HC Deb 28 May 1830 vol 24 cc1192-3

Mr. C. Wynn moved the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Petition of Jacob Dickson, the Provost of Dumbarton, relative to the decision of the Committee on this Bill.

Mr. Home Drummond

stated, that this Petition was for the appointment of a second committee to hear an appeal against the decision of the first. He objected to the proposition because both those who had to receive and those who had to pay the sums of money directed by that committee were satisfied with its decision; and the only opposition proceeded from the petitioner. That person had long ruled the Corporation of Dumbarton, which had no just claim to any compensation; and now wished to get compensation, and to have that money paid to the creditors of the Corporation, of whom he himself was the most important.

Sir J. Graham

argued, that it was never intended that the appeal committee, when appointed, should try questions of this sort de novo, and he referred to what had passed upon the subject during the debate, when the Standing Order for a Committee of Appeal was made.

Sir R. Inglis

contended, that the resolution of the House would not bear the construction put upon it by the hon. Baronet, and that all that was required for the appointment of an appeal committee was the making out of a prima facie case.

Mr. William Dundas

begged the House to pause before it opened the door to unnecessary appeals, for the sake of vexation and delay. He opposed the application.

Mr. Sykes

observed, that the House could not be too cautious in granting the prayers of petitions of this sort. He verily believed that substantial justice had been done by the committee, and he was sure that every member of the committee was anxious only to do justice. He should not oppose the appointment of the committee of appeal, because the original committee had trenched on the province of a jury. Having been a member of the original committee, he should not vote.

Mr. Kennedy

believed that the inhabitants of Dumbarton were entirely satisfied with the decision of the committee, but nevertheless, he wished the appeal to be allowed.

Sir F. Freemantle

thought that sufficient grounds had been laid for the appointment of a committee of appeal, on two grounds, first, that the original committee had given compensation to the extent of 16,000l., without due inquiry; secondly, that the lords of the manor were taken by surprise on the question of compensation.

Mr. John Campbell

was of opinion that the first committee had exceeded its powers, and that the appeal ought to be allowed.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

replied, and insisted that the present was exactly the case contemplated in the Standing Order. Substantial justice might have been done, but the parties were, and had reason to be, dissatisfied.

The House then divided:—Ayes (for the Appeal) 24; Noes 17—Majority 7.

Forward to