SECOND READING. (Hansard, 1 March 1883)

§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW
said, that, on seeing the Notice of this Bill on the Paper, he had intimated his intention of moving that it be read a second time that day six months. The title of the measure, however, was misleading. Instead of referring to the navigation of the Thames generally, its object was merely to regulate the steam launches above Kew; there being also a provision in it for granting remuneration to the officers who fulfilled the duty. Under the circumstances, he would not persevere with his opposition.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE
said, that one object of the Bill was to raise the amount awarded to the Conservators. He did not object to that, nor to the Bill. The clause which dealt with the management of this remuneration, however, he took some objection to; but that the promoters had engaged should be amended in Committee. On that understanding he now withdrew his opposition.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
I must say I was surprised to see in the Bill the clause to which the hon. Member has drawn attention. No doubt, the main object of the measure is one of great public utility. It is to provide regulations necessary to remove a nuisance that has become dangerous to the public on the River Thames. But there is an addition to that, in the shape of the 15th section, which seems to have no connection whatever with this object of great public utility. I cannot myself see why, when all these duties are performed by officers of the Thames Conservancy, the members of the Board of 1151 Conservancy should have this £1,000 a-year to be divided amongst them at the discretion of the Treasury and the Board of Trade. There are gentlemen who discharge public duties on the river between Yankee Creek and Lechlade of equal importance to the public as those discharged individually by members of the Thames Conservators, and I have never heard that they have set up a claim to be paid out of the public funds for the services they discharge. Some of these Conservators, I believe, are connected with the Common Council of the City of London, who themselves are unpaid, for the services they discharge. I am quite at a loss to know why it is proposed to allow the Conservators to use themselves £1,000 a-year out of the funds the administer. I wish to speak in terms of the greatest possible respect of this body of gentlemen. Undoubtedly, they are worthy of all respect; but I will undertake to say that there is probably no body that has been more unsuccessful in discharging one portion of its duties—that is, the dealing with floods along the course of the River from Teddington to Lechlade in the county of Wilts. We are told that one of the things which prevents them from discharging their duties is want of funds; and yet we have a proposal to allocate £1,000 a-year out of their resources for personal remuneration—£1,000 a-year from funds which, according to their own allegation, are insufficient for their present purposes. This failure to discharge their duties is a great public evil. Thousands of acres of land on the Thames are being thrown out of cultivation or seriously damaged. This is effected, in a great measure, by the floods which are allowed to remain on the land; and yet we have this proposal to give £1,000 a-year—the interest on £33,000—which will go very far indeed towards relieving a considerable portion of the landowners on the Thames from the evils which they suffer. Having in view that this Bill has a public object, so far as the regulation of steam launches is concerned, I shall not oppose the second reading; but I give fair Notice that if this clause comes back in the Bill I shall oppose it, and, if necessary, the measure itself on Report. I trust the good sense of the Committee to which this Bill will be referred will induce them to strike out the 1152 provision in question, which has no relation to any other part of the Bill, which is not necessary to it, and which certainly would not have been inserted had it not been for the great skill of the draftsman or Parliamentary agent who has charge of the Bill, and who is exceedingly well able to take care of his clients when they want to be well served in this respect. I, therefore, do not propose to oppose the second reading.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
said, he was glad to hear that the Bill was not to be opposed, so far as regarded the provisions in it relating to the regulation of steam launches. As to the clause dealing with remuneration, he was at a loss to understand his right hon. Friend. Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that this was the first time payment had been made to the Conservators? If he did, the supposition was incorrect. It would be found in this very section that this sum—which, by the way, was not £1,000 a-year, but "was not to exceed £1,000 a-year" was only to be paid—"in addition" to money already required to be set apart for the Conservators. Well, if the Conservators had additional work put upon them, it certainly was not an improper thing that they should receive additional pay. The sum fixed in the Bill—£1,000 a-year—would be the maximum, and would only be in addition to the sum they now received.