SECOND READING. (Hansard, 18 July 1882)

HC Deb 18 July 1882 vol 272 cc873-87 873

§ Order for Second Reading read.

§ MR. FRESHFIELD
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he felt the House would not tolerate him in addressing them at any great length on the subject of this Bill, nor should he excuse himself if he wasted a moment of the time of the House in any unnecessary observations. He felt it, however, somewhat difficult to determine exactly to what amount of statement he should confine himself. The only Petition against this Bill had been withdrawn, and the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Cohen) had waived his opposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Colleague (Mr. Thorold Rogers), however, had put a Motion on the Paper stating some objection to the Bill. One of the grounds of his opposition had been supported by the authorities of the House, who had directed the withdrawal of the clause which proposed to transfer the Harbour Works at Dover to the Harbour Board. As to the other objection which he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) raised—namely, that to the constitution of the Harbour Board—he (Mr. Freshfield) believed the hon. Member had been satisfied that the Board to which the Harbour was transferred in 1865 was a Board constituted by Act of Parliament, especially with a view to receive the charge of the Harbour Works, and it was acting in that capacity already. But the hon. Member's reference to the lateness of the period at which this Bill was brought forward seemed to require some notice. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) also had 874 a Notice of opposition on the Paper. That hon. and gallant Gentleman was a severe critic upon measures of this sort. He (Mr. Freshfield) did not quite understand his objections; but he feared that he should not be able to remove them. He did not, however, think that his hon. and gallant Friend would divide the House upon the subject on the second reading. Upon the whole, he thought it would be his duty to offer a short statement upon the measure and its history. Perhaps he might content himself with stating that the scheme contained in the Bill was practically identical with the design contemplated in the Bill brought forward by the Harbour Board in 1874, and the Government in 1875. But the House might expect a little further information from him upon the proceedings which had taken place on this subject. Now, the first measures to which he need refer took place in 1836 and 1839, when, firstly, a Select Committee, and, secondly, a Royal Commission, were appointed to take evidence on the general question of harbours of refuge on the South Coast. These authorities recommended a harbour in the neighbourhood of Dover. In 1843 a Select Committee of this House was appointed "to inquire into the subject of shipwrecks." The proceedings of that Committee were important, because the Duke of Wellington, as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, gave evidence on the subject. To that evidence he should like to refer, but considerations of time did not permit it; and he would, therefore, only give a single answer of His Grace to the question put to him, whether it was not expedient to construct a harbour of refuge between Portsmouth and the Downs. His Grace's answer was—"I think it is so desirable, as to be, in fact, absolutely necessary." In 1844 Sir Robert Peel, as First Lord of the Treasury, followed up the proceedings of that Committee, and, by a Treasury Minute, recommended the appointment of a Royal Commission to enable, as he stated, Her Majesty's Government to form a final and satisfactory judgment, and to inquire into the most eligible site for a harbour of refuge in the Channel. Firstly, where it should be easy of access; secondly, where it should form a station for armed vessels for the purpose of offence and defence; and, thirdly, be 875 capable of its own defence. The Report of that Commission, dated the 7th of August, 1844, gave preference to Dover as the place which, "with a harbour of refuge, would establish a military and naval station." Sir Robert Peel, who never did things by halves, referred that Report to the Departments, with a view to the preparation of designs and plans. The question was accordingly submitted to officers of both Services, and to civil engineers, including Mr. James Walker and Mr. Rennie. They recommended the formation of a harbour at Dover, which should inclose about 520 acres of water, and they recommended that the eastern pier, now known as the Admiralty Pier, should be commenced forthwith. Accordingly, in 1847, the Admiralty Pier was commenced. In the years 1861 and 1865 two Acts of Parliament were passed in reference to the general subject, the one abolishing the passing tolls, and the other vesting the Dover Harbour with others in the Board of Trade. The Admiralty Pier took many years to construct; but as it progressed it was found to be of great advantage in facilitating the postal and other communications with the Continent. Being, however, a single arm running south, it was only partially effective for the purposes proposed, the shipping using it being open to winds from the east and from the west. Before the year 1873 the Admiralty Pier was substantially completed, and a correspondence then ensued between the Government and the Harbour Board, which resulted in the Government determining to complete the eastern pier with the breakwater, and thus to form an inclosed harbour, and a Vote was taken in that House for a grant of £10,000 on account of preliminary expenditure. In the year 1874, the Harbour Board brought in a Bill for completing the harbour on this principle. By the arrangement then made, the Government was to provide a considerable proportion of the funds necessary for the works, and the Harbour Board took power in the Bill to levy tolls and dues. At this time the Government of Mr. Gladstone had been superseded by the Government of Lord Beaconsfield, and when the Bill of the Harbour Board had passed certain stages, the Government requested them to withdraw their Bill on an understanding that they them- 876 selves would take up the scheme. The Harbour Board had, of course, no other object in view but the construction of the Pier, and on payment of their expenses by the Government they withdrew their Bill. In the following year, 1875, in pursuance of this understanding, the Government introduced a Bill for the purpose of undertaking the works which were substantially identical with those proposed in the Bill of the Harbour Board. This Bill, on being read a second time, was referred to a Select Committee, who were specially instructed to report on the advantages that the proposed harbour would afford to the defences of the country, and for the purpose of refuge and Channel communication. The Committee was very ably and influentially composed, numerous witnesses were examined under it, among the rest the Duke of Cambridge, Colonel Nugent, Colonel Collinson, Admiral Sir Alexander Milne, Sir John Hawkshaw, and Mr. W. H. Smith, then First Lord of the Admiralty. That Committee made its Report on the 1st June, 1875. He would like much to read the Report, but it would take too much time. He would content himself with saying that the Report was entirely in favour of the scheme originally proposed by the Harbour Board, and subsequently taken up by the Government for the completion of the harbour at Dover, both on strategical and on general grounds. The Government having received the Report, however, did not proceed with the Bill; and in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords Questions were put to the Government as to their intentions in regard to it. In the House of Commons, in answer to a Question put by him (Mr. Freshfield) on the 13th July 1875, the Government stated, through the present Lord Norton (then Sir Charles Adderley), President of the Board of Trade, that, in consequence of the works they had in hand, the Government were unable to proceed with the Bill that Session, and a like answer was given by the Duke of Richmond to Lord Granville in the House of Lords. Subsequently, Questions were put to the Government by himself to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were answered in a similar strain; and the result was that, in consequence 877 of the expenditure of the country in foreign wars and other complications, no further proceedings were taken during the Government of Lord Beaconsfield. In 1880 the present Government, as the House knew, came into Office; but, as was well known to the House, its time had been so exclusively occupied by Irish affairs that no attention could be given to such a subject as a harbour at Dover. Towards the latter end of last year, however, it was understood that the works at Portland, which had been carried on for many years by convicts to the number of some 2,000, had nearly come to a close, and it would be necessary to find employment for these convicts. In that state of things the Harbour Board and the Corporation of Dover put themselves in communication with the Government, who appointed a Committee to consider the subject. The proposal, on the part of Dover, to employ these convicts on the harbour works was considered with others, and within the last few weeks it was understood that the Government were favourable to this appropriation of convict labour. During the interval since the withdrawal of the Government Bill, works had been in progress at Calais for the completion of a deep-water harbour there. The two Railway Companies—the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, and the South-Eastern Railway Company—who had been opponents of the original scheme, had, in consequence of these works, and on other grounds, come to the conclusion to build and employ larger vessels, and within the last few weeks these two Railway Companies had come to an understanding with the Harbour Board. The matter, therefore, at the present time, stood thus. The Dover Harbour Board had power to raise £500,000. The Railway Companies had agreed to find £150,000 each towards the construction of the harbour. The cost of the harbour was estimated at about the sum of £800,000. The funds, therefore, were forthcoming without any assistance from the Government, and it was in that state of circumstances that this Bill was brought in, all parties considering that no further time should be lost in completing the scheme. The deep-water harbour at Calais was expected to be completed in about two years. It was felt that there ought not 878 to be any delay in carrying out the corresponding works at Dover. It was felt—and he hoped the House would feel—that the opportunity had now come for completing a scheme which had been under consideration for so many years, and which the changes in the circumstances had rendered so increasingly urgent. The harbour contemplated under the Government of the present Prime Minister, and subsequently taken up by the Government of the late Lord Beaconsfield, and recommended by so many authorities after so many inquiries, could now be undertaken without drawing the purse-strings of the country. He could not believe that the House would offer any opposition to the proposal. He had said that the opposition of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was not withdrawn; but he could not help hoping that he would not persevere with it after the explanation he (Mr. Freshfield) had given of the circumstances under which this Bill was now brought forward; and with regard to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), though he was firm and uncompromising in any position which he took up, he did not think that he would be disposed to divide the House against the Bill. With those few observations he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Freshfield.)

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
, in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, in 1875 this Bill was brought for ward, having been mooted in the House of Commons in 1873. The Government, in that year, moved a grant of £10,000, which was passed in the hours of 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning. On the Report, his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) moved its rejection, and, on the division, it was only carried by a majority of 1. If the facts had been fully known, the vote given by himself would have been in opposition and the grant refused. That narrow majority, however, deterred the Government of that day from proceeding with the measure. The Government that succeeded thought it necessary to proceed with the measure, and in 1875 the House of 879 Commons, on his Motion, came to a Resolution to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) had, in a brief form, narrated the circumstances connected with the proposal to construct this harbour. His hon. Friend had said that various inquiries had been held in reference to the Dover Harbour; and he (General Sir George Balfour), in a draft Report which he drew up for the Committee in 1875, detailed the inquiries which had been held on the subject. He enumerated no less than nine or ten inquiries within the last 50 years as to whether there should be a harbour in the neighbourhood of Dover; and the 1875 Committee practically rejected the Bill for this Dover Harbour, by criticizing and indicating such serious defects in the plan and estimate as to render the proposal useless. Whilst admitting with his hon. Friend that it was of great importance that a harbour should be constructed somewhere between Portsmouth and the Downs, he denied that Dover was the best spot. He agreed with many high authorities that Dungeness would be a better site for a harbour, because at this point there was a tine bay and a much more extended area. He doubted very much whether such a harbour as was contemplated could be constructed for the sum of money suggested. Indeed, he believed that five times the sum and five times the area would be wholly insufficient for forming a harbour fit for the general and extended use needed.

§ Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is not desirable to proceed with this Private Harbour Bill until Government have made known their final decision,—about the formation in Dover Bay of the long contemplated Public, Military, and Naval Harbour,—as to their intentions about granting, in aid of the proposed private work, money grants, loans, subsidies, and tolls,—the use of convict labour, materials, lands, shores, and the use of the Admiralty Pier; also, to what inquiry the proposed work will be subjected, as to the sufficiency of the named capital and works to form and complete a private harbour which will fulfil the conditions set forth in the Petition of the promoters of this undertaking,"—(General Sir George Balfour,) —instead thereof.

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

880

MAJOR DICKSON
said, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had opposed the Bill on account of the grant of public money he could have understood his opposition; but, as it was, he was at a loss to understand why the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to prevent Dover having a harbour which the people thought was necessary for the prosperity of their town. He could assure the House that a large majority—indeed, the whole of the inhabitants of Dover—were anxious to have this harbour constructed; and they hailed with pleasure the fact that now, for the first time, the Harbour Board and the two Railway Companies were unanimous in their desire and determination to carry the work out if possible. He therefore hoped the House of Commons would not stand between Dover and the object desired simply because a Gentleman from Scotland thought proper to state that the harbour could not be constructed for the sum of money which was mentioned in the Bill. His hon. and gallant Friend belonged to a Profession more suited to destroy than to build up; and while he had said the sum of money mentioned in the Bill was totally inadequate for the purpose proposed, he had not backed his opinion by one single argument. He (Major Dickson) might inform the House that the promoters of the Bill were advised by many most able members of the Engineering Profession that it was perfectly practicable to construct a harbour such as was contemplated for the sum mentioned. He trusted the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS
said, he had on the Paper the following Amendment:— That, considering the large amount of public money (£734,388) expended on Dover Harbour between the years 1848 and 1875, and that a Private Bill, entitled the Dover Harbour Bill, has been brought very late in the Session into this House, which Bill proposes to vest the Admiralty Pier at Dover in the Harbour Board of that port, it is inexpedient to proceed with this Bill at so late a period of the Session, especially considering the constitution of the Harbour Board. When he looked through the Bill he found it contained a proposition that the Admiralty Pier, on which he believed something like £1,000,000 of public money had been spent, should be handed over to the Dover Harbour 881 Board; and that was originally the ground on which he objected to the Bill. He had been informed privately, and also publicly, by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield), who introduced the Bill, that this proposition had been withdrawn; but he submitted it was a considerable wrong to independent Members of the House that private arrangements should be made between the promoters of Bills and public bodies as to the withdrawal of portions of Bills. If hon. Members took the trouble to go through Bills, it was but reasonable that Notice should be put on the Paper if any particular portions of the Bill were withdrawn. He admitted that he thought the withdrawal of the clause in this Bill respecting the Admiralty Pier had removed his objection; but when he looked more minutely into the Bill he found his objection was not entirely removed. He found that Dover Harbour had been the subject of 20 or more Acts which had been carried through that House as Public Acts. These Acts dated as far back as the Reign of George IV.; and now this ancient harbour was to be handed over to three private Companies—the Harbour Board, the South-Eastern Railway Company, and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company.

§ MR. FRESHFIELD
said, the harbour was managed by the Harbour Board under powers conferred by Act of Parliament.

§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS
said, he did not suppose the two Railway Companies would engage in the undertaking without having some consideration for the money they laid out and some control over the harbour. His contention was that it was not to the public interest that a public harbour should be handed over to two Railway Companies and a Harbour Board. He regarded the present Bill with some alarm, for he knew that at the head of one of the Railway Companies was the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), and they never knew what would become of anything the hon. Baronet took in hand. His hon. Friend was engaged in a project very close to Dover for the purpose of connecting England with France.

§ SIR EDWARD WATKIN
rose to Order. The Channel Tunnel had nothing whatever to do with the Dover Harbour.

882

§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS
said, he only desired to point out that as the Dover Harbour was very near to the site of the Channel Tunnel the management of the two undertakings would be in the same hands. The Railway Companies would never allow a great portion of their funds to be embarked in the harbour unless they had some control over the harbour, and that was a matter of very grave concern. Very large and comprehensive powers were to be put in the hands of persons whose actions in future required to be watched. Only one word more. It was perfectly true the Harbour Board was a reformed Board; but it was in no proper sense a representative body. It was simply a body of nominees. It was a less representative body than the Harbour Board of Belfast, the constitution of which they had just had under consideration. It was a great deal to ask the House that such large powers as were now proposed should be handed over to the Harbour Board and the Railway Companies who were promoting the Bill. He did not think it wise that the House should surrender an ancient harbour to private Companies; and, therefore, if his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) went to a division, he should certainly vote with him.

§ SIR EDWARD WATKIN
said, this question had nothing to do with the Channel Tunnel, of which the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had spoken. This proposal was in the nature of a public improvement. As an old promoter of public works, he was bound to admit that most proposals like the present were attacked in the manner adopted by the hon. Member for Southwark. This was a proposal to do that which Parliament had, over and over again, sanctioned in one way and another; it was one which ought to have been made by the Government long ago. Private interests had again been introduced; in short, some hon. Gentlemen could not see that great military advantages could not be given as a matter of private profit, but must have the assistance of the Government. What were the facts? On the other side of the Channel there were works going on between Cherbourg and Dunkirk inclusive, amounting to 3,000 or 4,000 acres, and at Calais and at Boulogne increased deep-water harbour and dock space of 883 more than 1,000 acres in area was being provided. The French Government had voted since 1879 no less than £6,900,000 for the improvement and extension of the harbours opposite Dover, and it was for the English people to consider whether we should give any answer to that enormous extension of French harbours—good for peace and war—which was now taking place. What was the only answer that was being given to the French works? The only answer at present was the construction of a small deepwater space by friends of his at Folkestone. It was now proposed at Dover, with the consent of the Board of Trade and of the Government, and with the co-operation of every interest, to inclose 600 acres of deep-water space, which would be something like an answer to what had been done at Calais and Boulogne. Surely, the proposal was not one which should be ridiculed, and he hoped the House would take that view of the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) had admitted that the best place for a stone harbour was Dungeness; but surely it was not a question of one harbour, when there were 12 on the other side of the Channel? Big ships were now the order of the day; big ships required deep water, and England could not keep her commerce unless she enlarged her harbours. This was a step in the right direction, and he hoped the House would give to it its sanction.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, he did not think that, the arguments just addressed to them were conclusive. He was inclined to think they did something to prejudice the case rather than otherwise. He could not help thinking that both the support of this proposal and the opposition to it had been based on some misconception. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had put forward the proposal on the ground of patriotism, and the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) had pointed out that this would be a great military harbour, which would form a sort of answer to the considerable preparations of the same kind being made at Calais and Boulogne. If the harbour was to be regarded in that light it would be totally inadequate. It would be nonsense to suppose that the proposed harbour, which would only give 884 us 600 acres of secured space in which very few of our great ships of war could lay with convenience, would be a set-off to what was being done by France. He did not think that the issue before the House was the construction of a military harbour at Dover. That was a matter upon which the Government would, some day or other, have to come to a decision. Neither was it a question of the construction of a harbour of refuge; at all events, that was not the main point which the House had to consider. It was a question whether the people of Dover should be precluded by the fact that the Government might possibly, some time or another, have further proposals to make, from doing that which they considered absolutely necessary in order to secure the commercial prosperity of the port. This was a commercial harbour, an ordinary private commercial undertaking; and the question was, whether there were such flagrant objections to the Bill as should prevent it being considered by a Committee upstairs? He must say that the position of the Dover people had been rather a hard one. For a considerable number of years they had dwelt over this proposal, and had waited for the decision of the Government and the House of Commons upon the question of a larger scheme. Having had so much patience, they had some sort of claim on the House that now they should not be further interfered with. The opposition of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) was not applicable to this proposal. It was quite true that in the Bill, as originally introduced, there were some clauses which vested the Admiralty Pier in the Harbour Board. There was certain justification for that in the fact that such a proposal had been made to the House by two successive Governments. Certainly, a proposition of that kind to hand over a piece of public property to what, after all, was a private trust, was a question which could not be decided by a Private Bill; for it must come forward in a Public Act, and it must involve a great question of public policy. The Board of Trade immediately communicated with the promoters of the Bill, and told them that the Government would be obliged to oppose the Bill if the proposals respecting the Admiralty Pier were proceeded 885 with. The Board of Trade had received a written assurance from the promoters that all the clauses dealing with that matter would be dropped. The Government must also object to the proposal, although it was a permissive one, to allow the Harbour Board to have the use of convict labour. If convict labour was to be employed at Dover, it must be employed under the control of the Government, and not under that of a private Company. The clause dealing with convict labour would also be dropped, and, under the circumstances, the Bill would be one of an exclusively private nature, and he thought the House would do well to allow it to go to a Committee upstairs. He did not think it likely that any works would be proceeded with until the Government had been able to come to a decision upon the general question of the employment of convict labour. A Departmental Committee had been appointed to consider this matter, altogether, however, apart from the construction of a harbour of refuge or a great military harbour. It had been found necessary to find employment for convicts, and it was very probable that the Committee would recommend that the convicts should be employed in the construction of a harbour somewhere. Whether this would be at Dover he was not able to say; but, of course, when the Report of the Committee was settled, the Government would have to give a decision upon the whole matter. His hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir George Balfour) had spoken of the insufficiency of the estimates, and of other matters of detail. When his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) said the Harbour Board was not a representative body, it was quite as representative as other modern Harbour Trusts. It was fully representative for the protection of all commercial interests; the interests of the Government in connection with the military defence of the country were represented by the Board of Admiralty, and all other interests of the harbour were represented by the Railway Companies. Having explained these matters, he hoped the House would now agree to the second reading of the Bill.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, the Bill was of great importance, not only to Dover, but to the whole of the country; and he had been much sur- 886 prised to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who said that, although the Government had already laid out nearly £1,000,000 at Dover in order to make a Government harbour of Dover, they were now going to allow a private Company to make a private harbour, and, to inclose a certain amount of it, some 600 acres, which would not be sufficient for a harbour of refuge, for the general purposes of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that it might be presently necessary to make another harbour for the country, and that Dover might be selected. He wanted to know in what position the present trustees of Dover Harbour would be if another harbour were made and the accommodation at Dover were increased? The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that there was no harbour of refuge for military purposes between Sheerness and Portsmouth. There were, no doubt, the Downs; but there was no harbour for military purposes between Sheerness and Portsmouth, and there ought to be a harbour not only for such purposes, but for the protection of our merchant shipping. He was one of those who had no great faith in the Government carrying out the necessary works properly. Let them look at the work which had been done at Alderney and Jersey, and see now grudgingly the money had been voted for works there, and how the only result had been the formation of inconvenient, insufficient, and ill-constructed harbours. Here they had a grand opportunity for making something that should be worthy of the country. It was evident from all that had been said that the harbour should be made for men of war. The hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) stated that that was one of the great purposes for which the harbour was intended; but they were now told by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that at present the Government could not decide whether this was to be a sufficient harbour, or whether they might not have to increase it hereafter. He asked the House to look at page 5 of the Bill, from which it would appear that the Government were going to allow their own pier to be included within the harbour.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, he had already stated that all clauses interfering 887 in any way with the Government property would be withdrawn, or so amended as to prevent such interference.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, the House, in that case, would have a right to ask how the harbour was to be constructed, because, unless the existing pier was to be carried out to the eastward for some 500 or 600 yards, as proposed in the Bill, he failed to see how a secure harbour was to be constructed. He should like to have some information as to what was going to be done. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman, as President of the Board of Trade, knew, and he had been in hopes when the right hon. Gentleman got up he would have stated what the intentions of the Government were. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), sitting by the side of the President of the Board of Trade, would not for one moment deny that Dover was an important strategic place, which it was necessary to defend at all hazards. He was, however, glad for one thing that a harbour was to be made, because he ventured to hope now that we should be able to secure decent vessels for the passage between Dover and Calais, and Dover and Belgium, so that people who suffered so much at present from the employment of small boats might hereafter be protected from that suffering. He was not satisfied, however, with the answer which had been given by the President of the Board of Trade; and he asked the Government to explain more fully their intentions in regard to the future construction of a harbour at Dover or elsewhere.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, he was perfectly certain that when the Bill went before a Committee it would be found altogether impossible to carry out the scheme for a harbour in the manner proposed by the Bill, and for the extended purposes set forth in the Petition on which leave was given to deposit this Bill at this late period of the Session. He was, therefore, willing to allow it to go before a Committee, in order that they might decide as to the sufficiency of the proposal as to its area and cost. He would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Original Question put, and agreed to.

§ Bill read a second time and committed.