The Earl of Darnleybrought up the Report of the Committee on the Gravesend Bill. He regretted that the Bill had met with a similar fate, since its re-committal, as it had before. He must, however, complain of the conduct of noble Peers, in voting against the Bill, without hearing the evidence, from a mere perusal of it, and also that many noble Lords had attended at different periods of the Committee, who were in favour of the Bill, and yet who did not attend to vote. If the votes of each individual Peer who attended the Committee on its different days of sitting, had been registered, there would have been for the Bill fifty-five, and against it only twelve. On the first branch of his complaint, he alluded particularly to a noble and learned Lord, whom he saw opposite. He presumed that the next thing the noble and learned Lord did, would be, to bring in a Bill to enable Juries to give their verdicts on a mere perusal of written testimony, instead of hearing the examination of the witnesses. He was quite sure that noble Lords could not be aware of the great injury which they had inflicted on the town of Gravesend by throwing out the Bill. He was but a young Member of their Lordships' House, but he certainly did not expect to find, that business was settled in the Committees of that House above-stairs in the manner in which he found it to be.
§ Lord Wynfordhad been so distinctly alluded to, that he could not help rising. He, however, was not one of those who had depended entirely on a perusal of the evidence, for he had attended the Committee two days, and examined and cross-examined the witnesses; but he certainly declined to give his vote until he had made himself a perfect master of the evidence, which he could do only by perusing it. He certainly should not think of bringing in a Bill to enable Juries to decide on written testimony, because a Jury sat only for a few hours; but a Committee sat for a long time, and it was not reasonable to expect noble Lords to attend the business of a Committee, day after day, 1269 without intermission. And it appeared to him, that this Committee was formed principally for the purpose of bearing down poor men, who were nearly ruined by the length of time which had been spent by the Committee in discussing this question. It was said that the town of Gravesend would be ruined unless the Bill were passed; why, he asked, how had it existed ever since it had been built, up to the present time? And, even if it were so, he would say, that it was better the town of Gravesend should be ruined, than that the Bill should pass; for it could not pass without exposing the lives of his Majesty's subjects to imminent danger. It might put money into the pockets of a few tradesmen and others in the town; but it would send a number of poor and industrious people to the parish. This was clearly proved by the evidence, and he had only done his duty by giving his conscientious vote against the Bill.
The Marquess of Salisburytook a similar view of the case with the noble and learned Lord; and the noble Earl opposite must remember, that an adjournment was moved in the Committee, for the express purpose of giving the noble and learned Lord time to consider the evidence. He protested against the doctrine that they ought not to vote upon written evidence. The re-committal of the Bill had been a severe oppression upon the labouring classes who were interested in opposing it, many of whom had sacrificed five days out of the week to attend the Committee.
§ Lord Bexleythought that, after the expense to which the parties had been already put, this matter ought to be decided upon without further delay.
§ Lord Wharncliffehoped that the House would not consent to throw any slur on the majority in the Committee on this Bill who were opposed to it. He, for one, should be exceedingly sorry if the doctrine were to go forth, that because any Peer who was on a Committee had not attended during the whole of that Committee, he was not entitled to vote upon the bill they were considering. How often was it that the Committee on a bill lasted for ten days, or even for two or three weeks, and was it to be made imperative on all who were opposed to such a bill to attend the Committee every day it sat? The evidence in the case of the Gravesend Pier Bill had been printed, and he was 1270 of opinion, that any noble Lord who made himself master of that evidence was as well entitled to vote as any other, and he thought that great good was often done by such votes. He knew many cases in the House of Commons, as the noble Lord near him would also testify, where persons who had not attended Committees on bills, but who had made themselves acquainted with the evidence before those Committees, had voted on bills, and those votes had proved to be of the greatest importance. The Bill had already received so much consideration from their Lordships, that he thought it could not, with any advantage, be re-considered now that the proceedings on it were closed.
Viscount Strangfordsaid, that he went to Gravesend for the express purpose of ascertaining and examining the facts of the case, before he gave his vote on the Pier Bill, and for the purpose of judging, from what he there saw, of the cause of so great a difference of opinion on the Bill. Having taken that trouble, he certainly considered himself as well entitled to give his vote as any noble Lord who had stayed at home at ease. He certainly would admit, that the pier would be a great convenience to the steam-boat passengers, and that a large proportion of the inhabitants of Gravesend were favourable to the Bill; but it was admitted on all hands, that the convenience could only be purchased by the entire ruin of the watermen, and he must say, he did not feel prepared, when called upon to give his vote on the Bill, to pass a measure which would sentence to destruction so large a portion of the industrious classes of Gravesend. One argument in favour of the Bill was, the safety to the passengers from the pier, but, on inquiring into the number of accidents which had happened by the present mode of landing them by boats, he could only find one within the last six years, and that was a jovial gentleman who, on going off in a boat after dinner, had suffered that fate from which their Lordships' House had had so narrow an escape recently, that, namely, of being swamped. He considered that he was pretty sure of being correct, when he acted on the opinion of such men as Sir George Cockburn, Sir Byam Martin, and Captain Bullock. He understood that it had been necessary to remove an obstruction of rubbish which had existed at Woolwich, although the removal was 1271 attended with an expense of 150,000l. Their Lordships might judge, when that collection of rubbish had formed so material an obstruction, what would be the effect of an obstruction such as this Pier would be. It was averred at Gravesend, also, that the watermen were living on short allowance, for the purpose of saving money to enable them to support the expenses of opposing this Bill. The parties who promoted it were 7,000l. in debt, and, by way of paying that debt, they had come to their Lordships' House and asked them to pass this Bill.
The Earl of Darnleyadmitted, that the noble Viscount had represented the case of the watermen of Gravesend very fairly, as constituting the main feature of the objections to the Pier Bill. He was not disposed to press for the recommittal of the Bill, having simply discharged his duty, as Chairman of the Committee, by bringing up the Report.
§ Report ordered to lie on the Table.