The Earl of Darnleymoved the Order of the Day for reconsidering the Report of the Committee on this Bill.
The Earl of Darnleymoved, that the Bill be recommitted, in order that further evidence might be obtained, and in making the Motion he begged to state the grounds of it. The parties interested in the Bill were exceedingly anxious to obtain it, and they considered that it would be useful to the public. They had, however, been opposed in the Committee in an unwarrantable manner. Insinuations had been thrown out, that the signature to a petition was a forgery, which was a serious but unfounded charge. A noble Viscount (Viscount Beresford) had attended the Committee, and stated, that his brother, who commanded at Sheerness, objected to the pier, as injurious to the river, though the Corporation of London, which was the Conservator of the river, did not object. On the noble Viscount's statement, though his gallant brother was not examined before the Committee, he had postponed the proceedings, and after they had been postponed, several noble Lords, who had not heard one word of the evidence, came down to the Committee and voted against the Bill. As to the objection made by another noble Viscount (Viscount Strangford) on the score of vested rights on the water, he could only say, that no evidence on that subject was given before the Committee. 400 Considering that the subject had not been fairly dealt with, he moved that the Bill be recommitted.
§ Viscount Beresfordopposed the Motion. He certainly had submitted his brother's letter to the Committee; he had also stated, that Sir George Cockburn concurred in opinion with his brother, and, on these grounds, he conceived further inquiry was necessary. He was still of the same opinion, and begged the noble Earl to allow the matter to lie over for another year.
The Earl of Radnorthought the Report ought to be reconsidered, because the most of the noble Lords who voted in Committee had not heard the evidence. The question was decided against the Bill in Committee, by a majority of seven to six, and he was one of the six. He had heard the greater part of the evidence, but he could assure their Lordships that only one noble Lord of the majority had ever attended the Committee.
§ Viscount Beresfordsaid, that he had read the evidence, and it was upon a consideration of it that his vote in Committee was founded.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, it was sufficient to enable noble Lords to come to a correct conclusion, that they had read the evidence. It was the general custom of their Lordships to sustain the Reports of their Committees, and he, therefore, should oppose the recommitment of the Bill.
§ The Duke of Richmondwould not express any opinion upon the merits of the case, but, under all the circumstances, he thought it best to have the Bill recommitted.
§ Lord Wharncliffewas of the same opinion, and he thought that the dignity of the House would be best consulted by reconsidering a Report upon which any imputation had been cast. It was plain that neither the parties interested nor the public were satisfied with the decision of the Committee.
Lord Teynhamsaid, that he was so convinced by the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), that he should certainly vote for the recommitment of the Bill.
Viscount Strangfordcongratulated the noble Lords opposite, and the noble Duke in particular, on the incalculable importance of the conquest which the noble Duke's eloquence had just achieved. As he had been one of the mutes who had 401 assisted in strangling the noble Earl's Bill when in Committee, and as much personal allusion had been made to him, he begged to say a word as to the share which he had in that transaction. The chief, indeed the only, point on which he had looked to the Committee for information was, as the noble Earl had truly stated, the question concerning vested rights. He was free to confess, that the case of vested rights had not been made out to his satisfaction, and therefore he had withdrawn opposition to the Bill with respect to that ground. But with respect to the general merits of the question it was not necessary for him to attend the Committee at all. He had made up his mind on the subject from the petitions against the Bill which he had presented, with the truth of the allegations contained in which he was perfectly satisfied when he presented them. These petitions had been referred to the Committee, and to the Committee he had gone merely for the purpose of supporting them. He did not object to the noble Earl's Motion from any apprehension as to what the result of a second Committee would be. On the contrary, he was sure that the more the Bill was sifted and examined, the more flagrant and the more cruel would its provisions appear to be as respecting those unfortunate and hard-working individuals whom it would deprive of bread for themselves and families. It was all very well to talk about public convenience and accommodation. It might be very proper that the good citizens of London, when they went down to amuse themselves at Gravesend, should have a comfortable place to land at. It might be proper too that the limbs of the ladies who attended them should not be too rudely exposed to the rough breezes of the Thames. He did not pretend to know at what precise angle of elevation a lady's garments might with propriety he held on leaving a boat; but a very grave personage, the Mayor of Gravesend, was better informed on those matters, and had exhibited to the Committee an interesting diary, representing a lady stepping out of a boat, and all the inconveniences to which she might be exposed. This argumentum ad verecundiam was, after all, the only decent one which he had heard in support of the Bill. Still he thought, that even this protection to modesty would be dearly purchased by throwing several hundred individuals and their families on the parish. He objected to the 402 Motion on account of its principle. He thought it not right, and certainly not usual, that the votes given in Committee by individual Peers should be afterwards dragged before the House, and those Peers pointed out, almost by name. He would, however, waive his objection to the Motion if the noble Earl would, as a man of candour, get up in his place and say, that if the determination of the Committee, instead of being against the Bill, had been for the Bill, and that that determination had been carried by a majority of Peers who had not, regularly attended the Committee, he (the noble Earl) would in that case have equally thought it his duty to impugn that determination on bringing up the Report.
§ Bill to be recommitted.