HC Deb 27 July 1864 vol 176 cc2153-5

Lords Amendments considered:

Amendments agreed to, as far as page 23, line 32.

MR. AYRTON

objected to a provision marked C, inserted by the other House, which conferred a privilege on coal vessels not enjoyed by vessels engaged in other branches of commerce—namely, to unload in the river and escape dock duties. It was better to leave the Thames as a free highway for the equal benefit of all descriptions of commerce, and he begged to move that the House should disagree with this Amendment of the Lords.

Page 23, line 32, the next Amendment, being read a second time; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

MR. LINDSAY

supported the clause, which he said would promote the general trade of the port of London.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, that this provision had been inserted by the Lords in opposition to the opinion of the Select Committee. He could inform the House that a large portion of his constituents were opposed to the clause, and considered that their interests had been overlooked by its introduction at a period of the Session when it was almost impossible to discuss it properly.

MR. LOCKE

said, that this was an attempt to restrict everybody else connected with this matter for the benefit of a favoured class. He did not know why colliers should not go into dock the same as other vessels.

MR. HUTT

hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, as by so doing it might imperil the Bill itself at that late period of the Session. He believed that the Bill would greatly increase the facilities of the navigation of the Thames. He proposed to add a few words to the clause restraining the exercise of any undue power by any individuals under the Act.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments agreed to, as far as Clause 75.

MR. LOCKE

objected to an Amendment of the Lords which threw out a provision prohibiting any extension being made in the sewers or drains leading into the Thames outside the metropolitan districts. The Court of Chancery had granted an injunction against this drainage being carried out at Kingston, which would remain in force till Michaelmas term next; but the rejection of the clause would permit Kingston and also all other towns on the banks of the Thames to empty their sewage into the river. Seeing that the inhabitants of London were taxed to the extent of four millions to prevent this being done in the case of London, he thought it was inconsistent to allow other towns to drain into the Thames. He moved that the House should disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Clause 75, the last Amendment, being read a second time; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Locke.)

MR. HUTT

agreed in all the hon. and learned Gentleman had said on the importance of keeping the Thames free from pollution, but he appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his Motion, as it might defeat the measure for the Session. He would undertake that the subject should be brought under the serious consideration of the Government during the recess.

MR. BRADY

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would press his Motion.

MR. LOCKE

said, he would, under the promise held out, withdraw his Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.