§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee that he should state the course which was to be taken in regard to the clauses giving power to the Board of Trade to make arrangements with any public body in regard to the transfer of Ramsgate Harbour. It had been represented that such a power, if taken in this Bill, might have the effect to some extent of prejudging the question, should it afterwards be submitted to Parliament. His own view of such a proposal was that it could only have been carried through after a careful 1408 investigation by a Select Committee. As nothing was farther from his intention than to do anything that would anticipate the opinion of Parliament on this point, he was quite willing to omit the proposal altogether from the Bill. Any company, therefore, wishing to obtain the use of the harbour would have to come to Parliament for such powers as they desired, and Parliament would be free to deal with the application as they might think fit.
§ Clause 7 (Dues levied for Shipping Purposes on Ships or Goods which derive no benefit),
MR. MILLERmoved to add at the end of the clause—
With the exception of the said dues leviable by the Trinity Corporation at the port of Leith, where such dues shall cease to be levied so soon as provision shall have been made, by sufficient accumulated funds, for all annuities, pensions, and obligations which have been lawfully granted, or in which a vested interest, absolute or contingent, has been lawfully created before the 15th day of March, 1861.The hon. Gentleman said, that such great objections had been felt to the manner in which the Trinity Corporation disposed of its funds that the people of Leith resisted payment of the tax by force. The result was that the Corporation was obliged to procure an Act of Parliament, which was granted them for twenty years. That period happening to expire about this time, the community of Leith were anxious that their case should be an exception to the general arrangement which the Board of Trade had made with the Trinity Corporation of the kingdom. The clause was drawn in very liberal terms, and he hoped that it would be agreed to.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he must resist the exception on the ground that an arrangement had been come to with the various Trinity Houses, and the Trinity House at Leith was represented in that arrangement. The Government certainly entered into an agreement with it as well as with the Trinity Houses of Hull and Newcastle. Under these circumstances, it was impossible to make a different proposal with regard to Leith from that which was submitted to the House.
§ MR. BLACKsaid, the proposition of the hon. Member for Leith appeared to him exceedingly reasonable. From the reports upon the subject, it appeared that the Leith Trinity House was entitled to levy a penny per ton upon all goods imported, and it was further stated that the Corpora- 1409 tion was not in debt, and that its property was sufficient for all the charges upon it. Supposing that the funds were properly applied, and that this £2,000 was to be given to the poor mariners, all the poor mariners in the neighbourhood would flock to Leith, and the consequence would be that a large number of paupers would be thrown upon Leith and Edinburgh, whereas by agreeing to this proposal there would be no occasion for the House to provide for anything whatever.
§ MR. DUNLOPsaid, that the very Amendment which was now proposed showed the wisdom of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and he saw no reason for departing from that course.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
MR. LINDSAYurged that the dues should not be allowed to go on increasing, and for the purpose of preventing such increase, he proposed to add at the end of Clause 7 the following words, "but the amount of such dues shall not exceed the amount levied in 1860."
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he could not agree to the introduction of the words, because their insertion would interfere with the general construction of the clause. If there should be a surplus, it was to be applied under the provisions of the clause in payment of such pensions as should subsist after the expiration of ten years.
MR. LINDSAYremarked that if any of the pensions should be payable after the expiration of ten years there was power given in the Bill to make provision for the payment of them.
§ MR. DUNLOPsaid, that if at a future stage of the Bill the hon. Member should bring up a clause to accomplish the object he had in view he should willingly give him support.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would endeavour to prepare a clause, and would submit it to the President of the Board of Trade.
§ The Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 8 and 9.
§ Clause 10 (Compensation for Differential Dues, when to cease),
MR. LINDSAYproposed to omit the words "1872," and insert "1867." By the first Bill it was proposed to give to the 1410 parties who now received differential dues five years' compensation, or in round numbers £250,000. By this Bill the time was extended to ten years, and the amount doubled, so that the parties would receive about £500,000 more over and above the £1,000,000, they had received for compensation since the reciprocity treaties were passed. He could not see any reason why these parties were entitled to receive so large a sum, considering that they had received five times more than they could consider themselves entitled to. When the reciprocity treaties were passed there were about eighty places recipients which had a right to levy those dues. Of these fifty seven had ceased already to receive them. He concluded by moving that "1867" be inserted for "1872."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 9, to leave out the words "seventy-two," in order to insert the words "sixty-seven," instead thereof.
§ MR. HORSFALLdenied that either this Bill or the first one gave the parties who levied the duties one farthing to which they were not entitled. They were entitled to levy the dues in perpetuity under the guarantee of that House, and now they were willing, in accordance with the proposal made by the President of the Board of Trade, to relinquish these dues at the end of ten years, instead of levying them in perpetuity. This was, therefore, no compensation at all. He also denied the accuracy of the statement formerly made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) relative to the Liverpool pilots.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, it was very true that if the dues had been abolished in 1626 the arrangement might have been made at less cost than now; but that no arrangement was made with the owners when the reciprocities came into force was no pretence for confiscating them now. The parties levying the dues had done so under the sanction of Parliament, and in virtue of charters, and they were clearly entitled to full compensation. He questioned whether, in a court of law, compensation for twenty years might not have been obtained instead of ten years. The pilotage dues of Newcastle, to which the hon. Member had referred on a former occasion, went to maintain the pilotage service of various other places, and had been of great public value; so that the people of Newcastle were not open to the charge made against them that they did nothing for the money they received.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSthought that the clause would grant an extravagant compensation.
§ MR. DUNLOPsaid, he was in favour of making a fair arrangement with the parties interested in these dues, though he must admit that they had made a very good thing of it already.
§ LORD LOVAINEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was either wrong in giving compensation at all, or his present proposal was fully justified. He was persuaded that if the right hon. Gentleman had not extended the amount of compensation to a period of ten years, there would have been no chance of passing this Bill this Session. He thought the course taken was a wise one, and he hoped it would be carried out.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, his constituency were only interested in this question as taxpayers, and he should, therefore, support the Bill, as it would relieve several burdens that now pressed very heavily on the shipping trade. If the House delayed the passing of the Bill it would only increase the claim for compensation. The real question for them to decide was, was ten years a sufficient time for that purpose? He thought that it was; and he also thought that the Government deserved great praise for the great consideration that had been given both to taxpayers and tax-receivers.
§ COLONEL FRENCHthought the parties interested had received a million of money already more than they were entitled to. He objected to the way in which the sum now proposed to be given had been doubled since the Bill was first brought in.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURhoped the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) would not press his Amendment, as it was of great importance that the present Bill should pass, and it would be endangered if his Amendment were carried.
§ MR. CLAYthought that the bargain made by the Bill with the Corporations was an advantageous one for the country, and it would, therefore, have his support.
§ MR. BUCHANANthought the question was one of expediency, and he believed the parties concerned had received quite as much as they were entitled to. He thought the proposal of the Government was a most liberal one, and for his part he must express his thanks to the hon. Mem- 1412 ber for Sunderland for having brought forward the question.
MR. LINDSAYshould not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not divide the Committee on this Amendment.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDbelieved that the President of the Board of Trade had substituted Bill No. 2 for Bill No. 1, because he could not resist the pressure brought to bear upon him by the parties interested in these dues. As he believed the refusal of this compromise would endanger the Bill, he was not prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland.
§ Question put, "That the words 'seventy-two' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 28: Majority 100.
§ MR. CAVEproposed to add at the end of Clause 10—
Provided, that in the case of any body of proprietors paying a dividend to shareholders out of the profits made by them, or of any company paying a like dividend, or of any private individual entitled by reason of a private proprietary right, adequate compensation shall be made in such manner as may be determined by arbitration or otherwise.He rose, he said, to advocate the rights of private parties whose interests were affected by the Bill. They were a feeble body, incapable of exercising the pressure upon Government that more powerful corporations could, and, therefore, entitled to a scrupulous measure of justice from that Government. He chiefly advocated the interest of Shoreham Harbour, though he believed there were others in the same category. He might be permitted to say that he had no personal interest in the matter. He was a Commissioner appointed under the Act. The office conferred simply certain duties, and he believed he was discharging one of those duties in protesting against what the proprietors looked upon as a confiscation of their property. Shoreham Harbour was originally made by a body of private individuals who raised money by shares, and by that means constructed, and have since maintained it. They had great difficulties to contend with, as they had to carry on a constant struggle against nature, unassisted by any public money, as in the case of Newhaven. For a long period they paid no dividend, and the sum received as compensation under the Act of Parliament which had been so often referred to had, for that time, gone simply in expenses for 1413 public benefit. He considered that private shareholders in such an undertaking as this were in the same position as creditors of public bodies. They bought their shares as the others lent their money, on the faith of the property which belonged to the company or corporation; and, as the rights of the latter were always saved, so ought the rights of the former. Hon. Gentlemen who spoke on the opposite side proved his case. They said that this compensation ought to have been bought up years ago. That admitted the right; but then they said, because this was not done, we had received more than we were entitled to, and, therefore, ought to have nothing more; but, what sort of justice was that? Supposing the hon. Member for Glasgow had an opportunity of buying up an annuity (with which, he was charged) for five years' purchase, which he refused, thinking the recipient would not live so long, would he have the right to come to him ten years afterwards and say, you have already received the annuity five years longer than you ought, and, therefore, I will pay you no more? Again it was said Committees had always insisted on the surrender of this compensation when the parties holding it came for fresh privileges. Did not that prove that the claim was a valid one, not to be given up without consent? An hon. Member had said this ten years' compensation was the price they had to pay for the Bill. He (Mr. Cave) contended that the surrender of a perpetuity at the end of ten years was the price the Government made other people pay for public good. He agreed that private rights should give way to public, but he thought the principle might be carried a little too far. The right hon. Gentleman had recommended them to recompense themselves by raising the tolls, a recommendation rather inconsistent with the allegation that they had benefited by the tolls having been lowered. He, for one, could not consent to the tolls being raised. Such a measure would drive away the trade to other harbours; and, without benefiting the shareholders, would injure the town of Shoreham and country round, which had as great, though a more indirect, interest in the harbour. He approved generally of the Bill, but he was sorry to see it tarnished with this injustice; and, without prejudging the question, or fixing any amount of compensation, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONtrusted that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. He saw no difference between the case of proprietary harbours and those held by corporations, and he did not see why there should be any distinction in the mode of dealing with them. He thought that ten years' payment from the Consolidated Fund was an adequate payment, and the parties ought to be satisfied with it.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONhoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, and said he could make no difference between public bodies and bodies of private proprietors.
§ MR. CAVE, in reply, said, he wondered at this, because in the Bill as it originally stood this distinction was admitted, as it had been on all previous occasions. However, as he found private interests were so unpopular, he would not make them more so by giving the House the trouble of dividing.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 11 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
§ Clause 17 (Transfer of Ramsgate Harbour to Board of Trade),
MR. MOFFATTsaid, it was proposed in this Bill to transfer the duties and responsibilities of the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour to the Board of Trade. He wished to know what it was proposed to do with the compensation fund to which they would be entitled.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that now that they had abolished passing tolls he was given to believe that the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour desired to be relieved of the duty of looking after the harbour for the future. The funds will be applied to the support of the harbour, and it would be the duty of the Government to manage the harbour in the way best calculated to secure the interests of the public.
§ MR. MITCHELLwas of opinion that the funds of the harbour would be amply sufficient, under proper management to maintain it, without transferring it to a railway company.
MR. MACKINNONsaid, that the transfer of the management of Ramsgate Harbour from the trustees to the Board of Trade would, in his opinion, be of great advantage to the public. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the funds were sufficient to maintain the harbour.
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, that the harbour had cost £2,000,000, when the trustees' own engineer, Sir John Rennie, agreed that it might have been constructed for £700,000, a fact not very complimentary to the trustees, and he (Mr. Liddell) was glad that the harbour was to be withdrawn from their management.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, possibly it could be constructed at the present time for £700,000, but it should be remembered that at the time when the works were erected the same appliances were not then in existence which were now in use.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 18 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 25 struck out.
§ Clause 26 agreed to.
§ Clauses 27 to 30 struck out.
§ Clause 31 agreed to.
§ Clause 32 (Board of Trade may sell Property),
§ In reply to Mr. LIDDELL,
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the object of the clause was merely to enable the Board of Trade to make any charges in the nature of their investments that might seem expedient.
MR. DEEDES AND MR. LINDSAYwere strongly of opinion that the clause required alteration, otherwise the Board of Trade would have power under the clause to transfer the harbour to any company.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that if the clause were passed, he would undertake to remove any possible difficulty.
§ Clause postponed.
§ Clauses 33 to 41 agreed to.
§ Clauses 42, 43, and 44 omitted.
§ Clause 45 (Power to Warden and Assistants to levy Rates),
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONproposed the omission of the clause, in order to insert clauses constituting a new Dover Harbour Board, as follows:—
The said Dover Harbour Board shall consist of seven members, four of whom shall form a quorum; the said seven members shall be the Lord Warden for the time being of the Cinque Ports, who shall ex officio be chairman of the said Board, two burgesses of the borough of Dover, elected by the town council every three years, and to be eligible for re-election, a member to be from time to time appointed by the President of the Board of Trade for the time being, a member to be from time to time appointed by the First Lord of the Admiralty for the time being, a member to be from time to time appointed by the South-Eastern Railway Company under their common seal, and a member to be from time to time appointed by the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, under their common seal; and the said Lord Warden shall from time to 1416 time nominate, under his hand, one of the members of the said Board to be his deputy, to preside at all meetings at which the said Lord Warden shall not be present; and in the event of an equality of votes at any meeting of the said Board, the chairman at such meeting shall be entitled to a casting vote; provided that in the event of either or both of the said railway companies failing or declining to appoint a member of the said Harbour Board within one calendar month after having been required so to do by the President of the Board of Trade, then such president shall, from and after such default, be entitled thereafter to appoint from time to time another member or members in lieu thereof, as the case may be.
§ MR. DEEDEScomplained that the Dover Commissioners had not been consulted with reference to the proposed change in the management of the Dover Harbour. He could not but regard this as a most uncalled for change introduced in a most unusual manner, and in these circumstances he and his brother Commissioners had to consider how they ought to act. The Commissioners had been summoned to meet at Dover to investigate the claims of eighty persons who were candidates for the office of harbour master at Dover. On seeing the change that was contemplated in the constitution of the Board, he thought it his duty to call the attention of his brother Commissioners to that change, and they all felt that pending this change it would be unfair and improper in them to exercise any patronage in regard to the harbour. They communicated their views to the Lord Warden on this subject, and hoped to hear from him some expression of opinion on the subject of the proposed change; but in their interview they failed to elicit from him any opinion on the subject of the constitution of the Board of Management. They had intimated to the Lord Warden that it was their intention to abstain from any act that was not imperatively called for by the interests of the harbour, and that they had only been prevented from placing their resignation in his hands from a fear lest the interests of the harbour should suffer before the present Bill could be passed, and that they thought it their duty to remain in office till their successors could be appointed.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONcould assure the hon. Gentleman that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to show any disrespect or neglect to the Commissioners of Dover Harbour. When the Bill was introduced it was not the intention of the Government 1417 to make such a change in the constitution of Dover Harbour as was now proposed; but the people of Dover, and others interested in the harbour had, through their Member, expressed a strong desire for some change, and the hon. Member for Dover gave notice of an Amendment proposing an alteration in the constitution of the Board. It was not till after consideration that the Government consented to the proposal of the hon. Member for Dover, and it was not possible to have that communication with the Dover Commissioners on the subject which might have been desirable. He could assure his hon. Friend, however, that there was not the slightest intention to show any discourtesy towards them.
§ LORD LOVAINEprotested against the Amendment. It was the first time that the constitution of a Board which had existed for centuries had been changed at the suggestion of a private Member.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that instead of a Board consisting of eight gentlemen not connected with the place it was now proposed that there should be a Board consisting of two members of the Town Council, one appointed by the Board of Trade, one by the Board of Admiralty, and one by the South Eastern and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies, both of which had a very great interest in the proper management of the harbour. He thought, then, that the right hon. Gentleman was only doing a public service by adopting the proposed change.
§ SIR BROOK BRIDGESsaid, that notwithstanding the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had given the Board had a right to complain of the treatment the Assistants had received.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONShad the greatest possible respect for the Assistants in their individual capacity; but he thought the condition of Dover, as compared with. Hastings and the other southern ports, was not such as to render the proposed change undesirable.
§ Clause omitted as was also Clause 46.
§ On the Motion of Mr. SOMERSET BEAUMONT, a clause was inserted giving power to town Corporations to transfer shipping dues to harbour authorities.
§ MR. NICOLmoved clauses providing for a new constitution for the management of the harbour of Dover. The following is the constitution of the new Board:—
The Dover Harbour Board shall consist of seven members, four of whom shall form a quo- 1418 rum; the said seven members shall be the Lord Warden for the time being of the Cinque Ports, who shall ex officio be chairman of the said Beard, two burgesses of the borough of Dover elected by the town council every three years, and to be eligible for re-election, a member to be from time to time appointed by the First Lord of the Admiralty for the time being, a member to be from time to time appointed by the South Eastern Railway Company, under their common seal, and a member to be from time to time appointed by the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, under their common seal; and the said Lord Warden shall from time to time nominate, under his hand, one of the members of the said Board to be his deputy, to preside at all meetings at which the said Lord Warden shall not be present; and in the event of an equality of votes at any meeting of the said Board, the chairman at such meeting shall be entitled to a casting vote; provided that in the event of either or both of the said railway companies failing or declining to appoint a member of the said Harbour Board within one calender month after having been required 80 to do by the President of the Board of Trade, then such President shall, from and after such default, be entitled thereafter to appoint from time to time another member or members in lieu thereof, as the case may be.
§ Mr. DEEDESsaid, there was no adequate provision made for the liquidation of the debts that had been incurred under the sanction of Parliament. He ventured, to say, from the accounts given by the official manager of the harbour, that the mode in which it was expected to pay off the debt was not so simple, or likely to be so successful, as was expected. He was perfectly satisfied that, after the income from passing tolls ceased, great difficulty would be found in meeting the obligations that had been incurred. He believed it would be found that the advantages derived from the establishment of this new Board would not be so satisfactory as seemed to be anticipated.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENdefended the constitution of the new Board, and observed that the new constitution had the unanimous approval of the people of Dover.
§ LORD LOVAINEobserved that it would be useless to discuss the clauses, but he must again protest against the unprecedented step of making such sweeping changes without notice.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENreplied that the notice of the hon. Member (Mr. Nicol) had been on the paper for several days. He had no doubt, from conversations which he had had with gentlemen in the neighbourhood, that the change was most earnestly desired by the inhabitants of Dover.
§ Clauses agreed to.
1419§ Remaining Clauses agreed to.
§ MR. THOMPSONmoved the following clause:—
(Vessels using Whitby Harbour to pay toll for Support of tide lights.) On and after the 1st day of January, 1862, all vessels exceeding ten tons entering or leaving the harbour of Whitby shall pay to the trustees of Whitby Harbour such sum or toll, not exceeding 1d. per ton, as such trustees may from time to time direct to be paid to them, for the support, maintenance, and improvement of the existing or any future tide lights at the entrance of the harbour: provided always, that any vessel which shall have paid such toll on entering the harbour may again leave the harbour without further payment of toll.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported, as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]