SECOND READING.

HC Deb 26 June 1884 vol 289 cc1372-88

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

I must ask the permission of the House to make a few remarks on this very important Bill at the present stage. I feel it incumbent on me to give expression to the feeling of alarm which it has excited in the great constituency I represent, and whose interests are materially connected with the Bill. I must apologize to the House for raising the question at this somewhat unusual time; but that is no fault of ours. We entertain the strongest feeling in the matter; and we have either to use the present opportunity of giving expression to that strong feeling or to forfeit entirely all opportunities in the House itself. I trust, therefore, that the House will bear with me while I go over some of the grounds why I feel extremely anxious that this Bill should not be passed. I wish the House to understand that this is not a question of competition in the matter of trade as between one town and another. We have no jealousy or feeling of rivalry with Manchester or any town in Lancashire, and I will not trouble the House on this occasion with any question of competition. The question is much deeper and more vital to Liverpool and the vast population living on the banks of the Mersey. It is the opinion of the best authorities in our town and neighbourhood, who have studied the navigation of the Mersey for a lifetime, that the works proposed to be laid down by the Canal Company, in the Upper Estuary of the Mersey, will probably lead to the silting up of the river and the destruction of its navigation. That is the sole reason why we now ask the, House to give its attention to the Bill before assenting to the second reading. Perhaps the House will allow me to explain the character of the Estuary of the Mersey, and how it may be affected by the present Bill as a navigable river. The Mersey, after passing Liverpool, expands into a sort of inland bay or gulf—a large sheet of water, 10 miles long by three vide, with shallows and sandbanks over the greater part of it. This bay is filled by an enormous tidal wave and emptied out again, twice daily the result being an immense scour, which keeps open the deep channel in front of Liverpool right down to the sea, notwithstanding the existence of sandbanks, extending for 10 miles or so, at the mouth of the harbour. The very existence of our port depends on this scour, which keeps open the navigable channel; and anything which seriously diminishes it must result in the gradual silting up of the Mersey and the destruction of the port, which is the only great harbour in the North-West of England, with a deep water approach from the sea. All along the North-West Coast there is a line of sandbanks, and the Mersey is the only river which has sufficient power to drive through those sandbanks so as to make a deep channel to the sea, and that power depends on the large mass of water in the upper estuary that passes in and out at every tide. We believe that the effect of putting down the training walls in the upper estuary of the Mersey, which this Company proposes to do, will sooner or later lead to the silting up of that large bay or gulf, whose waters produce the scour which keeps open the channel. This is not only the unanimous opinion of all competent observers who live on the banks of the Mersey, and whose business it has been to watch the navigation of the Mersey, but of the ablest engineers both in England and America; and perhaps the House will allow me to give the opinion of two of the ablest engineers living. Mr. Eades, a great American engineer, says— I am certain, if the proposed works in the Tipper Estuary are carried out, very serious and injurious results would follow both to the entrance over the bar and the entrance to the Liverpool Docks. Another engineer, one of the greatest authorities in England as a river engineer, Mr. Thomas Stevenson, says— I have no doubt whatever that the whole Estuary of the Mersey would be silted up and be covered by grass. Upon no account should walls be put up in the estuary. I say that it would be most costly; and decidedly I think it would lead to something like a national calamity. The leading engineers, on behalf of the promoters, do not dispute that view, but say it lies with Liverpool to keep open her passage to the Atlantic. We have great reason for suspecting that if these works, in the Upper Estuary of the Mersey, which are now projected, are carried out, what has happened at Chester will happen at Liverpool. Chester, at one time, had a navigable channel, which is now closed up; and, with that and like experiences elsewhere, we have too much reason to fear that when the ultimate consequences of these works come to be realized, we shall see the same result at Liverpool—the gradual and steady closing up of the passage. I think I have now put before the House sufficient reason for asking it to regard with great caution, and even aversion, any measure that would seriously tamper with the navigability of the Mersey. Has the House realized to itself what the closing of the Mersey means? Should the views of the best authorities, to whom I have referred, be correct, it would be a sentence of banishment to the 800,000 people who live within five miles of the Liverpool Exchange. They would have to disperse, and seek their living elsewhere; and all the immense capital expended on the banks of the Mersey would be rendered valueless. Will the House allow me to remind them that the Liverpool Docks have been constructed at an enormous cost; that the management of the Dock Trust is a national affair; and that everything which imperils the future action of the Dock Board must be most disastrous. No less than £16,000,000 have been borrowed on the security of our Docks; Liverpool Dock Bonds form one of the favourite investments of the country; and if anything is done to obstruct the channel of the Mersey, the whole of that £16,000,000 may be lost. But I say that is a small and a trifling matter compared with the ultimate consequences, for you would not only destroy Liverpool and all the surrounding towns, but you would destroy the prosperity of all the Lancashire towns whose outlet is by the Mersey. It is impossible to realize the financial and commercial consequences of any action which will put an end to the navigable channel of the Mersey. There would be a loss to this country of of little less than the amount of the National Debt. In my opinion, it is a more important matter than the Channel Tunnel, or than any other question that has ever come before the House in a Private Bill; and it would be wrong indeed if the utmost attention of the House and the country were not given to this Bill before it passes into law. Let me ask what are the advantages that would be gained by the proposed Ship Canal to counterbalance these great risks? They are extremely slight and problematical even to the trade of Manchester itself. Many of us do not believe that under any circumstances will the Canal be a success. Even on their own showing, the gain will be only 4s. a-ton on a fraction of the goods passing through Liverpool. Even in Manchester itself, to my own personal knowledge, there is a large body of public opinion—the most intelligent opinion I know of—opposed to this Canal, regarding it as a dangerous scheme; and, I repeat, Manchester itself, speaking through, its most representative commercial men, is very much divided in opinion on this subject. It will be said, in reply, that there are other engineers to be found in the country who think differently from those I have mentioned, and who imagine that, by means of dredging, and training walls, and one plan or another, it will be possible to keep open the Mersey. The answer I give is, is it right to stake a matter of such immense importance on the conflicting testimony of experts? Everyone knows that professional men, on almost every subject, can be got to give diametrically opposite opinions. I I say, then, is it fair that works which involve the existence of the greatest seaport in the world, and the greatest trade and commerce in the world, should depend on the mere opinions of experts? I say it is monstrous that such dangerous works should be undertaken unless there is a moral certainty that they will be successful. I will just say, in conclusion, that the Canal Company have it in their power to release us from this immense anxiety. They have it in their own power to effect their scheme by carrying the proposed Canal to deep sea water. If they choose to change the route by 10 or 15 miles along either shore of the Estuary, they would escape from the necessity of tampering with the navigation of the Mersey; and I trust the House, before sanctioning the Bill, will make it an absolute condition that this rectification should be carried out, and that on no other condition will they sanction this dangerous work. I will not ask the House to reject the Bill; but on behalf of the enormous interests involved—interests which may be calculated by hundreds of millions sterling—I ask that the strongest Committee possible should be appointed, a Committee containing the best engineering talent that can be found in this House; and I will further ask that the House itself should follow the evidence given before this Committee with much care, because we are determined to fight the Bill to the last, should it unhappily pass another stage in this House. We regard the matter simply as one of life or death, and fraught with the deepest interest to the national welfare, and we should not be discharging our duty, either to our constituents or to the country at large, if we did not use every opportunity of throwing out the Bill, unless such changes are made in it as will deprive it of its terrible risks to the navigation of the Mersey. I will not occupy the time of hon. Members further, and I thank the House for the attention with which it has listened to me.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) has been well advised when he determined not to divide the House on this question. It would be an extraordinary thing if any obstruction were to be placed in the way of the Bill at this stage, seeing that a Committee of the House of Commons, last year, presided over by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Sir Thomas Bailey), passed the Bill unanimously; and seeing that a very strong Committee, and one of the most Conservative Committees it was possible to appoint, in the House of Lords, passed the Bill this year. Under these circumstances, it would be unprecedented if any obstruction took place at this stage. I shall not be tempted at this moment — indeed, it is quite unnecessary that I should — to reply to the expressions of alarm of my hon. Friend, or to what he says with regard to engineering matters. He has quoted two or three engineers. I could, if I chose, quote a dozen on the other side, and men of much greater practical experience in these questions than those he has mentioned. But, surely, if the alarm felt by my hon. Friend was not entertained by the Committee of this House last year, and was held to be groundless this year by the House of Lords, it is clear that neither House of Parliament apprehends the risk of any damage to the Port of Liverpool. Now, all over Lancashire—in Manchester and Salford, and elsewhere—we have precisely the same interest in the security of the Mersey as those have who are represented by my hon. Friend; and we have come to the conclusion that the Mersey is not secure so long as it is in the hands of Liverpool alone. I will mention one fact to the House. Within living memory there were 17 feet of water on the bar at Liverpool during low water; there are now only nine feet at low water. The Port of Liverpool might be made a much more available port than it is; and we believe that, with the concurrence of Manchester, that bar might be removed, and that you might have a good harbour of refuge at Liverpool, instead of having large vessels lying outside, in all weathers, unable to enter the Mersey. With regard to the docks of Liverpool, the whole system there is of the most antiquated character possible. It will scarcely be believed that we have no railway communication with those docks, and that there is only one of the many Liverpool docks that has railway communication with the town of Liverpool. Mr. Moon, Chairman of the London and North-Western Railway, has publicly stated that Liverpool is the dearest port in this country, and that she adopts none of those modern means that ought to be adopted for handling goods and facilitating the transaction of business. The feeling in Manchester, Salford, Oldham, Ashton, Stockport, and all the neighbouring towns is wide, deep, and strong in favour of this scheme. It has not been taken up suddenly. It is an opinion which it has taken two or three years to form; and only last Saturday there was a gathering of 50,000 men in the neighbourhood of Manchester, not with a view of impressing the Committee of this House, but of simply expressing their appreciation of the efforts of the Provisional Committee who have been actively promoting this Bill. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend in his desire to have a strong Committee, for the more intelligent and the more able it is the better we shall like it. We have complete confidence that the more able the Committee the more certain it will be that the Bill will be accepted.

MR. HOULDSWORTH

After the very strong language used by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), I was rather surprised at the very lame conclusion at which he deemed it prudent to arrive; for I agree with my hon. Colleague who sits on the other side of the House in the conviction that it is the desire of those who are promoting this canal, and who sympathize with that movement, that there should be a thorough and sifting investigation by Parliament into all the merits of the case. But we have to consider, on the second reading, whether there is such a primâ facie case for the Bill that it should be allowed to go to a Committee upstairs. I venture to think that I have only to state to the House one fact to prove that proposition, that there is a strong primâ facie case. Hon. Members will be astonished, I think, when I tell them that of the charges which are imposed in order to carry goods from Manchester to Calcutta, one-half, or not less than 60 per cent, is involved in carrying the goods from Manchester and placing them on board ship at Liverpool. I think that fact is quite sufficient to show that there is a strong primâ facie case for the inhabitants of Manchester, and those other districts in Lancashire whose business is bound up with those of Manchester. Parliament ought to encourage rather than discourage any efforts that may be made to alter such a state of things, which the House will see must affect injuriously the large commerce not only of this country, but of all the world. I recognize fully the right of Liverpool, placed as it has been on the Mersey, that they should look jealously at this proposal, and ask Parliament to look carefully into the effect the proposed works would have upon the navigation of the Mersey. That is not only their right. It is their duty. But I would venture to remind the House' that this is not the first time this Bill has come into Parliament. It has already passed through the sifting of two very important and large Committees. It seems to me that the questions raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) are questions which the House, as a whole, cannot deal with, and that they are eminently questions which should be dealt with by a Committee upstairs. The hon. Member has said that experts may be found to give an opinion on any side whatever. But I would ask whether, if that be so, it is for us to give a verdict upon the subjects on which these experts have been called to give evidence. I ask the House to allow this Bill to go upstairs, where it may be thoroughly sifted. It is a question in which the people of Manchester, and not only of Manchester, but all those commercial towns of which Manchester is the centre, take a very deep interest. I believe myself that in the success of this scheme—and there are difficulties connected with it with which Parliament has nothing to do—but I believe that in the success of this scheme the future of the commercial interests and welfare of this country is very much bound up.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

I will only detain the House for one or two minutes; but there is a community which I have the honour to represent which is proportionately even more interested in this Bill than the City of Manchester. I beg leave to say one word as to the course which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) has taken—for it is a most extraordinary course—upon this occasion. He had laid before the House some portion of the evidence taken before the Committee of the House, and he has, therefore, invited us to follow his example, and to bring forward evidence on the other side. That invitation I shall decline. I shall not follow the bad example of bringing forward evidence on the other side. My hon. Friend has acted in a most unfortunate manner for the interests of those he represents. He has called attention to the fact that this Bill has already received the approval not only of a Committee of this House, but of a Committee of the House of Lords, and he has confessed that he is either unable or unwilling to proceed to a Division. I may remind the hon. Member and his constituents that this House is situated upon a river equally famous with the Mersey, and from the windows of this House anyone may see that the Thames has been embanked within training walls, and the estuary of the Thames has received in consequence no damage, but rather advantage from the greater scour of the river. I think the hon. Member has no right to offer to the House expressions of undying opposition to the Bill, unless he is prepared to proceed to a Division. I challenge him to take a Division on this question, in order to mark his thorough opposition to the measure. I know he is a sincere man. I hope he will on this occasion give effect to his sincerity, and I challenge him now to divide the House against the second reading of the Bill.

MR. RATHBONE

I will not detain the House long. I wish only to make a remark in regard to what has been said —that this Bill has passed a Committee of this House, and has also passed a Committee of the House of Lords. With regard to the Committee of this House, my hon. Friends have not stated that the Bill was passed with a very stringent provision as to the carrying out successfully of a very large part of the work. The Committee of the House of Lords debated the matter for two hours before they allowed it to pass. Therefore, I do not think that this reference to the Committees at all settles the question. I wish, however, to put the matter before the House on its right footing. Liverpool has never objected to a ship canal, if a ship canal could be got which would not interfere with the estuary of the Mersey, and which would, at the same time, reduce the charges of the Railway Companies. It is quite possible that a ship canal, which would have that result, would benefit Liverpool as well as Manchester. I am not surprised that this is a popular question in Manchester. But my hon. Friend knows that a very large proportion of those interested in the Port of Liverpool consider that this Bill is a dangerous one, and that among the capitalists of Manchester there are many who consider with us that this Bill is a dangerous one. I have been in business on the Mersey for 40 years; and during the whole of that time the effect of natural causes has kept free for us the entrance to the Mersey, so that ships of the largest burden can cross the bar. What we fear is, that if these natural causes are disturbed and interfered with there will be much reason to dread that the freedom of the channel may be jeopardized. If that should happen, the interests of Liverpool and Manchester will be damaged alike. Anyone who will take the trouble to read the evidence, as it has been given before the two Committees, will see that it is most contradictory, and that the preponderance and balance of evidence is that you will be incurring a tremendous danger by passing this Bill of creating fresh sandbanks; and certainly the simple assertion of my hon. Friends that there will be no danger does not prove their case. The great difficulty is the creation of these fresh sandbanks; and it ought to be proved unmistakably that there is no risk of the Mersey being silted up by the passing of this measure, before so dangerous a measure receives the sanction either of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. We do hope, as my hon. Friend has said, that the House will not only give us a very strong Committee, but will watch the evidence given before that Committee.

MR. SLAGG

My hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) has reminded the House that when this Bill was before the Committee of the House of Commons last year some very stringent restrictions were imposed with regard to the estuary. I may remind my hon. Friend and the House that in the Bill before the House last year the question of the estuary was not included. It was, in fact, a very imperfect Bill. It was on account of the imperfections of the Bill, and that it entirely failed to deal with the estuary of the Mersey, that the restrictions referred to by my hon. Friend were imposed. I may notice that the present Bill is a totally different Bill in that respect. It is very much more complete, and deals fully with the estuary question. My hon. Friend has declared that this is not a matter which has evoked much popular enthusiasm. I beg to say that he is entirely mistaken. The enthusiasm of the popular sentiment with regard to this Canal Bill in Lancashire is more intense than it has been as respects any measure I ever remember. I cordially concur with the hon. Gentleman in his desire that we should have a very strong Committee to investigate the whole matter, and I have no fear whatever as to the result.

SIR ARTHUR OTWAY

I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this discussion, but rather to ask the House whether it is necessary that it should be prolonged? The hon. Member who opened the debate, and who entered very largely into details upon the question, has not asked the House to refuse a second reading to the Bill. In my opinion, it would be quite impossible, with any regard and propriety, to decline to read the Bill a second time. The question has been so thoroughly investigated and passed by those who are so well adapted to inquire into these matters—and it has also been examined by a very strong Committee in "another place"—that we cannot stop the progress of the Bill. The Bill occupied the Committee of the other House in examining evidence 41 days, and that Committee gave their decision that the measure was a right and proper one to pass that House. It then came down here. Under these circumstances, and because the hon. Member has announced his intention not to divide the House, I think it is a pity that we should further waste the time of the House by discussing most important questions which can only be settled by a Committee upstairs. I admit that it is desirable to appoint a very strong Committee in order to hold the balance even between the apprehensions of Liverpool and the aspirations of Manchester. What I hope is, that when this Bill emerges from the Committee some of the fears which are now entertained by some hon. Members may have been dispelled. What I think both Liverpool and Manchester have a right to expect is that the Committee to be appointed to investigate this matter should be one in which the House can place entire confidence. Upon that subject I am not sure that the Committee of Selection should not go beyond the ordinary Panel in selecting the Committee. No doubt, whether the Members for Manchester or the Members for Liverpool are right—whether the American engineers are right, or the English engineers are right, in their view—the Bill involves questions of the greatest magnitude, for Liverpool and Manchester have a right to an assurance that the Bill, before it passes into law, should have the sanction of the most powerful Committee which can be obtained, and one which will have the entire confidence of the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Though it is perfectly true that the hon. Gentleman who initiated this discussion does not propose to divide upon this Bill, it is obvious that he does intend to influence public opinion by the debate he has raised in this House. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that a reply should be made to the remarks which he and the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) have made on this subject. The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire said it was a matter of notoriety that this Bill was only passed by the House of Lords Committee after considerable wavering on the part of two Members. I think, perhaps, the hon. Member was not in Order in making this statement; but since it has been made, I may be at liberty to make the further statement that it is equally a matter of notoriety that those two Members of the Committee did not hesitate upon a question of engineering, but only on the question whether the capital could be raised. The only question raised by the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire is, therefore, perfectly irrelevant to the issue now before us. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) is afraid that the Mersey will be, or may be, silted up, if this Bill is carried. Does he imagine that the whole of the rest of Lancashire are so suicidal in their tendencies that they actually desire such a result, or wish to destroy a port which is as necessary to their trade and to their prosperity as it is to the prosperity of Liverpool itself? The hon. Member for Liverpool may be wise in his generation; but it is too much to ask the House to believe that the rest of Lancashire are so ignorant of their own interests, or so grossly blind to them, that they actually desire to destroy the whole trade and Port of Liverpool under an illusory idea that the interests of Manchester may be served by so doing.

SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY

I do not intend to say a word as to the controversy between Manchester and Liverpool; but after the appeal which has been made to me by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and others, I beg to assure the House that, in consideration of the importance of this Bill both to Liverpool and Manchester, from the day that it passed through the Committee of the House of Lords, the Committee of Selection has been devoting its attention to the great object of forming the strongest possible tribunal to try this great question. I may say that the selection of Members will not be confined to any particular Panel or any particular side of the House. I communicated with the Chairman of the Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, with the idea of seeing whether they would object to giving us one of their strongest Members to take the chair. I hoped that a right hon. Gentleman who had been a Cabinet Minister would kindly undertake to act as Chairman. He has, unfortunately, been unable to do so; but I believe I have got another right hon. Gentleman who has filled a very high Office in a previous Government, and who commands the confidence of the House, to accept the post. The other Members will be Gentlemen of experience. The House will remember that we are now approaching the first week in July, and that it is not possible to press any Member whom we might think qualified to serve, too hard. At the same time, we shall do our best to find the strongest Committee, both in regard to Chairman and Members, that can be found.

MR. WHITLET

I have been absent from the House for the last few days, and I was not aware of the course my hon. Colleague proposed to take in regard to this Bill. As far as I gather from my hon. Colleague, he does not wish to divide the House, because he does not wish the question to be prejudged. What he is anxious to secure is what my right hon. Friend behind me says will be secured—namely, a strong Committee. I am very sorry, and the whole of Liverpool will be very sorry, that this question should be discussed, as it seems likely it will be discussed, as a question between Liverpool and Manchester. There is no jealousy in Liverpool as regards Manchester; but our difficulty is simply that, which has been pointed out by my hon. Colleague, in regard to the estuary of the Mersey. We do entertain a very strong apprehension that the engineering works proposed may ultimately be injurious to the interests both of Liverpool and of the country generally. It must be borne in, mind that the conservators of the river—the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board— have no pecuniary interest in this matter, except as it affects the welfare of Liverpool and the whole county of Lancashire. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board are a National Board for conserving the National property, and all we desire is to have this question thoroughly sifted by a strong Committee. I must correct the statement of my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. A. J. Balfour) upon one point. I believe that the engineering difficulties did enter into the consideration of the noble Lords who dissented from the general finding of the Lords Committee, and it was the main difficulty. Be that as it may, we feel that our case is a good one, and that it ought to be considered by a strong Committee. I think the object of my hon. Colleague has been secured in having obtained from my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, and my right hon. Friend behind me (Sir John R. Mowbray), an assurance that there shall be a strong Committee.

MR. MAC IVER

, who was received with cries of "Divide!" said: I shall not be deterred from what I have to say, and what I think it is right to say, about this Bill by cries of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House. One half of the Port of Liverpool is within my constituency, and therefore I claim a right to speak. I cannot help saying that I somewhat regret the course which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) has taken upon this occasion. We all know how important it is that there should be a strong Committee to consider this Bill. We all know that a question of this kind, with such vast and important interests involved, must receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Sir John R. Mowbray); but I cannot help feeling that the case of those who intend to oppose the Bill, as I do, has been somewhat prejudiced by the way in which it has been introduced by the hon. Member. The hon. Member has done something, however unintentionally, to prejudice the case of Liverpool by rousing afresh local jealousies between Liverpool and Manchester, and the district surrounding Manchester. Speaking for myself, and I believe for my constituents also, we should welcome a good water communication between Liverpool and Manchester. I as fully believe, as those who are in favour of the Bill, that if a ship canal to Manchester could be successfully made, it would be a benefit to the whole district, not excepting my own constituents at Birkenhead; and I believe that those who suppose such a canal would bring a disadvantage to Liverpool, are making a great mistake. But I want to say some- thing of my own knowledge. I know something—perhaps there are not many Members of the House, and certainly none on the other side of the House, who have had any opportunities of learning something—about the estuary of the Mersey. The way in which I have become acquainted with the channels there is this—all my life I have been connected with the shipping of the Port of Liverpool, and for many years I have been associated with the racing which takes place upon the river. I therefore know the channels of the Mersey well, and I am able to appreciate much of the scientific evidence which has been placed before the Committee. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) is labouring under an entire mistake when he says that there are only nine feet of water on the bar of the Mersey at low water. It would be impossible to hold our regattas, such as that which was held last week, if that were so. At the same time, I know that the channel of the Mersey requires the most careful attention, and must not be trifled with. In my yacht-racing days there were 14 feet of water on the bar of the Mersey at low water. It is about that now. I have known it more, and I have known it less. When I was a boy I have known parts of the Mersey, now dry, which were then navigable. I have seen the sea close to where I live changing year by year; and I do not believe that it is safe to try experiments with the great Port of Liverpool. On physical grounds I strongly oppose the Bill. Any possible advantage is most doubtful and so remote that it does not deserve consideration for one moment in comparison with the great question of the real dangers to the Port of Liverpool involved in the proposals of the Bill. Now, what does this Bill propose? It proposes, among other things, to put several million tons of stone into the Mersey. [Cries of "Agreed!"]

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. MAC IVER

I am perfectly in Order, Sir; and I shall say what I have a right to say, in spite of the interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and whether they like it or not. Hon. Members opposite, and their friends who are promoting this Bill, propose to put several million tons of stone into the Mersey; and no person in the world, whe- ther he be an engineer or anybody else, knows what the effect will be. The common sense of hon. Members of this House—I am not referring to Gentlemen below the Gangway—but the common sense of hon. Members of this House will, I think, teach them this— that if it should so happen that the putting of all this stone into the Mersey should turn out to be a mistake, we could do nothing to remedy it. We could not take them out again. It is for reasons of this nature that I am as keen an opponent of the Bill as it is possible for any man to be. At the same time, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) has made a mistake in bringing the question before the House; because the remarks he has made may have a tendency to arouse feelings of jealousy between Manchester and Liverpool which, perhaps, do exist in some quarters, but which ought not to exist; because I believe that Manchester, and Lancashire generally, as well as Liverpool and Birkenhead, have the same interest in maintaining the channel of the Mersey in a navigable condition.

MR. HICKS

I do not wish, on this occasion, to raise a question on the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, as to the power of this House to refuse the second reading of this Bill. But, having sat on a Committee last year, for the purpose of inquiring into the canal system of the country, and the way in which that system has been interfered with by recent legislation, I wish to express a hope that if the Committee to be appointed to consider the Bill should pass the Preamble of it, they will consider not merely the benefit which may be likely to accrue to the City of Manchester and the neighbourhood, but also the advantage which may be conferred on the country at large. I hope, further, that clauses will be introduced into the Bill for the purpose of securing a full and free interchange of traffic, upon fair terms, between this new canal and that system of railway which reaches from Manchester, by means of the parent of canals and other canals, into the Midland and the North-East districts of England. I certainly think that without some such provisions the canal, however beneficial it may be to Manchester, will not be a work of any great National importance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.