THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL. (Hansard, 3 June 1847)

§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
, was aware that the consent of the Crown must be obtained to this Bill before it could be submitted to Parliament; and he wished to ask whether the law officers of the Crown had advised Her Majesty to surrender the rights of the Crown affected by this measure to a private body to be appointed under the Bill. Prom the time of Lord Hale, there had been no doubt that the Crown was entitled to the soil of the rivers of this country. He did not deny that the corporation 18 of London possessed, and had continually exercised, jurisdiction upon the waters of the Thames; but he was not aware that the Crown had ever parted with its right to the soil; and he wished to know whether the law officers of the Crown had advised Her Majesty to abandon that right?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
replied, that he had felt it his duty to advise Her Majesty to assent to this Bill. It was true that, primâ facie, by the law of England, the land between high and low water mark belonged to the Crown; but it was not so clear in whom the right to the soil of the river Thames was vested. The subject had been brought before the Master of the Rolls; but, although decisions had been given upon points of form, no judgment had been given upon the merits of the question. He was perfectly satisfied that the course proposed to be taken under this Bill would be most beneficial to the public.

§ MR. HUME
expressed his approval of the objects of the Bill. There was little probability that the suit now pending between the corporation of London and the Woods and Forests would be determined within twenty years; and the question arose whether the impediments to the navigation of the river Thames ought to be permitted to exist until that suit was decided? This Bill proposed to make over to a board, to be called the Conservancy Board, all the powers possessed by the Crown, by the corporation of the city of London, or by any other parties, with regard to the conservancy of the Thames, in order that that board might take measures for removing impediments to the navigation. By this Bill, every shilling that could legally be applied to the improvement of the Thames would be placed under the administration of the Conservancy Board. He considered that the measure was of the utmost importance to the trade of London; he fully approved of the objects of the Bill; but he did not concur in the system by which it was proposed to carry out those objects. The Bill provided that the Conservancy Board should consist of nineteen persons, who wore to be exclusively aldermen and common councillors. He (Mr. Hume) had recommended, in Committee, that the number of the Board should be reduced to twelve, and that it should comprise eight members of the corporation of London—three aldermen and five common councilmen; and four members to be appointed by the shipping and commercial interests. He moved as an Amendment, 19 that the Bill be recommitted, for the purpose of attaining the objects which he had in view.

§ MR. WARD
said, that the object of the Bill was the public advantage. It might be possible to have a better board by joining to it the representatives of the different interests referred to by the hon. Member for Montrose; but the House must recollect that they had to deal with a case where the conservancy of the river Thames had been invested in the corporation of London from time immemorial; and under the provisions of the present Bill they had undertaken to remove shoals at an estimated expense of 100,000l., and to widen and deepen the navigable channel at an expense of 350,000l. on the whole. So long as there was a divided authority, no one would undertake to remove the shoals, or to make the necessary improvements. The Bill would leave all the legal rights of the different parties as they stood at present.

The EARL of LINCOLN
said, that there could not be two opinions with respect to the object of the Bill, for every one must be sensible of the importance of any measure to effect an improvement of the present bad state of the Thames. He had on a former occasion stated to the hon. Member for Montrose that he would not object to a commission of persons representing the interests both of the city and the Crown, but he did not approve of the plan suggested by the present Bill. He had, in 1842, proposed an arrangement for the conservancy of the river Mersey, and since then all the disputes of the conflicting parties there had ceased. He was adverse to such a board of conservancy as was proposed to be appointed by the present Bill, which he feared would give rise to jealousies and difficulties never to be overcome. He was confident that the proposed plan would never give satisfaction; and that the Board would be regarded with distrust and disfavour by the commercial and shipping interests. Neither did he entirely approve of the plan of the hon. Member for Montrose; but, deeming that the lesser evil of the two, he should support the hon. Member's Motion.

§ VISCOUNT MORPETH
, when he came into office, found the suit acting as a complete impediment to improvements which had been recommended. It was stated by Mr. Pemberton, the Solicitor to the Office of Woods and Forests, that the suit might last five years; that the demurrer of the corporation had been overruled by the 20 Master of the Rolls, but that the corporation had appealed to the House of Lords, and that, assuming the judgment to be affirmed, and the corporation to have to answer the information, issues at law would probably be directed when the cause came on to be heard, and application would most likely be made for a second trial of those issues. Now, though he (Lord Morpeth) believed that the right of the Crown was perfectly legitimate and well-founded, yet the claim for any profits in consequence of that right was never formally preferred till three or four years ago, and the amount was stated not to have exceeded 1,400l. or 1,500l. in any one year; and at the same time it was declared by the city, that the abeyance of this sum and the existence of this suit prevented the carrying into effect those improvements which they stated they should otherwise be disposed to accomplish. It seemed quite fair and proper that funds derived from the shore and soil of the Thames should be applied for the improvement of the navigation and the accommodation of trade. Experience had certainly failed to prove that there were any means of compelling the city to undertake the operations which were thought necessary; but they now came forward and offered to raise upon their own credit almost an enormous sum of money to carry them into effect. He (Lord Morpeth) had left it to the Admiralty to settle the details of the Bill, and they had consulted those to whom they were accustomed to defer, and were informed that the improvements proposed under this Bill were such as were material and necessary. The Board of Conservancy would be charged with the duty and responsibility of carrying those improvements into effect; and a superior Board of Control was to be instituted—to which the city consented—framed in very close accordance with the Board instituted by the noble Earl (the Earl of Lincoln) for the river Mersey. The three superior members of that Board were the First Lord of the Admiralty, the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and the only difference in the present case was in the substitution of the President of the Board of Trade for the Chancellor of the Duchy. It was not likely that the sums to be received under this Bill would be more than sufficient to defray the expense of the operations which the city had by the Bill bound themselves to undertake; but the details of the expenditure would be laid before Par- 21 liament; and if any surplus should arise in the course of years, Parliament would then be called upon to adjudge its application.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
always looked with considerable suspicion upon any measure that emanated from the corporation of the city of London. How could the House consent to such a Bill as this, with the praiseworthy example in the case of the Mersey held out to them? What power would the superior Board have to control the aldermanic board? The Bill would give taxing powers to the extent of 350,000l. Why was this to be considered a private Bill? It was a public measure, affecting the port of London, and thereby the commerce of the country, and ought not to be referred to the Admiralty and a set of aldermen.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
thought there should be an efficient body to manage the navigation of the river, and the merchants and shipowners ought to have a voice in the election of that body. Neither the Court of Aldermen nor the Common Council included leading merchants or shipowners. Every shipowner complained of the present system of management. The Government, with right principle on their side, would not find the corporation of London so powerful as they imagined.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
thought the Government had taken a wise course in making this compromise.

List of the AYES.
Allix, J. P.	Guest, Sir J.
Arkwright, G.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Baine, W.	Hatton, Capt. V.
Barclay, D.	Hill, Lord E.
Barnard, E. G.	Hodgson, R.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Boyd, J.	Howard, P. H.
Buller, C.	Humphery, Ald.
Busfeild, W.	Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Lemon, Sir C.
Copeland, Ald.	Lyall, G.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Denison, J. E.	Marjoribanks, S.
Duke, Sir J.	Masterman, J.
Dundas, Adm.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Dundas, Sir D.	Milnes, R. M.
Ebrington, Visct.	Mitchell, T. A.
Escott, B.	Molesworth, Sir W.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Monahan, J. H.
Frewen, C. H.	Morpeth, Visct.
Fuller, A. E.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Palmer, R.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Palmerston, Visct,

Parker, J.	Stanton, W. H.
Pattison, J.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
Philipps, Sir R. B. P.	Stuart, Lord J.
Plumridge, Capt.	Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Rich, H.	Trelawny, J. S.
Rolleston, Col.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Ross, D. R.	Tufnell, H.
Sheppard, T.	Turner, E.
Smith, A.	TELLERS.
Somerville, Sir W. M.	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Stansfield, W. R. C.	Ward, H. G.

List of the NOES.
Adare, Visct.	Hall, Sir B.
Aglionby, H. A.	Hamilton, W. J.
Austen, Col.	Harris, hon. Capt.
Bailey, J., jun.	Hughes, W. B.
Baillie, H. J.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Bankes, G.	Irton, S.
Barrington, Visct	Johnstone, Sir J.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Knight, F. W.
Bowles, Adm.	Law, hon. C. E.
Bowring, Dr.	Lefroy, A.
Bramston, T. W.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Broadwood, H.	Lincoln, Earl of
Brotherton, J.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Mackenzie, T.
Cardwell, E.	Mahon, Visct.
Carew, W. H. P.	Manners, Lord J.
Carnegie, hon. Capt.	Maunsell, T. P.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Morris, D.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Muntz, G. F.
Collett, J.	Pakington, Sir J.
Deedes, W.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Dickinson, F. H.	Philips, G. R.
Divett, E.	Prime, R.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Russell, J. D. W.
Drummond, H. H.	Somerset, Lord G.
Duncan, Visct.	Spooner, R.
Duncan, G.	Thornely, T.
Duncombe, T.	Vernon, G. H.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	Walker, R.
Evans, W.	Wawn, J. T.
Ewart, W.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Forster, M.	Wrightson, W. B.
Gladstone, Capt.	Yorke, H. R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Young, J.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	TELLERS.
Granger, T. C.	Hume, J.
Greene, T.	Williams, W.