SECOND READING. (Hansard, 8 June 1864)

§ MR. LOCKE
rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Directors of the Docks were attempting by a sidewind to interfere with privileges which had always existed in the port of London, by the introduction of certain words into one clause, and by the framing of another clause, which appeared in the schedule. They were endeavouring to infringe upon a law which had always prevailed, that the merchants of London should have free ingress and egress to the docks by means of lighters. It was an attempt to create a monopoly, and its effect would be to injure much waterside property. A similar attempt had been made in 1855 by dock directors to gain an advantage over wharfingers; but the attempt was then made directly, while now it was made indirectly. That course was then opposed most strongly by the late Mr. Hume, by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and also by the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), who was at that time President of the Board of Trade, and the proposal was rejected by no less than ten to one. The clauses to which he objected were Clause 129, and one which appeared in the schedule. The dock Directors had no right to claim privileges which no one else possessed. He understood that representations had been made to the Board of Trade, and that it was suggested by that Department that alterations should be 1387 made in the Bill; but he trusted, at all events, that the House would not allow it to pass in its present shape.

§ MR. CAVE
submitted that the hon. Member for Southwark had made a speech which ought to have been made by counsel in Committee, and he thought no cause had been shown for refusing a second reading to a Bill which had passed a Committee of the House of Lords, without any evidence being offered against the preamble; and one clause only of which was opposed by a certain portion of a certain interest. If there were any just cause of complaint, opportunity would be given to state it before a Committee of that House. The hon. Member talked of monopoly, but when these Docks were amalgamated they would only afford accommodation for one-fifth of the shipping of the port of London. The clause which was brought in in 1855 was for the purpose of putting a certain tax upon lighters. That, however, was objected to on the ground that such a tax was against the principle of the Dock Acts, and now the hon. Member asked them to throw out the Bill on account of a totally different clause, brought in for a totally different purpose. No doubt the docks might be considered a part of the port of London for certain purposes—but they were very different from the other part of the port of London, inasmuch as there were very peculiar restrictions put upon them. Their walls must be built a certain height, and other precautionary measures were required to secure the safety of the goods brought into them. In the Committee of which he and the Member for Southwark were Members, evidence had been given of complaints to the Government of depredations committed in the port of London, and it was stated the wharfingers and dockowners had not exercised that surveillance which they ought to have done for the preservation of the property confided to them. Well, that was precisely what they were trying to do by the present Bill. The hon. Member's clients had on a former occasion set themselves against improvements in the trade of the port of London. The President of the Board of Trade, in the year before 1388 last, when the Shipping Act was being passed, scarcely dared to go out, so haunted was the lobby of the House by wharfingers and others anxious to state their particular grievances to him. He felt sure that the House would assent to the second reading, with a view to sending the Bill before a Select Committee; and he would not have troubled them with these remarks on a question which was not properly before them, but the hon. Member had given such an air of probability to his story, that Members who had no special knowledge of the subject might possibly think that there was really something in it.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, the House was always very watchful of any Bill that was calculated to create a monopoly. Now, he ventured to say that no private Bill could have a greater tendency to create a monopoly than the Bill before the House. The Dock Companies were attempting to impose certain difficulties upon the river craft which might have the effect of excluding this craft from the amalgamated docks altogether. Ultimately the whole river side might be included in one great dock. There were so many restrictions imposed in the way of permits and other conditions that they virtually amounted to such difficulties as tended to exclude altogether the craft not immediately belonging to the docks. This question was raised in 1855, and he held in his hand a petition presented on the subject which proved that the same identical points were involved in it as they were now discussing. Unless the promoters of the Bill consented to withdraw the obnoxious clauses, be hoped the House would reject the Bill.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether in 1863 the deputation which then waited upon him upon this subject did not offer to leave the whole question to the decision of the Board of Trade? He submitted that there was no sufficient ground for opposition to the measure. The restrictions complained of were mere matters of police regulation, intended to secure the safety of the goods brought into the docks.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, it was quite true that deputations from the Dock Companies and wharfingers had waited last year upon the Board of Trade, and he had heard both sides of the question. The wharfingers did not make any objection to the amalgamation itself, or to what might be termed the general principle of the 1389 Bill. It appeared to him that it would be for the advantage of the trade of London that those three Dock Companies to which the Bill related should be enabled to work together; and that was the purpose for which this Bill had been introduced. Was the House, he asked, prepared to put a veto on the proposition of those Companies, that they should be empowered to make such arrangements as they thought necessary under the circumstances? The wharfingers and lightermen represented that they had always considered themselves entitled to free access to and egress from the docks without being subject to any tax or inconvenient conditions. But the Dock Companies said that they had no wish to interfere in that question—that they were quite willing to carry out any change which could be made, consistently with the great object they had in view—namely, the security of the property in their custody. The lightermen were required by the Dock Companies to produce a pass of a certain character, with the view of affording an opportunity for checking depredations. He thought that that was a reasonable claim on the part of the Dock Companies. It appeared to him that the House ought to assent to the second reading, with a view to sending the Bill to a Select Committee. He thought it would not be just or right to throw out the Bill without sending it before a Select Committee to decide on the points of detail.

MR. J. A. SMITH
said, that this was a question vitally affecting the whole of the trading interests of London and not merely the wharfingers; and the question was, whether restrictions should be placed upon the lighters obtaining goods from ships discharging their cargoes. A Committee-room was not the proper place for discussing this subject. The wharfingers had expressed their desire to afford every assistance, and to acquiesce in any arrangements approved or sanctioned by the Board of Trade.

§ MR. LAYARD
asked the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) if the amalgamated companies would leave the question to the Board of Trade.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, the Directors of the Docks were perfectly willing to leave the arrangement of these clauses to the Board of Trade, and an offer to that effect had been made by the Company to which he belonged.

§ MR. HUBBARD
said, it was of the utmost importance to the trade of London 1390 that the Dock Companies should have the power of carrying out their work as efficiently and economically as possible; and a production of a proper document by the lightermen to the gatekeepers was a protection necessary to the merchant, the shipowner, and the Crown. Without it there would be no discipline or control. The Companies never had and never could have a monopoly of the lighterage.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, that as he understood this matter was to be referred to the President of the Board of Trade, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.