§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Vicary Gibbs.)
§ * SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)desired to state why he should not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. Originally the Bill contained clauses to impose rates and charges. Those clauses did not now appear, and he understood no attempt would be made to re-insert them at any other stage of the proceedings. If that was so, one obstacle would be removed. If the Joint Docks Committee had been more willing to confer with the London Chamber of Commerce and other bodies probably no difficulty would have arisen, and some assistance might have been given in promoting the interests of a private company, the shareholders of which were fully entitled to consideration. Those whom he represented, however, reserved their right to protest, either at other stages of the present Bill, or in connection with other Bills, against any delay or prejudice which might arise to the general question of the inquiry into the interests of the port of London—a matter upon which the President of the Board of Trade had a very strong feeling, and which he (the speaker) hoped would ultimately be referred to a Royal Commission or Committee in accordance with an amendment he had put down upon the Order Paper, in relation to the Lighterage Rates Bill of the Joint Committee. His only other point was that, inasmuch as this Bill provided for additional capital or the rearrangement of capital, supposing such a Commission should ultimately lead to a general dock or harbour trust, not necessarily a municipal one, he reserved his right to object to the companies having any claim, in relation to this new capital or rearrangement of capital, to compensation. Subject to these remarks, he was quite prepared to treat the Bill as one for internal purposes only, and one which he hoped would be of advantage to the share- 498 holders, and not inconsistent with the great trade interests of the port of London, which urgently demanded attention lest its trade should, owing to the dearness of the port, or the want of dock and river facilities and appliances, and better and more modern and up-to-date methods, be diverted to competing ports in England and on the Continent, as was now being done.
§ MR. VICARY GIBBS (Hertfordshire, St. Albans), on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, gave the assurance asked for that no rates or charges omitted from the Bill should be re-introduced. With regard to the desire of the hon. Gentleman to safeguard himself from agreeing to any increased capitalisation of the joint undertaking, it should be explained that the capital asked for was working capital, for the purpose of paying wages and other kindred matters, which could not possibly increase the capital value of the undertaking. In fact, the Bill, if passed, would facilitate the taking over of the two undertakings by a trust, because the first step any trust would have to take would be that of amalgamation, and that was a step very much in the interests of the companies themselves, and also in the interests of the port of London.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed.