SECOND READING. (Hansard, 25 April 1864)

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he did not rise to oppose the Bill, but to say that he had expected some statement would have been made with regard to the provisions of the measure, that those persons who were deeply interested in it might know what ! they were to expect either for their benefit or injury. He believed that some of the clauses, though only those who were au fait in those matters could understand their scope and object, would directly destroy the rights of that excellent class of men the Thames watermen. At present, it was necessary that one of that body should be on every barge that went up or down the river. He apprehended that the Bill would take away the privileges of that body, but as the House usually dealt circumspectly with vested interests, he hoped that his right hon. Friend would agree to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He thought that the watermen were entitled to as much consideration as the proctors, who had compensation awarded to them; and he wished to know whether the Bill would be sent to a 1559 Select Committee, before which the rights of all parties could be gone into?

§ MR. HUTT
observed, that the Bill was one of that description which was known by the term hybrid—that is, it partook of the nature both of a public and also of a private measure. The general course with regard to such Bills, was to send them to a Select Committee, and all parties who supposed themselves aggrieved, or who desired Amendments in the measure, might offer evidence, and be heard by counsel. Subsequently, the clauses would be again considered in a Committee of the Whole House, and every possible care would thus be taken to remedy any grievance which might be thought to exist.

§ MR. ALDERMAN ROSE
said, he wished to draw attention to the fact that the corporation of London was very much interested in the Bill. The Conservancy Act had its origin in a protracted dispute between the corporation and the Crown regarding the right to the bed and soil of the Thames. That dispute was terminated by a compromise, and between £6,000 and £7,000 was paid to the Crown solicitor as part of the arrangement. He, therefore, thought it hard that only seven years after a compromise had been come to upon the subject, they were called upon again to consider the construction of the Conservancy Board. He must also say, that he concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Locke) in reference to the watermen, whom he should be sorry to see suffer by any change; but as they were assured by the right hon. Gentleman that all interests should be fully considered, he should not, at that stage, offer any opposition to the measure.