CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 08 July 1884 vol 290 cc481-98

Bill, as amended, considered.

Amendments made.

MR. C. H. WILSON

, in moving, as an Amendment, in Schedule 1, page 44, last line, to insert, after the word "burthen," the words "and river craft to and from Hull, passing out of or into any canal of the undertakers," said, that the Aire and Calder Canal Company, who were owners of the port of Goole, had brought in a Bill to enable them to deepen and improve the lower navigation of the River Ouse, so as to enable vessels of a larger burden to enter the port of Goole. The port of Hull was lower down the Humber, and carried on a similar trade. The difference was that the port of Hull was older, and possessed extensive docks with deep water, capable of accommodating large seagoing vessels. On account of the more dangerous character of the navigation up the River Humber, from the Ouse to Goole, the size of the vessels trading to that port was limited, and consequently their capacity was restricted. The result was, that large vessels discharged their cargoes at Hull, where such cargoes were shifted into lighters, which went up the Humber and up the Ouse, until they reached the dock entrance of the port of Goole, belonging to the Aire and Calder Navigation Company. There were probably many hon. Members of the House who were well acquainted with the estuary of the Humber, and must know that for small river craft there was small need of any improvement; so that the improvement proposed to be carried out by means of this Bill was solely for the accommodation of a larger class of vessels, which, it was hoped, would be attracted to the port of Goole. At present, the small river craft took every description of cargo to Goole, for conveyance along the Aire and Calder Canal and its tributaries to the inland towns, and it also brought back export cargoes and very large quantities of coals for local use in Hull, and also for export and for the use of the steamers. To show the importance of the traffic, he would take the item of coals alone, and he might mention that, in four years, the quantity of coals brought into Hull by river craft was about 2,500,000 tons. It would, therefore, be seen that the taxing powers imposed by this Bill were of considerable importance to the traders and owners of craft upon the Humber, who wished their vessels to be free in the future, as they were now, from all taxation from which they would derive no benefit whatever. It appeared that the Aire and Calder Navigation Company proposed to spend a certain amount of money for the improvement of the port of Goole, which was now almost, practically, a free port. Of course, in the case of Liverpool and other ports, having an extensive system of docks, which had been constructed at an enormous expense, heavy dock dues were charged; and if the Aire and Calder Navigation Company wished to improve the port of Goole, it was in the power of the proprietors of that port to charge dock dues, and so recoup themselves for the expense they incurred in the improvement of the Lower Ouse; but why should the river craft, to which the River Ouse had always been free, be taxed for improvements from which they received no benefit whatever? It might be said that this was not the proper time to bring this question forward, but that it ought to have been brought forward when the Bill was in Committee, and dealt with there. That was quite true, but, unfortunately, this was the only opportunity which had been afforded of bringing this question before Parliament. The Corporation of Hull had endeavoured to obtain a locus standi before the Committee to whom the Bill was referred; but as it was considered to be merely a matter of engineering, and not a matter of finance, they were accordingly refused a locus standi. Petitions had been deposited both by the Corporation of Hull and the Hull Chamber of Commerce, who were strongly opposed to this tax being placed on the commerce of Hull by a rival port for purposes from which the town and people of Hull not only received no advantage, but which would inflict positive injury upon a port which was one of the oldest ports of the country at the present time, and, he believed, the third port of the country. Probably, by Parliamentary usage, there might be some other means of dealing with the matter, and he had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with them; but, up to the present moment, he had failed to discover what other means there were which the Petitioners could have made use of. He was told that the Bill ought to have been recommitted. If so, it was too late to have it recommitted now; but, in view of the justice of the opposition, he might say that the City of York, which was higher up the river, had, by some means or other, wrung from the promoters of the Bill the concession that their craft were not to be taxed. He was also told, and he believed it was in the Bill, that the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, whose craft came by way of the Keadly Canal, and went round by Selby, was also to be exempted from this taxation. On inquiring why Hull was to be taxed, the only answer he could obtain from the promoters of the undertaking was this—that it was an arrangement made with the shipowners, and those shipowners, as far as he understood it, were competing shipowners at Goole. If this improvement was made, and a large amount was received from the taxation levied upon the river craft, the dues now paid by the shipowners at Goole would be proportionately lightened. This would affect the shipowners at Goole in two ways. In the first place, the port of Goole would obtain great advantage from the improvement of the navigation of the River Ouse, which, at present, was very dangerous, and which resulted every now and then in a steamer getting ashore in the Ouse and breaking her back, which entailed very heavy expense upon the owners. But if ships hereafter were not to contend with these dangers, and were to be free from the possibility of breaking their backs, and to be got safely up to Goole, what did that mean? It meant that a large class of vessels, which now used the port of Hull, and which had used it from time immemorial, would be diverted from Hull to the competing port of Goole; so that not only was this new tax to be imposed, but the trade itself was to be taken away, and the livelihood of the owners of the river craft was to be destroyed, because, instead of ships discharging at Hull, and putting their cargoes into the river craft to be worked up the River Ouse to the port of Goole, instead of doing that, the ships themselves would be able to go to the improved port of Goole and carry their cargoes direct. He had no objection to that; but what he did say was this—as a Representative of the interests of the port of Hull—that it was most unfair that an attempt should now be made, not only to destroy the trade, but also to impose a tax upon it, and, as he might call it, in an underhand way to destroy the trade by pretending that the advantages given to traders to Goole direct was no advantage at all. He had made it his business to ascertain from the owners of the river craft, if they were likely to obtain any advantage at all from the improvements which the promoters alleged they were about to effect. They informed him that they could now get up the River Ouse at nearly every state of the tide; and, although a deepening of the river and its improvement might be of advantage to the owners of large vessels, it would be of very little advantage to them. All they had to do now was to start a little earlier in the tide, or to bring their vessels a little lower down the river, and they would not gain anything, in point of time, from the proposed improvement. There was one other point which he desired to bring to the notice of the House. He had seen the Chairman of the Aire and Calder Navigation Company standing in the Lobby, at the door of the House, distributing papers to hon. Members as they entered, containing reasons for opposing the Amendment which he (Mr. C. H. Wilson) had placed upon the Paper. When he applied for one of them, he was told that he might have one after half-past4. Now, he thought it was a matter of public importance that any reasons in favour of a Bill, given to any Member in the Lobby of the House, should be given to every Member. He submitted that it was unfair to bring into the House a paper assigning reasons against the Amendment proposed to be moved by a Member of the House if, at the same time, that paper was not to be made known to the Member who proposed to move the Amendment. He should very much deplore the rejection of this Amendment, either from want of local knowledge on the part of Members of the House, or from any lack of ability on his part in putting the matter clearly before the House. He thought it would be an act of justice to the port he represented to exempt it from the operation of the taxation proposed to be imposed upon it by this Bill; and he begged respectfully to move the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper.

Amendment proposed, In Schedule 1, page 44, last line, by inserting, after the word "burthen," the words "and river craft to and from Hull passing out of or into any canal of the undertakers."—(Mr. Charles Wilson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. NEWZAM-NICHOLSON

said, he wished to amend the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson), by inserting, after the word "Hull," the words "or from the River Trent." The observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Hull applied with equal force to vessels navigating the River Trent. The River Trent found its way into the Humber, and it was navigated for a considerable distance by craft of from 60 to 70 tons burden. The owners of these vessels felt that they would not receive the slightest benefit from the improvement of the navigation of the Ouse, and yet they were to have a toll imposed upon them of ½d. a ton if they required to go up to Goole or York, or elsewhere. He submitted to the House that it would be most unfair to impose upon these persons a toll from which they received not the slightest benefit, more particularly when it was taken into consideration that the navigation from time immemorial had been free. He did not attempt to deny that the port of Goole would receive very great advantages from this Bill for the improvement of the Lower Ouse; but he did deny most strongly, and he was supported in that denial by the speech of the hon. Member for Hull, that many other persons engaged in navigating the Trent and the Humber would derive the slightest advantage. It was impossible that the craft owned by the small owners could receive benefit from this Bill, seeing that they were able at present to navigate the river at all states of the tide. What applied to Hull applied even still more strongly to the River Trent, and to the numerous vessels engaged in carrying coal from the Yorkshire coal fields to Nottingham, Newark, Gainsborough, and other places on the Trent. He trusted that, if the House consented to pass the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson), they would also accept the Amendment he begged now to move, to exclude craft navigating the River Trent from the operation of the Toll Clause of the Bill.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by inserting, after the word "Hull," the words "or from the River Trent."—(Mr. Newzam-Nicholson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or from the River Trent' be inserted in the said proposed Amendment."

MR. KNIGHT

said, that, as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill had been referred, he thought it was somewhat hard that this provision in the Bill should be objected to now, seeing that it had passed the House of Lords without any Petition against it, and that it had also passed through a Committee of the House of Commons without opposition. The facts were simply these. Large improvements would be effected in the River Ouse by the Aire and Calder Navigation Company by this Bill, which had already passed the House of Lords, and received the sanction of a Committee of the House of Commons. It was proposed to impose a toll of ½d. a-ton on vessels passing into or out of any dock or basin at Goole, or any canal belonging to the Company. The toll, however, was only levied upon vessels exceeding 10 tons burden, and vessels under 10 tons were excluded, because it was thought that the improved navigation would not do them much good; but, for larger vessels, the improved navigation up to Goole would be of enormous value in providing additional safety. If a toll of ½d. a-ton were objected to on the part of the port of Hull, it ought to have been appeared against when the Bill was in the House of Lords, and when it came before a Committee of the House of Commons—either one or both. It was quite contrary to the practice of Parliament to leave it until the consideration of the Report upon the Bill, and then to raise objections of this nature. He might say that the question was incidentally brought forward in the Committee of the House of Commons by what he might call a "fluke." It appeared that although the Bill, without any objection being raised, allowed a toll of ½d. per ton to be imposed upon the vessels going into Goole, in order to enter the Aire and Calder Canal, by going in a roundabout way some 20 miles farther, vessels might be able to evade the toll. The Committee therefore inserted in the Bill the branch canal by which that could be done, so that the ½d. toll must still be paid, as was, no doubt, originally intended by the Committees of both Houses of Parliament. The Committee in the House of Commons, however, when a dispute was raised as to whether this branch canal should pay the ½d. toll or not, gave a sort of locus standi to certain persons to be heard in opposition, and in that way the question was raised. It was exactly as if a turnpike had been placed upon the main road, and it was found that, by going four or five miles round, the turnpike toll could be evaded, and, to prevent the evasion, a subsidiary gate was authorized to be put up, in order to catch anybody who attempted to evade the payment of the toll. It was the same with regard to this ½d. toll; and although the toll question was not petitioned against in either House of Parliament, it was brought forward in the Committee of the House of Commons on that subsidiary ground. It was very much against the practice of Parliament to alter charges which had been thoroughly considered by a Committee, and which had not been opposed in either House. He therefore hoped that, in this instance, the House would abide by the decision of its Committee, which he believed to be an exceedingly fair one. His own opinion was that all the shipowners whose vessels went up the Ouse to Goole would derive a considerable amount of benefit from the improvement of the navigation. For these reasons, he trusted the House would not agree to the Amendment.

MR. NORWOOD

said, that, with all due submission to the hon. Member who had just addressed the House (Mr. Knight), he thought the facts of the case were scarcely as they had been represented by the hon. Member. The hon. Member seemed to imply that there had been no opposition to the taxation proposed by the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Corporation of the town of Hull, anxious to protect the commercial interests of the port, did petition against the Bill. Their Petition was, however, rejected by the Court of Referees, who ruled that they had no locus standi whatever, on behalf of the traders of the port of Hull, which would enable them to appear before the Select Committee upon the Bill, in order to defend the rights of the town they represented. The matter was a very simple one. The port of Goole was situated on the River Ouse, close to Hull. The navigation of the Ouse was of an intricate and unsatisfactory character, and the people connected with the port of Goole naturally desired to improve that navigation. To that desire on the part of the port of Goole the people of Hull made not the slightest objection. If the people of Goole were able to improve the navigation, so as to enable large sea-going vessels to reach that port, it would be a "dog-in-the-manger" policy on the part of Hull to say that they should not have that advantage. But what did the promoters of the Bill do? In order to raise the revenues that were necessary to improve the navigation of the river, and to enable large vessels to enter the port of Goole, they proposed to levy a toll on the small barges, which had carried on a trade from time immemorial, right through the canal, to places on the Western Coast which were thus placed in direct communication with Hull. There were hundreds or even thousands of these small barges of from 70 or 80 tons each engaged in that trade. The proposals of the promoters of the Bill was to levy a tax; of ½d. per ton on all vessels of more than 10 tons burden, which, of course, would include the small barges engaged in carrying coal. So far, the owners of those vessels had not had an opportunity of protecting themselves against this tax. They had not been afforded an opportunity of appearing before a Committee, and they had never been able to raise their voices until that day, when, of course, the opportunity was much more limited than if they could have appeared by counsel before the Committee. If they had been able to do that, and the decision of the Committee had been against them, neither his hon. Colleague nor himself would have troubled the House with any question arising out of the matter. This was the only opportunity they had, and they felt they would be altogether neglecting their duty to their constituents, and that they would be submitting tacitly to the imposition of a tax of a serious and onerous character indeed, if they permitted the Bill to pass unchallenged. The tax was altogether a new one; but no new accommodation whatever was given to these barges under the provisions of the Bill. No doubt, the larger vessels would derive benefit, and there was no reason why they should not pay any tax that was necessary in order to secure that benefit; but the barges, in whose interests he was now addressing the House, derived no benefit whatever from deepening the water. The water had always been deep enough for the purposes of these barges, and he would appeal to the fairness of the House to give the owners relief; and the only further remark he would make was, that as they had never had an opportunity of laying their case, as traders of Hull, before a Committee, they were compelled to appeal for justice and consideration at the hands of the House itself.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that as this matter very closely affected the interests of a number of his constituents, he would ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments. He thought the point lay in a nutshell. The Aire and Calder Navigation Company were about to expend a certain sum of money in carrying out what, no doubt, were very useful improvements in the River Ouse; but those improvements in the River Ouse would be of no benefit whatever to the small craft which now frequented the port of Goole. The portion of the community on whose behalf he appealed were those who were interested in the traffic of the River Trent. The River Trent was not capable of affording accommodation to vessels of sufficient capacity to obtain any benefit from the proposed improvement scheme. Therefore it appeared, on the face of it, that a great hardship would be done to those who derived no benefit whatever from the augmented expenditure, and it was most unreasonable that they should be called upon to pay any increased taxation. Therefore, he thought that the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Newzam-Nicholson)—that the River Trent should be omitted in the same way it was proposed to omit the river craft plying to and from Hull, from these additional imports—was only a fair and reasonable proposal. The House would see that it must be a great hardship for this small river traffic, which was for the great advantage of the commercial districts he represented, to have this impediment placed in its way, while it derived no advantage whatever from the expenditure proposed to be sanctioned under the Bill. He would only say, in conclusion, that the promoters of the Bill had established a most wholesome precedent for the course which his hon. Friend the Member for Newark and himself now asked the House to adopt. They had, in the case of the Keadly Canal, virtually granted the terms now asked for by the River Trent. He presumed that the owners of that canal had placed themselves in a position which enabled them to exact terms, and the promoters had thought it advisable to come to an agreement with them. He trusted that the House would place those in whose interests he was now speaking in the same position, and, therefore, he had great pleasure in supporting his hon. Friend's Amendment.

COLONEL GERARD SMITH

said, he rose to say a few words in support of the Amendment which had been moved by one of the hon. Members for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson), and he endorsed, in every respect, what had been stated by the senior Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) in regard to what had taken place in reference to the Corporation of Hull. It had been remarked by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) that very little interest had been excited in the matter, and that the question of tolls only came before the Committee as a subsidiary question. He could, however, assure the hon. Member and the House that among the traders and merchants of Hull this matter had excited considerable interest, that public meetings had been held, and that the Corporation and merchants had decided to oppose the Bill in every way, and to take every means in their power to obtain a locus standi before the Committee. He had a word to say about the decision which the Court of Referees had come to on the question of locus standi. In his opinion, it was an erroneous judgment, because it was a decision which prevented an important and a struggling trade from saying what could be said on their behalf against a tax sought to be imposed upon them unfairly. It seemed to him that the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) was perfectly right in saying that this was the only opportunity they had had of bringing the matter before the House and endeavouring to obtain an alteration of the provisions of the Bill. He must confess that he had at first thought the people who were interested in the navigation of the River Trent were treated in an exceptionally favourable way; but he now understood that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Newzam-Nicholson) also complained of the treatment to which the traders of that river were subjected; and he was quite sure that the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson), who had moved the Amendment, would be willing to do equal justice to the Trent, and to incorporate in his Amendment words to the same effect as those which had been proposed by the hon. Member opposite. The words, however, should be "or to or from the River Trent," in order to place the Amendment on all fours with that which had been moved in regard to Hull. The way in which the trade was carried on was simply this. In order to avoid the high rates charged by the railways at Hull, a great deal of the stuff which came in ships was thrown into lighters and sent up the River Humber through the port of Goole to the Aire and Calder Canal. By this means the merchants effected a great saving by avoiding the charges of the Railway Companies; and, of course, the competition between the Canal and the Railway Companies enabled cargoes to be carried at favourable rates. He would ask what it was the House would do if they declined to accept this Amendment? They would virtually impose a serious tax upon a struggling trade; and they would, in point of fact, force the goods now conveyed by lighters to the Canal into the hands of the Railway Companies at higher rates. The result of that would be to destroy that competition between the railways and the canals which Parliament had always approved of and encouraged. With regard to the allegation that the merchants and traders of Hull had deposited no Petition, he would remind the House that this trade was carried on by men of small capital. It was a trade that was encouraged by the circumstances he had mentioned, and which met with support from the merchants and traders of whom his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson) was one. Indeed, it would be a very serious matter on the part of the House if anything were done to stop this trade. There were other matters upon which the Committee of locus standi might very well have allowed the Corporation of Hull to have appeared upon. For his own part, he doubted very much whether the hon. Member for Newark would not find the provisions of this Bill a very serious matter. His own opinion was that the improvements proposed to be carried on would very materially damage the navigation of the River Trent, and he entertained strong doubts whether they would not seriously and permanently damage the navigation of the Humber. All he desired to do now was to protect the trade, and to see that no unfair advantage was taken, and that no unjust tax was imposed on the trade of Hull for the benefit of the port of Goole. He knew the competition which existed between the ports of Hull and Goole. Nobody knew it better than he did; but it was an honourable competition, or, at least, it had been hitherto. It would, however, become a very unfair competition if this Amendment were rejected. They had no objection in Hull to see the docks in Goole enlarged and the river deepened, and an increasing and prosperous trade carried on; but it ought not to be carried on to the detriment of the port of Hull, or even to that of the port of Grimsby, which he presumed to be in very much the same unfortunate position as Hull. The Bill, in his opinion, had a somewhat further reach than that which had been described by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson). The hon. Member said, in his Amendment—"River craft to or from Hull passing out of or into any canal of the undertakers." The real fact was, that the Aire and Calder Canal proper was comparatively a small property; but the Aire and Calder Navigation Company either leased or undertook the working of other canals, by means of which they were able to unite a system of canals, which reached practically from the East to the West of the Kingdom. Therefore, it was not merely the local trade which passed to Goole, and perhaps to some of the South Yorkshire colleries and as far as York, but it applied to a trade which extended right across to the whole of the West of England. Without detaining the House further, he would simply add that this was a most important subject, and that it ought not to be disposed of without serious consideration. For his own part, he gave a hearty support to the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson).

MR. PEMBERTON

said, he hoped the House would pause before it agreed to the Amendment. The facts were these. It was now proposed, in a way utterly inconsistent with the practice of the House, to go into a question of Schedule in a Private Bill which had passed both through a Committee of that House and through the House of Lords. The House was accustomed, in all matters of detail, especially those which related to the matter of tolls, and the way in which tolls were to be collected, to leave all such questions entirely to their Committees. The proposition was now, at the instigation of the Corporation of Hull, to undo what the Committees of both Houses had done, and to undo it on the application of a Corporation which was held to be not entitled to be heard, either according to the practice of the House of Commons or of that of the other House of Parliament. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Colonel Smith) had said that the Corporation of Hull might very well have been admitted to be heard; but he (Mr. Pemberton) would like to know on what principle it could have been heard in accordance with the practice of the House? The Corporation of the town in no way represented the trade of a town, and was in no way affected by the tolls. Not only had the Corporation of Hull no interest in the river, but the Conservency of the Humber was vested in another Corporation. It would have been necessary to have heard the traders themselves, if they had petitiond against the Bill. If they had petitioned against it, then, in accordance with the practice of the House, they would have been admitted to be heard. But the Corporation of Hull had no interest whatever in the Bill, and was not allowed to be heard in either House. Therefore, to insert this Amendment, after what was practically the third reading of a Bill which had passed Committees of both Houses, on the application of a Corporation which was not entitled to be heard in either House, seemed to be one of the most monstrous departures from the practice of the House which had ever been proposed. The arguments which had been brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he dared say, were very good and very forcible; but the House could not go into them upon that stage of the Bill. The Bill itself proposed to levy these tolls for the first time. If that principle were objectionable, the objection should have been taken on the second reading. All that the Committee to which the Bill was referred had to do was to assume that the principle of the Bill was approved, of and then merely to go into questions of detail. The Committee did not propose to increase the tolls, but simply to extend the exemption which the Bill provided in favour of certain small craft. It seemed to him that, if this Amendment was passed, the practice of the House would be entirely altered, and they might as well do away with Committees on Private Bills altogether.

MR. RAIKES

said, he had only a few words to add to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Court of Referees (Mr. Pemberton). He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the House should be most careful how it established a new precedent for reviewing the decisions of these Committees, He was all the more anxious to have an opportunity of saying a word or two upon that point, because there was another serious matter involved in it which he thought was worthy of consideration on the part not only of the authorities of the House, but of all who were interested in the conduct of Public Business, because the real question was how far the Public Business might not possibly be obstructed if it were to become the practice to review the decisions of Private Bill Committees. They might be called upon to discuss not merely one Amendment, but 30 or 40, which might be brought forward on the consideration of every Private Bill after it had passed through a Select Committee. Not only might that be done, but there would be the greatest possible uncertainty here- after as to their proceedings in regard to the consideration of more important matters of Imperial legislation. The decision of the Committee upon the Bill had been called in question by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson), but had been defended and explained by an hon. Member of very long experience in the House, who acted as Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Knight); and no one would doubt that the Committee had given to the matter all the care and consideration which it was possible to devote to it. One point which was made just now by his hon. Friend the Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton) was also deserving of the attention of the House—namely, that the persons who were interested in the matter, as owners of the river craft, had had every opportunity of being heard before the Committee by counsel; but none of them had petitioned against the Bill.

MR. C. H. WILSON

said, that the merchants, traders, and barge-owners did present a Petition against the Bill.

MR. PEMBERTON

Did they ask in their Petition to be heard by counsel?

MR. C. H. WILSON

said, he was unable to say.

MR. RAIKES

said, the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson) had better not have interrupted, because he only confirmed the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton), that there was really no opposition to the Bill. There was a time when any person who felt himself aggrieved by a Bill could have applied to be heard before the Committee, and if he established a locus standi, witnesses could have been examined and cross-examined, and counsel could have appeared to conduct the case; but no steps of that kind had been taken. In spite of the able advocacy which the Amendment had received, the discussion which had taken place only convinced him that it was utterly impossible to deal in the House itself with the statements made in reference to a Private Bill by the Members representing a constituency affected by its provisions, however important that constituency might be. He trusted the House would support the decision of the Committee, and would not depart from the old rules and practice which regulated their proceedings upon Private Bills.

SIR. ARTHUR OTWAY

said, he entirely concurred with the observations which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes). He thought it would be most unfortunate if the House were to encourage the desire on the part of hon. Members to have all questions affecting their constituencies in a Private Bill heard upon the floor of the House, when they did not choose to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded them of being heard before the Committee. The present Bill, no doubt, imposed upon the owners of small craft the payment of a toll to which they had not hitherto been subjected; but he would ask the House to consider the extreme inconvenience of the course they were now asked to take by the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson). The question had been considered by each House of Parliament, and it came down now for investigation in the House itself, after it had been carefully considered and disposed of by a Committee. If the result of the investigation was to be that, on the third reading, the time of the House was to be taken up in considering a question which, if it were to be considered at all, ought to have been dealt with on the second reading of the Bill, he thought they would be establishing a most inconvenient precedent, and one which was certainly not calculated to promote the progress of Public Business. He must also point out to the House that the owners of this river craft, in whose interest the Amendment was moved, did not appear before the Committee, nor did they seek to obtain a locus standi. The Corporation of Hull, it was true, did apply for a locus standi; but they altogether failed to establish their right to one. In the Committee of the House of Lords the question of locus standi was considered from a much wider point of view than by the Court of Referees, to which it was referred in the House of Commons. But, in this case, the Committee of the House of Lords also declined to hear the Corporation of Hull; and, under those circumstances, he contended that the House could not do otherwise than support the decision of their Committee. Such matters as these ought not to be discussed at all on the third reading of a Private Bill; but they ought to have been regularly considered at the time the Bill was brought forward for a second reading.

MR. C. H. WILSON

said, he was placed in a somewhat awkward position; because, although he had the sympathy and support of a considerable number of Members of the House, it appeared that on some technical grounds — perhaps from inexperience, or from not sufficiently apprehending the practice of the House—he had virtually placed himself out of court. What he wished to point out was, that the real question at issue had never come before the Committee of the House of Commons at all in any shape or form; and if it were to be excluded now, an act of injustice would be committed towards the merchants and traders of Hull, simply because the Motion he was now moving was, to some extent, an exceptional one, notwithstanding the fact that its exceptional character arose from the circumstances which had brought it about. These traders, in whose interests he had moved the Amendment, were men who owned very small river craft. It was very difficult to get them to work together; they had no funds at their disposal with which they could deal, like a Corporation, and they were pitted against one of the most powerful and prosperous Corporations of the Kingdom—namely, the Corporation of the Aire and Calder Navigation. It was only a very few days ago that he received a letter from Hull, signed by a large number of these poor barge-owners, saying that they had been laid up in Hull for six weeks, that the trade was very bad, and if they could not get rid of their cargoes of coals they would have to put their vessels by and give up the trade. It was the last straw that broke the camel's back; and this powerful Corporation was now about to impose upon these men a tax of ½d. per ton, from which they would derive no benefit whatever, and which was simply imposed for the purposes of the Corporation itself, and for the advantage of its own trade. The imposition of this toll would not only be the taxing of the trade, but would destroy it altogether; because the acknowledged object of the Bill was to put a stop to the navigation of the river by small craft, by improving the navigation in favour of larger vessels. He was sure, if there could have been an opportunity of placing the case of these men before the Committee, the Chairman of that Committee would have been the very first to protect them against the injustice which he (Mr. C. H. Wilson) was compelled to say was being done to them, and against which they had not been heard, simply owing to some technical objection. Hon. Members opposite were taking advantage of that technical objection; but he trusted that the arguments they had adduced would have no weight with the House. He was quite satisfied that if it were not for the technical objection, the sympathy of the House would have been entirely with these poor men who were carrying on this trade. Although he said so with a considerable amount of diffidence, he still felt that he should not be doing his duty if he did not bring the matter before the House, and press it to a Division. He hoped, even still, that the claim he had made on behalf of these small traders would be favourably considered, and that he would receive support from the House generally, including the hon. Gentleman who had presided over the Committee (Mr. Knight).

MR. NEWZAM-NICHOLSON

said, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw the Amendment he had proposed, and substitute, after the word "Hull," the words "or to or from the River Trent."

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "Hull," to insert the words "or to or from the River Trent."—(Mr. Newzam-Nicholson.)

Question, "That the words 'to or from the River Trent' be inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'and river craft to and from Hull passing out of or into any canal of the undertakers' be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Bill to be read the third time.