§ On the Motion of the Earl of Stradbroke, this Bill was read a third time.
The Marquess of Salisburyfelt it necessary to state, that in this case gross fraud, almost amounting to perjury, had been committed by the supporters of the Bill. There had been already a Liverpool Dock Bill passed, so that no inconvenience 779 would result from the rejection of this measure. The complaint he had to make was, in substance, that whereas it had been agreed on between the agents for the Bill, and for an opposing body (the shipowners of Liverpool) to insert certain Clauses, these Clauses had been materially altered without the knowledge of that body, who only became acquainted with the fact through accident, when it was alleged by the agents for the Bill upon oath, that they had known of it, and that the Admiralty had compelled the alteration of the Clauses, the former of which statements was declared false by the agents for the shipowners and the other allegations was equally denied by the Admiralty.
The Marquess of Salisburythen proceeded to propose that a Clause be inserted, securing to the shipowners what had been originally agreed upon. The coasting trade, the only other interest affected, would not (he could state) oppose the Clause; but, even should it lead to the entire defeat of the Bill, it would be only a just punishment on its supporters for the deceptive course they had adopted.
Lord Brougham, in the name of justice itself, protested against the accusation of perjury, so cruelly urged against a professional man in a place where he could not be heard.
Lord Broughamwould rather meet the heavier charge then. The facts alleged only amounted to this — that what the agent for the Bill had stated, had been contradicted by another witness on one point; and who could venture to say which of them spoke the truth? As to the answer of the Admiralty, why, it confirmed the statement of the agent for the Bill, which was only that "the Admiralty had not objected to the Bill," as how could they, if they had not heard of it? Now, he knew nothing of the merits of the subject. All he knew was, that the gentleman accused had been introduced to him that morning by Mr. Wilberforce, who knew him well, as a man of high character: and he certainly should not thus be attacked without any greater ground than had been stated by a noble Marquess evidently inflamed with zeal on the opposite side.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, the agent for the Bill had written that the Admiralty had "insisted" on the insertion of the Clauses as they stood. Was not that statement utterly falsified by the answer of the Admiralty, that they had not heard at all of the Bill?
§ Lord Monteaglesaid, the Bill was in itself an important one, and deserved the best attention of the House. The Committee had heard counsel upon all the Clauses of the Bill, and had given their opinion upon it. The object of the measure was to extend the dock monopoly of Liverpool, for the benefit of the county generally, and especially of the trade with Ireland. If the large revenues of the Liverpool monopoly were applied to defeat this Bill, they would be abused. It was a question of a public grievance. The Clause complained of, was not a Clause drawn up by the promoters of the Bill for their own advantage, but had been recommended by the Admiralty.
The Earl of Haddingtonagreed with the noble Lord in respect to the importance of the Bill, which, in the opinion of the Admiralty, was a good and useful Bill. It was the duty of the Admiralty, when such a Bill was brought before Parliament, to see that the shores and coasts were not interfered with, and that the navigation should not be injured; and he believed that the navigation of the Mersey would not be injured by it. He had looked at all the Clauses of the Bill in respect to the coasting trade. If the seven days had been part of the Clause the Admiralty, as far as he knew, would not have objected to it. He thought that the gentleman alluded to had been borne rather hard upon; but, except so far as concerned the public interests, the Admiralty had had nothing to do with the matter.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, although he could not withhold that confidence which the House always placed in their Committees from the Committee in this case, yet it was a Bill of such importance, affecting the public interests, that their Lordships ought to endeavour to form a judgment for themselves; and, having inquired into the case, he gave his hearty concurrence in the decision of the Committee. It appeared to him, that no interest, and certainly not the coasting trade, was affected by any alteration made in the Bill; the trade was not only not in- 781 jured, but was advanced and improved by it. He should vote for the Bill as it stood.
The Earl of Stradbrokecomplained of the remarks which had been made by the noble Marquess upon a Gentleman who was not present to defend himself, and which were not borne out by the documents, if fairly read.
The Marquess of Salisburyvindicated his construction of the document. He was ready to go into evidence at the Bar, but he would not persevere against the opinion of their Lordships.
§ The question was then put and carried in the affirmative, and the Bill passed.