SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 February 1893)

§ MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney),
in moving that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six mouths, said: There are three Bills before the House dealing with this subject. Two of the Bills are called the Watermen and Lightermen and the Bargeowners' Liability Bills. Those Bills were brought in last year in the month of February. They passed the Standing Orders Committee, and were referred to a Select Committee. The Committee had a great many sittings, and the result was that the matter which so interested the watermen and lightermen was conceded. But owing to that Parliament ceasing to exist the Bill was allowed to lapse and had to be 551 revived this Session. I was advised that when this Bill was revived I should bring forward the identical Bill which was brought forward last year, and which went before the Committee. I have done so, and I also brought forward the Bargeowners Bill. These Bills treat of exactly the same matter as the Thames Watermen and Lightermen Bill, which has now been brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, and the hon. Baronet the ex-Lord Mayor of London, Member for the City. I must point out that the Watermen's and Lightermen's Company is a corporate body in the City of London, whose funds are mainly supported by watermen and lightermen of the River Thames. Out of a total income of £2,683, the men contribute no less a sum than £1,611. But the Watermen's and Lightermen's Company put down their annual income as £2,683, whereas there is a sum of money amounting to £376, received as dividends on Stock which they have added to their annual income. This Bill is now brought forward as a Private Bill by the Watermen's and Lightermen's Company. As a matter of fact, we know what a very expensive matter it is to bring forward a Private Bill, but this Bill is actually brought forward in order, if possible, to kill the Watermen and Lightermen Bill and the Bargeowners Bill, which were really passed through Committee last year. We feel it a great shame that after having gone through the great trouble of a Committee, that having heard evidence, which we did for many days together, and after having done all we possibly could to get what the men most needed—namely, a representation on the Committee which was conceded, we feel it a great shame that these gentlemen who represent the City of London should come down to the House and endeavour to kill the Watermen and Lightermen Bill and Bargeowners Bill. I must state that when that Bill went through Committee the Watermen's and Lightermen's Company employed eminent counsel to oppose it. They went to enormous expense, and I must add that they opposed the Bill with considerable bitterness. But, notwithstanding that, we succeeded in all we went for, and we do feel that it is a great pity that there is no law by which a lapsed Bill can be revived in order that we might go back to 552 the Committee just as we left it, and so make law of what has been really decided by the Committee. I say that this Bill has been brought forward at an enormous expense, from money subscribed by these watermen and lightermen in order to kill the Bargeowners Bill. All I want is to have the Bill referred to the same Committee that dealt with the Watermen and Lightermen's Bill and the Bargeowners Bill. I shall not take a division on it. If that is conceded we shall be protected and our rights will be maintained, namely, that our watermen and lightermen will then have the representation on the Committee they desire.

§ MR. STEWART WALLACE (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)
I desire to second the Motion which has been made by the hon. Member for Stepney, not from any desire to give the promoters trouble, but to give time for an understanding to be arrived at between them and the bargemen and lightermen, who desire some amendments in their interests to be introduced into the Bill. I believe that if the Bill be not read a second time such an understanding will be arrived at, and would appeal to the hon. Member for Stepney to press the question to a division.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six mouths."—(Mr. Wootton Isaacson.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

§ MR. H. KIMBER (Wandsworth)
I simply contented myself with the desire to save the time of the House when I moved the Bill without explanation. I thought my hon. Friend when he rose was going to support my Bill, but he has referred to other Bills, and I submit that they are not now before the House and cannot be discussed. I should like to make a simple statement as to what this Bill is. The Watermen's Company is a very old company, some hundreds of years old, to whom was committed in 1859 by Statute certain duties as to the registration of craft on the River Thames. They have to register, and have done their best to fulfil those obligations and duties. The Thames Conservancy made certain regulations as to craft in the River Thames, one of which was that all craft 553 of over 50 tons burden should be navigated in that part of the Thames which was under the jurisdiction by two watermen. But, in consequence of not knowing what tons meant, and the company not having power to enforce an accurate return, many vessels became registered as under 50 tons which ought to have been registered as over 50 tons, thereby evading the regulation of the Thames Conservancy, and endangering life and property. Then, as to their boats, there was no restriction as to the number to be carried. They were not in such a state as this company was to enforce restrictions. It is simply to remedy this insufficiency of powers that this Bill is now placed before the House. It does not interfere in the slightest degree with the rights of the watermen. I represent one of the largest riparian constituencies, and am able to speak with knowledge on this subject. The present Bill repeals three or four of the clauses of the Act of 1859, and substitutes for them improved regulations for the enforcement of the intention of the Legislature in the Act of 1859. It would be improper for me on the Second Reading to go into the details by which that arrangement is to be effected, but I do submit to the House that it is the most proper course for this Bill to be referred to a Committee in the ordinary way. The hon. Member says it ought to be referred to the same Committee as the other Bills. Well, when that Committee is proposed it will be time enough to propose that it be referred to them, but how it is possible to refer this Bill to a Committee on another Bill that is not in existence I do not understand. I press the Second Reading of the Bill.

§ MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON
These Bills have just passed the Committee on Standing Orders. The very clauses that are in this Bill are identical with those that are in the Bargeowners Bill, and there is no necessity for this company, with so small an income—two-thirds of which is supplied by the men themselves—to bring this Bill forward.

§ MR. J. W. MELLOR (York, W.R., Sowerby)
I am very glad to hear that my hon. Friend does not wish to take a Division on the subject, because having looked at the Bill, and having heard his reason for the course he has taken, I have come to the conclusion 554 that there is no reason why the Bill should not go to a Committee in the ordinary way. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading has shown that it is not intended to do any harm to anybody, but that it is merely intended to carry out the provisions of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1859. At the present time the company have no means of knowing whether the particulars given. to them with regard to the craft are accurate or not. Now, I think that is a state of things that requires some remedy, but what I rose for at the present time-was to say that I hope the House will send this Bill to a Committee. Then my hon. Friend might ask to have the two Bills he has alluded to referred to the same Committee, but I hope he will not interfere with this Bill at the present stage.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Motion?

§ MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON
Provided they go to the same Committee.

§ MR. KIMBER
I assent to no such condition.

§ MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON
In that case I will divide on it.