HC Deb 19 February 1855 vol 136 cc1505-11

Order for Second Reading read; Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."

SIR JAMES DUKE

said, that this measure, though a Private Bill, very materially affected the public interest. The original Act. authorising the formation of the dock, contained clauses providing that all lighters and craft entering the docks for the purpose of receiving on board the cargoes of ships lying in dock in order to be discharged, should be exempted from the payment of any rate. It was a very suspicious circumstance to see three dock companies now coming forward at the same time to attempt to repeal those clauses, and thus to violate their original Dock Acts. No doubt they came together to intimidate and to prevent opposition by a formidable array of power. This was not a mere question between the dock companies and the wharfingers, to whose wharfs those lighters conveyed the goods taken out of ships in dock; it was an attempt to attack the trade of the port of London, and of every constituency that was represented in that House. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. G. Duncan) had told him, the other day, that thousands of tons of a particular description of hemp were brought to London from India, and was there shipped on board the Dundee steamers. He trusted no interference would be allowed with that or any other trade. What ground was there for such a proposal as the present? Now, had the companies' stocks fallen in value, there might have been cause for this measure; but, on the contrary, it was well known they had increased 50 per cent. It was, in fact, a most iniquitous attempt to interfere with the free trade of the port of London. The City of London never would have consented to the construction of those docks, which deprived the port of a great deal of accommodation, but on the condition that such docks should be considered part of the port. He really hoped the House would not submit to any such attempt, by indirect means, to put a tax upon the trade of the country, and he should therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

MR. GREGSON

said, he had charge of the Bill, and would, therefore, trouble the House with a few observations on the question at issue. The dock companies were at the outset opposed by the same parties who now opposed this Bill, who at the time put in claims to the extent of 3,000,000l. for compensation, which was eventually reduced to 600,000l. An Act was passed giving clock companies certain privileges for twenty years, and afterwards for thirty years more. Government made relaxations in favour of private wharfingers, and at last the restrictions on the dock companies became so onerous that they were obliged to come to Parliament to ask for relief. The dock companies had made no changes in their original compact with Government and the public; but changes had been forced upon them which acted prejudicially on their fair privileges and profits. All the dock companies asked, was to be allowed to make a reasonable charge for labour done. It was alleged that wharfingers made no charge for services that the dock companies ask to be authorised to charge for; but he held in his hand a statement in black and white, which proved that the wharfingers made charges which the dock companies were at present precluded from making. He really thought the clock companies had good ground for what they asked, and he trusted the House would nut refuse to read the Bill a second time.

MR. MITCHELL

said, this was not a private, but most certainly a public Bill. It affected the trade of the country, and it was the duty of that House to affirm or not to affirm the principle of such a Bill in the legitimate stage in which that should be done—namely, on the second reading. He felt bound to do so in this case, and to give the measure his most decided opposition. For three years he had fought for the dock companies against the Board of Customs, and the trading interest of London had also supported the dock companies against that Board. It was, therefore, exceedingly bad taste on the part of the dock owners to attempt to force this Bill through the House—a Bill by which they not only wished to be paid as wharfingers, but to impose a tax upon the whole trade of the City of London. It was one of the main objects of the late Sir Robert Peel, in the debate upon the Customs, to make London the great entrepôt for the whole trade of the world, and to make London a place for transhipment by all possible means. Of course one of the modes of doing this was by a reduced charge, and giving increased facilities through the Board of Customs. The late Sir Robert Peel, he repeated, laid the greatest stress on this point. He hoped the House would not allow itself to be led away by the great names of the supporters of the Bill. Those Gentlemen were all interested in the docks. It was notorious to every gentleman engaged in commerce in London, that the dock companies were in the habit of sending touters, steam tugs, and lighters to Gravesend, to induce captains of vessels to bring their ships into the docks. The interest of the shipowner was totally distinct from that of the merchant. It was the interest of the former to place his ship where she would be safe at all times; but it was not the interest of the merchant that his goods should thus be taken into the docks. The inducements to shipowners to go into dock were so great, that in his (Mr. Mitchell's) own experience, in hundreds of cases he might say, the first notice he got of the arrival of his goods in London was in the form of a notice that the ship they were in had entered the docks without his having given any permission to that effect, or having had any voice in the matter at all. If this measure should pass he would be obliged to pay the taxes on lighters entering the docks to fetch his goods to the spot where he might wish them to be discharged. He protested against such a system, and against a tax not only upon wharfingers, but upon the general commerce of the country. The water of the Thames was public property, which had been given to the dock companies on an express agree- ment that, in return for that public property, no charge should be made on lighters going into the docks. He therefore hoped the House would reject the Bill.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he had strong reasons for not departing from the usual practice in the case of private Bills. He was anxious that no injustice should be done to the promoters of a private Bill; and he was also desirous that the time of the House should not be taken up by discussion which ought more properly to take place before a Committee. The dock companies proposed to repeal certain clauses in their original Acts. It was alleged on behalf of the commerce of the port of London—and he thought there was some reason in what they said—that such a repeal would inflict great injury on the trade of the country. The companies contended again that their circumstances to-day were quite different to what they were when the clause it was now proposed to repeal was enacted. He did not wish, however, to enter into the question, and he hoped the House would not go into it either. It was a question assuredly for the decision of a Committee; and he trusted the House would have confidence enough in the justice, integrity, and impartiality of a Committee to confide to them the settlement of the matter. On these grounds he should vote for the second reading.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, the principle of the Bill was diametrically opposed to agreements which had been made with Parliament, and he should, therefore, oppose it.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that although it was not generally the practice for Government to take part in discussions on the second readings of private Bills, there were some circumstances that rendered it necessary he should make a statement in this particular case. The facts might be stated in a few words. When originally the dock companies were established, they looked for remuneration to the monopoly of the landing and warehousing of certain descriptions of goods, which was given to them for a limited time. A second source of profit was the valuable frontage given to them for warehouses, &c.; and a third was a toll levied on seagoing ships using the water of the docks; but there was at the same time an express enactment that no charge should be made for lighters or barges. There was, in fact, what was known in law as a complete dedication to the public of the newly-created water space, in as far as lighters were concerned. Now, he conceived that before a bargain of that kind was altered by the House, a very strong case should be made out by the parties seeking the alteration. Now, he certainly did not think that any such case could be made out or had been made out on the part of the dock companies, nor did he think there was that alteration in circumstances upon which they relied as the foundation of their case. The monopoly expired at the time it was intended to expire, and if altered circumstances caused some loss to the companies on one side, the great increase in trade had provided ample compensation on the other—a fact which was confirmed by the circumstance that out of the three companies two were building new warehouses, and even then did not expect to be able to meet the requirements of their extended traffic. This subject had been brought before the House of Commons two years before, in the case of the Victoria Docks. The promoters of the Victoria Docks Bill sent in their Bill without the clause in question, but the Committee thought it only fair to insert it. Other Dock Bills had been brought in during the present Session, and it was the intention of the Board of Trade to have called special attention to this clause. Let the House observe what would be the state of the case if this clause were conceded. The dock companies were in a statutory position as owners of water space, and in a statutory position as large wharfingers, in opposition to others not so circumstanced. Now, allowing the measure to become law, would undoubtedly place them in an advantageous position in competition with their rivals, and, therefore, he thought its progress should be jealously watched by Parliament. Then came the question whether they should adhere to the ordinary course, or whether they should object to the second reading. He felt very much pressed by the arguments of his hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Bouverie), and he should be sorry to favour that system of excitement and canvass by which it was sought to withhold a Bill from the investigation of a Select Committee, but having carefully considered the question in all its aspects, the result of this consideration was a determination to vote against the second reading of the Bill.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was an owner of dock stock, and was, to a small extent, interested in warehouse property. He had, however, come to the same conclusion as the right hon. Gentleman, and thought it most unjust to attempt to do away with the bargain, made upon fair and just principles in the beginning, and which, he considered, the House ought not to depart from.

MR. T. BARING

said, that the plea against the Bill was, that it would give the dock companies advantages over their competitors; the plea of the companies was, that now the competitors had all the advantages of their vast establishments and staff without giving anything by way of compensation. That was the ground upon which the Bill was advocated; and the arguments pro and con could, in his opinion, be much better discussed in a Committee up-stairs. This he would say, that the uses to which lighters were put had very much extended since the time when they first obtained exemption from clock dues.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that at one time barges merely carried water and provisions to the ships in dock, but as trade extended, although ships still came into dock for greater safety, the wharfingers by offering greater inducements, got all the landing and warehousing of the goods. He could mention one wharf from which 40,000 barges went into dock in the course of last year. Under these circumstances, was it to be held that the companies were to have nothing for keeping the docks in repair? The question was, would they protect the barge owners, lightermen, and wharfingers, at the expense of the dock owners? He should give his support to the second reading, thinking that the question in dispute could be best decided by a Committee.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he considered that there was another question to be decided besides the interests of the dock companies and the wharfingers, and that was the general interest of the country. He could assure the promoters of the measure that the greatest kindness they could do the country would be to withdraw their Bill. He knew of his own experience that goods were ordered to Hull in consequence of the oppressive charges in London. He had no interest in docks, but he had in the general trade of the country, and therefore felt bound to oppose the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 1249: Majority 223.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months. The London and St. Katherine Dock Bills were then withdrawn.

Back to