HC Deb 04 March 1881 vol 259 cc314-24

Order for Second Reading read.

SIR CHARLES FORSTER moved that the second reading of the Bill be deferred until Tuesday, March. 15.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time upon Tuesday the 15th of March."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

begged to move, as an Amendment to the Motion that the second reading of the Bill be postponed, that the Order for the Second Reading be read and discharged. The Bill was of enormous importance, and one of very great interest to the City of London and all up and down the River Thames. Taking in view the period of the Session at which they had now arrived, and the improbability of the Bill being able to be brought on at a time when it should be discussed at that length and with that care which its importance demanded, before it was passed into law, taking in view the extraordinary circumstances under which the Bill dealt with public questions, and even, as he understood set aside the Statute Law; viewing the nature of the Bill and its extraordinary character, and also the very curious manœuvre which was being adopted in reference to the measure by putting it down on the Paper conditionally from day to day so that it was impossible to know when the authors of the Bill proposed to proceed with it—under all these circumstances, he felt justified in moving that the Order for the Second Reading be read and discharged in order that the Bill might be withdrawn and replaced by a Public Bill introduced on the responsibility of the Ministers, who would put their names on the back of it.

MR. SPEAKER

If the noble Lord persists in moving that Amendment it will be my duty to put it from the Chair; but, at the same time, I think it right to point out to the noble Lord that the course he proposes to take without Notice is one which is very unusual.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "That the," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be read and discharged,"—(Lord Randolph Churchill,)—instead thereof.

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

SIR CHARLES FORSTER

might say that he knew nothing whatever about the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER

, interposing, said, the original Question was that the Bill be postponed until the 15th of March, since which an Amendment had been moved to leave out all the words after the words "That the" for the purpose of adding these words—"Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be read and discharged."

SIR CHARLES FORSTER

said, the Bill was one which involved very important principles, and he would suggest to the noble Lord that the course which he proposed was a very unusual one to take without Notice. He hoped the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment, in order that those who were interested in the matter might have an opportunity of being present when the Bill came on regularly for discussion.

SIR HENRY TYLER

expressed a hope that the noble Lord would not persevere with his Amendment. It was quite clear that it was a very unusual one to make. The Bill was one which largely and very closely affected the interests of his (Sir Henry Tyler's) constituents. He would not trouble the House, at the present stage, with any arguments in favour of the Bill; but he would simply state that an association at Harwich had an interest in something like 800 vessels in which a very large sum of money, amounting to more than £100,000, was invested. These vessels plied upon the Thames, and they were subjected to great losses and inconveniences incidental to the system of compulsory pilotage. For that and for other reasons he should feel it his duty, at the proper time, to support the Bill. He believed there were many other hon. Members who were prepared to support it when it came in a proper way before the House, and he hoped the Amendment would either be withdrawn or negatived.

MR. LITTON

said, he did not propose to speak upon the merits of the Bill; but he thought the course adopted by the noble Lord was one that was wholly unworthy of him. It was a most unusual course to move an Amendment such as that which the noble Lord had proposed without Notice. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who had charge of the Bill, and who had already expressed his desire to consult the convenience of the House in regard to the second reading of the Bill, was not aware of the course which the noble Lord contemplated taking, or no doubt he would have been in his place. He felt bound to say that it did look something like sharp practice for the noble Lord to adopt the course he had now taken. It was quite plain, from the state of the House, that hon. Members generally had not expected that any serious discussion would arise. It was generally understood that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would move to defer the consideration of it until after the urgency which had been declared by the House in regard to other measures had been disposed of; and the course now proposed by the noble Lord, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, was certainly one which the House ought not to approve of, and which he thought, on reflection, the noble Lord would see ought not to be adopted. He trusted that the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, no; certainly not.] The noble Lord was, he felt certain, open to argument; and a sense of fair play would certainly lead him to re-consider the matter, and withdraw the Amendment.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Litton) had taken a good deal upon himself when he undertook to lecture hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who had sat in Parliament for a much longer period than he had. The hon. and learned Member talked of sharp practice and of unusual events. Now, the Session had been full of unusual events, and perhaps none more unusual than that the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary to the Board of Trade should have brought in this measure as a Private Bill, attempting, by doing so, to take an unfair advantage. The measure was one which, unquestionably, ought to have been brought in as a Public Bill on the authority of the Ministers of the Crown. He hoped that his noble Friend would persevere with his Amendment, and that he would succeed in throwing out the measure.

MR. WALTER

said, he had come down to the House early in the hope of hearing a discussion on the Bill, in regard to which the people of the Thames Valley were very much interested. But he had not been prepared to hear such an Amendment as that which had been moved by his noble Friend opposite. He entertained grave doubts as to the propriety of bringing in a Bill of this kind in this way, and he also doubted the wisdom of some of the clauses contained in the measure; but as yet he had not heard the question discussed, and until he had an opportunity of hearing it discussed, it was impossible that he could assent to the Amendment of his noble Friend, which would have the effect of getting rid of the measure by a sudden and unexpected blow. If he were to entertain all the objection it was possible to urge against the Bill, he could never consent to a Motion for disposing of it in this way. He hoped his noble Friend would not press the Amendment.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

hoped that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would withdraw the Amendment. Although he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had a Motion on the Paper in opposition to the Bill, he had not placed it there for the purpose of preventing a discussion upon the merits of the measure. The Bill raised very important questions affecting compulsory pilotage on the River Thames. There had already been two Bills before the House which proposed to abolish compulsory pilotage—one in 1870 and one in 1871. The question was one of great importance; but he hoped to see it discussed upon the present Bill. No doubt, the Bill itself was a Private Bill, and dealt with important interests which ought to be dealt with by a public measure; but he did not see that any advantage would arise from adopting the course proposed by the noble Lord, and thus shutting out all discussion upon the merits of the Bill. He himself believed that the system of compulsory pilotage ought to be materially modified, if not abolished; but it ought to be done by a measure introduced, as a Public Bill, upon the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Nevertheless, although he opposed the present Bill, he could not support the Amendment of the noble Lord for discharging the Order for the second reading.

SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY

hoped that his noble Friend would not press the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who had charge of the Bill, had postponed the second reading until that day with the view of naming a day when it could be taken. The right hon. Gentleman was absent now. The Secretary to the Board of Trade was also absent; and he thought his noble Friend, under these circumstances, ought not to press the Amendment.

MR. E. W. HARCOURT

thought that a very unusual course had been taken in bringing in the Bill as a Private Bill. He was not going now to enter into the merits of the Bill; but he hardly thought he would be acting rightly by those whom he represented on the Upper Thames if he did not avail himself of the opportunity of saying how extremely they disliked the bringing in a Bill of this sort as a Private Bill. There was another objection to the bringing in of it as a Private Bill—namely, that it entirely precluded those who were best informed upon the matter from forming part of the Committee on the Bill. All persons who lived in the Upper Thames Valley were interested in the measure. The Bill itself was of a most important and interesting description. It went far beyond the powers that were given in the Public Health Act of 1875; and, whatever course might be taken—whether the noble Lord pressed his Amendment to a division or not—he felt that he should not be acting rightly, if, on the part of his constituents, he did not say how much they disliked the Bill.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

Unfortunately, I was not present in the House when the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) made this Amendment; but I trust the noble Lord will not press it to a division, because I think that I shall be able to show the House that, whereas the House has frequently considered Bills of this character as Public Bills, they have, nevertheless, more frequently considered them as Private Bills. I hold in my hand a list of various Acts which have been passed with regard to the Thames navigation; and of these, I find that two of them have been introduced as Public Bills, whereas four of them have been introduced as Private Bills. I do not say one word in regard to the merits of the present measure, because that is not my duty; but I merely say that there is certainly rather more precedent for introducing Bills of this character as Private Bills than as Public Bills. I trust, at all events, that the Motion of the noble Lord will not be pressed. The President of the Board of Trade is not present in his place to explain why he has made this Bill a Private Bill; and, under these circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will not persist with his Amendment.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, the argument that the President of the Board of Trade was not in his place was scarcely one which the House ought to consider. He was inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been in his place, knowing that a matter of this importance might possibly come before the House. As to the nature of the Bill, he (Baron De Worms) ventured to think that a more remarkable measure had scarcely ever been introduced into the House. It had been fostered by an unnatural alliance between the Thames Conservancy and Her Majesty's Government, and neither of them chose to accept the paternity. It appeared to him that the Bill, in certain respects, partook of the nature of a public measure. It had all the strength of a public measure; but, at the same time, it possessed all the disadvantages of a private measure, and he was bound to say, on behalf of the constituency he represented, that every species of opposition he could offer to the Bill he should offer.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not rise for the purpose of entering into the merits of the Bill. He had intended, when the Bill came on, to move a Resolution on the subject; but he simply rose now to protest against the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, while professing to abstain from entering into the merits of the Bill, had said that there were more precedents one way than the other, an observation which was certainly directed towards the merits of the measure. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Ritchie) thought he had a right to say, in order to prevent an improper impression from getting abroad, that he was prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman on every one of his precedents, and to show that there was not one of them which bore upon the point. He flattered himself that when the right hon. Gentleman brought them forward he should be able to dispose of them in an entirely satisfactory manner. For his own part, he must say that he did not wish to see the Bill disposed of in the summary manner proposed by the noble Lord, because he looked forward with pleasure to the time when he should be able to show that the Government were altogether in the wrong in the course they had adopted. Therefore, as far as he was personally concerned, he had no desire to see the Bill thrown out at the present moment, being most desirous, he would repeat, of showing how completely wrong the Government were in every step they had taken in reference to the Bill. He would only say this in justification of the Amendment of his noble Friend—that the Bill had been postponed so frequently, and on one occasion after a particular day had been absolutely fixed for the consideration of the second reading, that hon. Members had been put to much inconvenience in regard to it. Many of them had been brought up from the country, from time to time, to oppose the Bill; and now, again, that evening, although the measure was on the Orders of the Day for a second reading, by an arrangement it was going to be again postponed. Therefore, although no doubt the Amendment of his noble Friend was not one that was usually made, yet it must be acknowledged that his noble Friend had ample justification for proposing it.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

really must say that he was astonished at the line of argument taken by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), and at the course he had taken. It was arranged the other day that the Bill should not be taken until a formal Notice was given, and if it had been intended to bring it on for discussion he (Mr. Ashley) would have been in his place. But after such an understanding had been arrived at, and after four days' Notice had been given that it would be on the Paper that day, simply to be deferred until another day—for his hon. Friend to take advantage of the temporary absence of those who were in charge of it——

MR. RITCHIE

I rise to Order.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

Under such circumstances, to move that the Order for the Second Reading should be discharged was, he thought, to take an unfair advantage.

MR. RITCHIE

wished to say a few words by way of explanation. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade had been in his place, he would not have made the observations he had just made in reference to him (Mr. Ritchie). He had neither moved that the Order for the Second Reading be discharged, nor had he said one word in regard to it. What he had said was simply an answer to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and he had not the slightest intention of taking any part in the debate on the subject, nor was it at all upon any proposal of his that the question was now before the House.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

was strongly opposed to the Bill, and should use his utmost exertions in order to prevent it from being read a second time; but, at the same time, he could not join in the present Amendment of the noble Lord, because it was clearly understood that when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade postponed the Bill until to-day, it was not intended that it should come on for discussion to-day. He entirely agreed with all that had been said in regard to bringing in the Bill as a Private Bill. It was undoubtedly a Public Bill, considering the large interests at stake, and he was quite prepared to discuss it on that basis, and to oppose in the strongest manner, any proposal to retain it as a Private Bill. At the same time, he hoped the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock would withdraw the Amendment he had made.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

did not think that his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means was open to the accusation which had been brought against him by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). The right hon. Gentleman said he was not prepared to discuss the measure upon its merits; and, in point of fact, he only mentioned the question whether it was to be discussed as a Public or a Private Bill, which was an entirely different matter from discussing the measure on its merits.

MR. HERMON

would be glad if the Secretary to the Board of Trade would inform the House whether the reason for deferring the Bill was that further negotiations were taking place outside the House in reference to the measure. He understood that the Board of Trade had made certain overtures to hon. Members in order to induce them to withdraw their opposition to the Bill. There ought to be a clear understanding as to the reason why the Government desired to postpone the second reading of the Bill, which had already been fixed twice for a particular day, but was now proposed to be postponed again. The House was entitled to ask the reasons for the postponement.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

said, the only reason why it had been put off on previous occasions was that it would have been necessary to take it early in the day, and that there were measures on the Paper in regard to which "urgency" had been declared. No negotiations were going on in regard to the Bill.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

remarked, that what he felt puzzled about was this—that two hon. Members—the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) and the Member for London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence)—who were strongly opposed to the Bill, and one of whom had put down a Motion that it should be read a second time on that day six months, should now object to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), which, if carried, would have the effect they appeared to desire. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) did not intend to vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord; but he did wish, while he had the opportunity, to call attention to the fact that the Motions which had been placed on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill were not intended bonâ fide to throw out the measure, but were simply in opposition to the proposal to proceed with the Bill as a Private Bill. Under these circumstances it would be taking an extreme course to vote for the discharge of the Order for the Second Reading; but he certainly did sympathize with those who, in defence of the public principles that were involved in the measure, argued that it ought to be dealt with as a Public Bill, and that it should be discussed at a time when its merits could be fully considered on the second reading. In the case of a Private Bill, that was not possible. No doubt, this was a season for making New Rules; but if hon. Gentlemen really desired not to defeat the Bill before the House, he did not see why they should have put down Motions for the rejection of the measure and then decline to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, which was intended to effect the same object.

MR. FINIGAN

said, he took a very deep interest in the Bill, and he intended to read and consider it most carefully, because he considered that whoever had framed it had framed it in the interests of the public welfare. But, at the same time, he must say that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government was of that peculiar type which they had been practising lately to the detriment of the best interests of that House, and he quite agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill ought now to be read and discharged. The Government appeared to be in the habit of bringing in a Bill to-day and postponing it to-morrow, and thought they could play fast-and-loose with the House. He protested against such a policy, or rather, he protested against such an impolicy; and he would suggest that as there was nothing before the House to-night except a mere matter of Supply—as he expected the Irish debate would be finished tolerably early—the Government might proceed with this Bill forthwith and have it fully discussed. It ought to be discussed at once; and he did not hold with the plan adopted by Her Majesty's Government for dealing with either public or private measures. Private Bills, were, in his opinion, introduced in a very unjust manner; and, therefore, he should support the Amendment of the noble Lord, and he hoped the House would, without further delay, go to a division.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that, perhaps, the House would allow him to state that, under the circumstances, he would not press the Amendment to a division. He thought, however, that the discussion which had taken place would be a useful lesson to the promoters of the Bill to exercise a little more care in future as to the mode in which they attempted to force such measures upon the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 15th March.