation had been given of the mode in which it was attempted to deal with and set aside the injunction of Vice-Chancellor Parker.

MR. J. TOLLEMACHE

said, he would vote for the third reading of the Bill, as he thought it would benefit the trade of the river Mersey.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, the trustees had brought in a Bill contrary to the wishes of the bondholders, in order to set aside the former plan. The trustees had violated an engagement into which they had solemnly entered. Such a breach of honour ought not to be sanctioned by the House.

SIR PHILIP EGERTON

would support the third reading. The parties promoting the Bill were not the trustees. He hoped the House would not reverse the unanimous resolution of the Committee.

MR. HUME

thought the Bill ought to be suffered to lie over until next Session.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 35: Majority 12.

Main Question put, and agreed to;—Bill read 3°, and passed.