§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ *(3.0.) MR. LAFONE (Southwark, Bermondsey)I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months. In the first place, I maintain that it is not a measure which ought to be brought in as a private Bill; its object is to abolish the privilege of certain parsons to act as lightermen upon the river Thames, and its provisions are of such a nature that I think it ought to have been introduced as a public measure. An attempt was made to deal with this question in 1881, but owing to the unanswerable arguments then made use of by the present President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), the then President of the Board of Trade (Mr. J. Chamberlain) withdrew the Bill. It was afterwards brought in as a public Bill, but fell, stillborn, and never came to a Second Reading. My principal objection to the Bill is that it proposes to do away with the privileges of the 108 lightermen of the City of London. In a statement presented to the House in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, it is said that there are only 5,000 men employed, whereas there are upwards of 7,000, and 3,000 apprentices. The circular issued by the promoters shows that the measure is really aimed at the lightermen on account of the part they took in the recent dock strike, but the men have all along expressed their readiness to leave the matter in dispute to arbitration. I have had some experience of that matter, having presided over a meeting of 1,200 of these men; and I know that their action, instead of prolonging or intensifying the strike, brought it to a more speedy termination. Since then they have shown their determination to adopt arbitration instead of strikes, by refusing to assist the gas stokers in their strike. Every man is obliged to pass an examination before becoming a licensed waterman, although apprentices of two years' standing may, under certain conditions, navigate small craft. For 10 years I have employed these lightermen, and millions of property have been under their care. With very small exceptions, that property has been carefully safeguarded; and if we are to throw the calling open, and have no licence or guarantee that efficient men are to be entrusted with such an enormous amount of property, the result will be a large increase in the insurance charges on goods, and the navigation of the river will certainly not be benefited. There are black sheep among every class of men, but these, as a rule, form a very respectable class, who do their duty to their employers, and I for the abolition of their privileges. What I desire to see is that the security of life and property on the river is preserved, and that men against whom no substantial complaint has been made shall not be deprived of the status which they at present occupy. I strongly oppose this Bill because I am of opinion that it is improper to deal with so wide-reaching a question by a private measure. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Lafone.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ SIR E. GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)As my name is on the hack of the Bill, it is desirable that I should say a few words. I understand the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Lafone) to bring forward three arguments against the Second Reading. The first may be disposed of at once, for the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the recent labour disputes in reference to the dock strike. I think the justification for the Bill is to be found in the Report of the Committee of 1879, which inquired into the condition of the traffic on the Thames. That Committee could have had nothing to do with the labour disputes which took place last autumn. In the second place, the hon. Member says that there are a large number of men who now possess privileges which will be injured by the passing of this measure. I am prepared to grant that we should not s and in the way of the efficient and complete management of the river, and, so far as the question of compensation may be concerned, that is a detail which, I think, will justify the House in sending the Bill to a Select Committee. The present President of the Local Government Board opposed the Bill of 1881 because it was not confined to a particular locality, but affected the whole of the Thames. It affected the Counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Sussex Oxford, and Berks, but this bill only affects that part of the Thames which lies between Gravesend and London Bridge. Therefore, the arguments which were used in 1881 do not apply to the present measure. The Committee which inquired into the former Bill reported strongly against the present system, and stated that the monopoly of the Watermen's Company had the evils usual to monopolies, and that it should be put an end to. I think there ought to be some strong argument to show why the House should not accept the finding of the Committee of 1881 and send the present Bill to a Select Committee. I see no objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. S. Buxton). Which pro- 110 poses that the Bill should be sent to a hybrid Committee.
§ * MR. S. BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)Two preliminary objections have been raised against this Bill. The first is, that the Bill ought not to have been introduced as a private Bill, but as a public measure. It has also been said that it is promoted as an act of revenge for the conduct of the lightermen in the late strike. I am not very much concerned about these objections. I think that the hon. Member for Berwick (Sir E. Grey) has shown the House a primâ facie case for the introduction of the Bill as a private Bill; though I think my self that in a Bill of this kind, dealing, as it does, with so many interests, it would have been better if its promoters had followed the example of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham when President of the Board of Trade, and had introduced it not as a private, but it public Bill. My hon. Friend has said that this Bill has been in no way dictated by the strike which took place on the Thames last year. That may or may not be the case. But the first paragraph in the promoter's statement calls attention to the conduct of the lightermen in the late strike. That, however, is not a matter which affects the principle of the Bill, though it clearly affects the question of the expediency of introducing the Bill at the present moment. I have put down on the Paper an Amendment to refer the Bill, if it should be read a second time, to a hybrid Committee. At the same time, I shall vote against the Second Reading of the measure, because I do not think it is a Bill which can be justified on its merits. It is about the crudest Bill that was ever presented to the House. The statement of the promoters and the speech of my hon. Friend go to show that there should be considerable reforms in the mode in which the navigation of the Thames is carried out, and that at present there is a monopoly. I am opposed to monopolies, and I think there are few vested interests which we need be tender about. But I believe that if this subject is to be dealt with at all we ought to have a Bill dealing not only with the question of the lightermen, but with many other questions affecting the conservancy of the Thames. Are all the evils of the navigation of the Thames 111 which are spoken of to be remedied simply by allowing anyone to become a lighterman on the Thames? I do not deny for a moment that there are many anomalies connected with the matter, and that there are many reforms that ought to be introduced. I am certain also that the men themselves would be willing that the whole question should be properly gone into upon a fitting occasion, and that the Board of Trade should introduce a Bill something like that of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in 1881, dealing with the whole question in a large manner, it is agreed that it would be a good thing to demolish a number of the authorities which at present control the waterway of the Thames; but this Bill does not propose in any way to deal with Watermens Court. Then what I am entitled to ask is that this House should not accept such a miserable abortion of a Bill if it really desires to raise the question of the free navigation of the Thames. If we are fire going to deal with these questions we should do so on broad lines, so that some good result may ensue. I am afraid that my hon. Friend does not fully appreciate how important it is that those who manage the barges on the Thames should be men skilled and trained, properly licensed, and properly registered. I should certainly be sorry if this Bill were passed to find my hon. Friend, and those who support him, attempting to navigate a barge on the Thames. They would certainly do it with serious risk not only to navigation, but to themselves. I am afraid that the present Bid only touches the fringe of the subject, and if it is read a second time I shall certainly endeavour to get it referred to a proper Committee.
§ COLONEL HAMILTON (Southwark, Rotherhithe), (who was very indistinctly heard), said: Several Bills have been introduced into this House with a view of regulating the rights of the lightermen, and in each case, on being referred to a Private Bill Committee, it has been shown that the operations of the Watermen's Association have been beneficial to the public and conducive to the preservation of the safety of the river. In 1881 a Bill was introduced which had upon the back of it the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the President of the Board of Trade, and of Mr. Evelyn Ashley, the 112 Secretary of the Board, and that Bill, after a full discussion, was withdrawn. A private Bill was then introduced, of which nothing has been heard from that day to this. Last year the dock labourers, as a Trades Union, struck, and the lightermen, having nothing to do, thought that a favourable time to put their claims for an increase of wages before the employers, and consequently struck also. Their position was very plain. Instead of availing themselves of their Charter, they took advantage of a general strike in the docks in order to make good their claim to higher wages. This Bill simply deals with the fringe of the question. If it were passed, the simple result would be that there would be no control over the traffic at all. There would be no power to prevent a yokel from Lancashire or Yorkshire taking command of a penny steamboat and rushing up and down the Thames. What, I think, we have to bear in mind is the interests of the thousands of persons who are in daily use of this highway of the Thames, and in their interests I ask the House to throw out the Bill.
§ * MR. T. SUTHERLAND (Greenock)I intend to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. It is said that the measure has been introduced in consequence of the action of the lightermen in connection with the late deck strike. So far as I am concerned this is not the case; but I am not prepared to endorse the view that the intervention of the lightermen in that strike was of that beneficent character which has been represented, and I am very much inclined to believe that throughout that strike they fought exactly like Hal o' the Wynd for their own hand. I can assure the House that in the course I am taking I have no desire to punish the men for the events of last year. My sympathies during the strike were to a great extent, if not entirely, with the labourers. But I think it is time that the ancient privileges which the Bill seeks to attack should come to an end. I agree that, whatever changes are effected, ample provision should be made to avoid accidents by allowing competent men only to take charge of vessels. I do not think the present system is a guarantee against mishaps. On the contrary, under it there is an amount of blundering and carelessness in the hand- 113 ling of craft which ought not to be permitted and would not be I tolerated under a free system.
§ * MR. BOORD (Greenwich)I rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment, and I am afraid I must endorse the opinion that the Bill has been introduced as a matter of revenge in consequence of the action of the lightermen in the strike of last year. I am afraid that hon. Members of this House rarely give themselves the trouble of examining the contents of private Bills, and the statements which are delivered to them in respect of them. A statement has been delivered this morning in favour of this Bill, and, to my mind, that statement is the strongest argument against it. It is said that, in order to obtain a licence from the Watermen's Company, the applicant must have served a five years' apprenticeship and hive been for two years constantly employed on the river. If that is so a provision is male that none but skilled persons shall be employed in the navigation of the river. This Bill proposes to do away with that privilege and safeguard, and it puts nothing in its place. If the Bill proposed to substitute any other method of securing skilled labour it might be worth consideration, but it simply consists of two abolition clauses which are not replaced by anything at all. I, therefore, think that the proposal is not one which ought to be entertained by the House. The promoters of the Bill say that the safeguards and the examination provided by the Court of Watermen is illusory; but I think we are entitled to demand that the Government, before they give their assent to a Bill of this kind, should provide for some improvement in the navigation of the river before removing the little safeguards we have and replacing them by nothing at all.
§ * MR. CUNENGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)I rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill, and for a very specific reason. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. T. Sutherland) has put the case from a capitalist's point of view. I wish to put it from the point of view of the poor—the men who navigate the barges. Whether rightly or wrongly, there has undoubtedly arisen in the minds of these men a feeding that this Bill has been introduced in order to 114 punish them for their participation in the dock strike. Now, I fail to see why these men should not have acted in the way they did during that strike or why they should find themselves punished now for their action on that occasion by the introduction of this Bill. An hon. Member spoke about a monopoly being enjoyed by the lightermen. It seems to me a somewhat curious thing to talk about a monopoly in a country where the Shipping and the Railway Companies are allowed to plunder the public right and left. I am, of course, opposed to these further monopolies. Some hon. Members cannot, I am sure, be aware of the miserable wages obtained, and the long hours worked, by the men who enjoy this monopoly. Sixpence an hour is about the rate of wages, and 12 or 13 hours the hours of labour. I oppose the Bill, also, because the promoters of it have introduced it in order to further a scheme of free competition. I think there can be nothing more conducive to the misery of the working classes on the riverside and on the River Thames than this system of forcing wages down. Even at 6d. an hour the men are to have no monopoly. It is upon these grounds that I oppose the Bill: first, because it does not deal with the question in a comprehensive manner; and, secondly, because it would hand over the navigation to unskilled hands, and imperil life on the river, and, at the same time, make competition keener.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)In 1881, when I was President of the Board of Trade, I introduced a Bill dealing with the privileges of the Watermen's Company. I do not wonder at the opposition of Metropolitan Members, though I have listened with some astonishment, and a good deal of amusement, to my friends on this side of the House—for Liberals, and even these who belong to the extreme Radical branch, are actually defending things which, I had imagined, were abhorrent to their principles—defending, in fact, a close monopoly and an ancient City Company, as well as rights that are its ancient as the Statute of Edward III. The argument that this Bill has been introduced out of revenge may be set aside, seeing that I myself introduced a Bill in 1881 when the dock strike was not ever thought of. There is no around why the 115 lightermen should have the sole monopoly —a monopoly that has worked badly in practice, inasmuch as it has been proved that the monopoly is enjoyed without sufficient examination. It has been said that the navigation of the Thames might be imperilled by the passage of this Bill. The persons most interested in the navagation of the Thames declare that there is at present no security, and that greater security will be obtained if there is some choice of men. This Bill is complete as far as it goes, and it does away with one of those remaining monopolies that in the 19th century are absolute anomalies. I do not agree that, having done away with it, there is any necessity to put anything in its place. Why should it be more necessary to have a Licensing Body for the Thames than for the Tyne? Under all the circumstances, I hope the House will assent to the Second Reading of the Bill, and send it to a Committee by whom all the questions connected with it will be considered.
§ (3.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 73.—(Div. List, No. 22.)
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of nine Members, five to be nominated by the House and four by the Committee of Selection.
§ Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
§ Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)