HC Deb 15 May 1900 vol 83 cc160-86

[SECOND READING.]

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. CRIPPS (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

This Bill, no doubt, is an important one, both as regards the dock companies and as regards the Port of London. But it does not involve any unusual prin- ciple, and I would ask the House to allow it in the ordinary course to go to a Second Reading in order that its merits may be ascertained. The principle embodied in it is that in order to carry out more efficiently the statutory responsibilities and duties thrown upon them it is necessary that their sources of revenue should be increased. The only question upon which I propose to address the House is, whether there is any just or sound reason for refusing a Second Heading to this Bill. Of course, the question of merit cannot be gone into in detail at the present moment; this is neither the time nor the place to go in detail into the merits of a Bill of this character, and no one who votes for the Second Reading will be giving a decision as regards the merits of the proposals which this Bill happens to contain. I can only say that there is nothing in this Bill which ought not to go upstairs in the ordinary way to be threshed out before a Private Bill Committee. If a Bill of this kind is refused a Second Reading, then the promoters—the dock companies— are deprived of the only tribunal to which they can apply. It would be contrary to constitutional practice to attempt to deal with the details of the Bill in the House itself, and should the House refuse the right of the promoters to go before a Private Bill Committee, it implies that the dock companies cannot have their case heard at all. The principle of the Bill is simply this: certain very important responsibilites and duties have been thrown on the dock companies. It is part of those responsibilities and duties not only that they should maintain the existing efficiency of the Port of London, but that they should provide for its future expansion and requirements. Up to the present time they have been able to carry out those responsibilities and duties. But the Bill is based on this, that they cannot go on providing for these statutory responsibilities and duties unless they get some additional sources of income, and what this House has to decide as a matter of principle is whether, when a company having certain responsibilities and duties thrown upon it believe it necessary in order to carry them out that it should have new charging powers, and propose a Bill accordingly, that Bill is to be thrown out without a hearing so far as the dock companies are concerned. There is no question of prin- ciple involved in this Bill which can be clearly discussed and decided on the Second Reading. So far as the new charges are concerned, I shall have a few words to say presently in order that the House may understand what is involved, but the Bill merely proposes to throw charges upon persons who at the present time are using the accommodation which has been provided at an expense of several millions, and towards which they are not now called upon to contribut one farthing. To-day in the London docks lighters and barges have a right of free entry, and no charge can be made upon them whatever business they may do in connection with the Port of London. And not only is there this exemption as regards the barges and lighters, but there is also an exemption as regards the goods they put on board ships, and goods imported into this country which they take off those ships. And for the accommodation provided for the lighters, accommodation which is essential having regard to the modern conditions of trade, no charge whatever can be made by the dock companies. The unfortunate result is that the dock companies, having to provide for these services at great cost— services in respect of which they get no remuneration at all—are not only deprived of a legitimate source of revenue, but find it necessary to put a high charge on the shipowner, or on the consignee of the goods. At the present time the number of barges which use the docks is between 140,000 and 150,000, with a tonnage of about two millions, or nearly twice as large a tonnage as that of the ships annually brought into the London docks. No doubt there is one way in which the dock companies might improve their position. At the present moment they might, within the powers which Parliament has given them, place a higher charge on ships, and, of course, incidentally on the shipowners, because at the present time they are not charging up to their maximum. Surely it would be unfortunate if even without inquiry the House should compel the dock companies to increase the system of charge which already, in their opinion, unfairly weighs upon one particular industry. I do not say that that is what the dock companies propose as an alternative, but the principle they seek to lay down is to charge in proportion to the accommodation provided; it surely is fair in itself and it ought not to be rejected by this House without full and proper inquiry by a Committee upstairs. How is the revenue of the dock companies raised at the present time? There is a maximum charge of 1s. 6d. per ton which may be imposed on all ships. The dock companies, however, are only charging 1s. per ton; that is to say, on a ship of 10,000 tons register they only charge £500, whereas their maximum charge is £750, and they feel it would not be a fair way of increasing their revenue to charge up to the maximum, because whereas the registered tonnage of ships using the docks at the present time is slightly over five millions, the tonnage of the barges and lighters using the docks is over nine millions, and these barges and lighters pay nothing for the benefit of the accommodation which has been provided at such heavy cost. Let me say a word or two on the question of the charges on goods. I wish to deal with this as a matter of principle. So far as goods taken on or off ships by means of barges or lighters are concerned, the company can make no charge at all, and about three-fourths of the goods imported into the Port of London thus escape all charges and all burdens in respect of the 17 millions which the dock companies have expended on the accommodation they have provided. Surely a system of that kind cannot be fair in itself, and when the dock companies are asking for power to make a fairer system of charge extending to all ships and craft which use the dock and to all goods, whether loaded overside or not, the matter ought to be allowed to go before a Committee. I think there has been some misapprehension as regards the proposals in the Bill itself. The proposal as regards barges and lighters is that there shall be a maximum charge of 4d. per registered ton, and as regards goods loaded into them a maximum in respect of some of 1s. and in respect of others of 1s. 6d. These are maximum charges. They are powers which the dock companies seek in order to provide on a thoroughly sound basis a sufficient source of revenue in order to enable them to carry out their statutory duties and responsibilities. I can recollect but one precedent of a case of this kind whore the matter was properly sent upstairs and considered by a, Private Bill Committee, and in that case no doubt the Committee refused the request of the dock company for power to impose the additional charge. There is only one other port outside the Thames to which this exemption for barges and lighters applies, and that is the port of Hull. In regard to that the question was raised nine or ten years ago whether the exemption should be maintained or whether a fair charge in respect of dock service ought not properly to be introduced. There was no objection taken to that proposal as a matter of principle on the Second Reading. I am not now saying that the proposal of the dock company is the best one that could be made. I am only saying that they should be heard before the only body before which the matter could be properly threshed out—namely, before a Private Bill Committee of this House. In the case of Hull I admit that the proposal to put the charge on lighters and barges was found to be inexpedient, having regard to the special conditions and circumstances of the case. The dock company in that case had no cause for complaint, as the matter was fully inquired into; but they would have had sound reason to complain had they been prevented taking their case before a Committee, and so will these London companies if they are deprived of the opportunity of submitting their case to show what they believe is necessary in order to enable them to maintain the efficiency of the Port of London, and to secure their sources of revenue so that they may be able to carry out their statutory obligations. I now come to the various forms which the opposition to the proposals of the dock companies has taken. I will indicate what I take to be the main objections— —objections which, in passing, I may say would properly be considered by a Private Bill Committee, seeing that it would be necessary to call evidence and sift it in order to see as to the truth of the allegations made. After all, the objections are of a character very similar to those who know anything about Private Bill procedure. The first is that if this power of charging were granted to the dock companies the exercise of it would tend to drive trade away from the Port of London. Every- one will agree that if it wore found that a particular proposal would have such a detrimental effect it ought not to be sanctioned. But let mo put this consideration before this House. Nobody is so interested in preserving the trade of the Port of London as the dock companies themselves. They are absolutely dependent on that trade for their own prosperity, and they depend also on its increase. Then, when the dock companies—which are more interested than any other body, because their whole future depends on the trade of London— come forward and ask for a fair hearing for a particular proposal, it cannot be said that their demand ought to be denied as a matter of principle. People who make an allegation of this kind should prove it. I believe the real fact as regards the Port of London, so far as these charges are concerned, is this. A comparison is often made between London and Liverpool; but whereas in Liverpool the charges are much more fairly adjusted as between consignee and shipowner, in London nearly all the charges are thrown upon the shipowner alone. I believe that is an unjust matter which this Bill would do something to set right. Look at the alternative. If the powers asked for by the dock companies are not given they will be compelled to make still heavier charges on the shipowner, and surely that is much more likely to affect the trade of the Port of London than the proposals of this Bill. No one will deny that a matter of this kind should be threshed out upstairs to see whether the objection is valid or not. Then it is alleged that the dock companies have managed their property badly. They entirely deny that. But that again is a matter which ought to be discussed upstairs, and which could not be discussed or decided at the present moment. People who make such an allegation ought to be prepared to prove it before a proper tribunal. But I may give the House one figure as regards the increase in the trade of the Port of London of the last twenty years. It has gone up from 2,372,508 tons to 4,281,389 tons, which is an even larger rate of increase than that at Liverpool. It is difficult, therefore, to see on what basis the allegation is made that there has been bad management in connection with the dock property. If it were true it would undoubtedly have a serious bearing on the proposals contained in this Bill; but it should be proved before a tribunal which can discuss it. Then there is the objection as to the great capital of the companies, amounting to something like 17 millions sterling. During the last twenty years 4 millions have been spent on improving the dock accommodation; but the answer to that is that the dock property at the present moment is worth a great deal more than the 17 millions spent on it. If anyone were to undertake to provide the accommodation which is provided in connection with the London docks he would have to spend a very much larger sum than the dock capital stands at at the present time. It may be said that the exemption of the lighters and barges in London is of long standing. That, no doubt, is right, and would, no doubt, have great weight when the proposals of this Bill come to be threshed out before a proper tribunal. But that, again, is no reason for rejecting this Bill on the Second Reading. Charges in connection with statutory obligations or duties may be made by such a Committee for the first time in a Bill of this kind, or there may be a proposal to remove the exemption; and I quite admit that when the case of the lightermen and barge-owners comes to be considered, if they can show that the exemption they enjoy should be continued, no doubt the Committee will decide in their favour. On the other hand, they may show that if the exemption is taken away they should have some special form of protection. That, however, is a matter we cannot discuss in this House; it can only be discussed before a Private Bill Committee upstairs. The only other objections come from certain public bodies. Everyone admits that weight must be given to such objections; but again I say we here are not in a position to decide upon such objections at the present moment. For that reason I am urging that there should be a Second Reading, and that these matters should be threshed out. I see there have been proposals for Committees dealing with very wide topics, and travelling over a very wide area. Suggestions of that kind are like postponing the real question to the Greek Kalends. The promoters, who desire to promote the efficiency of the Port of London, and have brought forward what they consider the best proposal as regards increasing their sources of revenue, cannot, to be consistent, assent to any proposal to postpone that reform. Whatever has been done in the past as regards the accommodation provided in the Port of London, it is certain that there must be large additions almost in the immediate future. That is a principle admitted by everyone who looks into the question, but if that is to be done you cannot do it without providing an adequate source of revenue. Whether this particular source of revenue is the best or not cannot be decided here; but you must provide some adequate source of revenue, and when you have the dock companies themselves, who at present have a responsible duty thrown upon them, coming forward with their own proposal, that proposal ought not to be deprived of an: opportunity of being examined. I do not put the case higher than that. The House ought not to deprive the parties of their right unless some great principle is involved. There is no such principle here, except, of course, that the London docks naturally excite the interest of a great number of persons. There is nothing in the Bill which takes it out of the category of the most ordinary Private Bills which come before this House. On these grounds I beg to propose that this Bill be read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

* MR. ALBAN GIBBS (London)

In rising to move the rejection of the Bill, I wish to disclaim any hostility to the dock companies. Many directors of the docks are among my friends, and naturally, as Member for the City of London, I take the deepest interest in the docks. I am very anxious indeed that there should be a full inquiry into the state of the docks, and, if possible, some proposal should be made which would place them on a sound financial basis. I do, however, demur to committing the House by reading this Bill a second time to the principle of the Bill, which is, in the first place, it seems to me, that a new tax is to be imposed upon the Port of London, and, in the second place, that the tax should be imposed through the medium of the wharfingers and lightermen. I wish this inquiry to start unfettered and with a, much wider scope than would be possible to a Private Bill Committee sitting upon a one-clause Bill such as this. I quite agree with my hon. friend that we cannot here in this House go into detail with regard to the condition of the docks; but it appears to me that they have two arguments in favour of this Bill that they have put forward. One is the bread-and-butter argument that shareholders are entitled to a decent return on their capital. That may be so, but I think that before new taxation is imposed we should consider the whole question at length. The past history of the docks should be considered. My hon. friend alluded to the fact that charges have been made against the directors of mismanagement. I do not want to make any charges of that kind; but no doubt in the past many charges of that kind have been brought, and I consider that some tribunal like a Royal Commission might enter upon them and consider them. I think there is no doubt that in past times—I do not say now—the docks were not sufficiently disposed to meet the views of the merchants. I do not say the very able men who manage the docks now do not manage them as well as possible, but even that I think would form a proper subject for a Royal Commission, or whatever tribunal is to examine into it, and they might consider whether, if new taxation is required, it could not be imposed with less inconvenience to the port than the plan which they propose. My hon. friend pointed out that there are nine million tons of barges that enter in. According to the statement of the docks themselves, they are put to £50,000 or £60,000 expenses. They will probably make £100,000 profit out of barges alone. Besides that they are going to make a charge on goods that come in, and on that alone you get an enormous revenue. The other argument is, if I may say so without offence, rather more the sturdy beggar of the Middle Ages argument. That is to say, they say they have statutory powers which they will be compelled to exercise, if you do not give them what they want, that will be so dreadful and uncomfortable that they do not wish to exercise them. These statutory powers are to tax shipping. I am not myself prepared to say without consideration that it would be at all worse for the Port of London that they should tax the shipping than that they should tax the wharfingers. They have not done so yet, and therefore I suppose they have not felt it convenient to do so. I know the shipowners are very strong, and they are capable of taking care of themselves. But this proposal seems to mo as if one were to say, "I have got a gun which I could shoot you with, but it would be so painful to you for me to fire off my gun that I would like you to give me a modern gun with which I may shoot you with greater comfort to yourself." Before we give them this new gun I should like to have some inquiry whether their old gun is or is not honeycombed. I should like to be certain that the new gun will be much less painful than their old gun. But they do not propose to give up their old gun at all. I know that there is a very strong general feeling in the House that when new proposals are brought in they ought to be sent up to a Committee and examined; but this is not a new proposal at all. It is a proposal to repeal a clause in the Bill which started the docks. Under that clause the free water of the Thames was preserved, and it was provided that the lightermen and wharfingers who came to take their goods were free. Under that clause lightermen and wharfingers have invested an enormous amount of capital in their business, and that capital you propose now by this Bill, I do not say to destroy, but at any rate to cripple, and it does appear to me that that is a principle which justifies the House in rejecting the Bill at this stage. Then again, this Bill has been in the House before. In the year 1855 it was brought in,* and after a very able speech by the representative of the Government, it was rejected by 249 to 26. It has been said that the reason they rejected it was because of the high price of dock stock at that time, and I quite admit that the representative of the City of London, who moved the rejection of the Bill, did allude to the fact that dock stock was very high, and gave that as one reason; but the debate has been circulated among Members, and if they have read it, I do not think they will admit that that is the reason which influenced the House. The main reasons were those given by Mr. Card well, namely, that the docks had had a monopoly for twenty-one years, that they had been given frontages for warehouses, and given the light to tax sea-going ships, but that the right to tax barges and lighters had been deliberately taken away from them in return for the other. My hon. friend suggested that if this was referred to a Commission * For Debate on Second Reading of the East and West India Docks Bill, l!)in February, 1855, see The Parliamentary Debates (Third Series], Vol. exxxvi., page 1505. instead of a Private Bill Committee it would be hung up indefinitely; but he must be very sanguine if he thinks at this late period of the session a Private Bill Committee could get through it in time for it to come back and pass through this House during this session. A Royal Commission, which can sit in the recess, can surely go through the thing and get it into order for them to bring in such recommendations as they may make next session, and pass it then. I do not wish to weary the House now. I would merely point out that the City Corporation has petitioned against it, the County Council has petitioned against it, and the Chamber of Commerce has petitioned against it, and that most of the produce exchanges have cither petitioned or expressed their disapproval of it. On that ground I ask the House to reject this Bill now and not send it up to a Committee instead of a Royal Commission, which I have no doubt will be given to them if they ask for it.

* SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

I beg to second the motion for the rejection of the Bill, which is opposed to the feeling of the mercantile and shipping community, and of what I may call the representative public bodies of London. When my hon. friend suggests that instead of taxing the lightermen and wharfingers the taxes should be imposed upon the shipping interest, I can assure him that would meet with quite as strong opposition as the present proposal.

* MR. ALBAN GIBBS

I do not suggest that that should be done. I only alluded to the fact that they had the statutory powers.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

If they were carried into effect the result would be to add to the dues, whereas the dues are, in fact, paid not only for the use of the docks, but, according to the original statute, for the service rendered by the lightermen and wharfingers to the ship in process of loading and unloading, so that would be equally open to objection. I agree with my hon. friend who moved the Bill that inquiry is very necessary, but I cannot share his objection to my amendment in favour of the appointment of a Royal Commission on the ground that time will only admit of a Select Committee inquiring, and that we ought not to demand, as we do, from the House the appointment, as I hope my right hon. friend will ultimately suggest, of a Royal Commission, for no Select Committee can have the time to go into the manifold and far-reaching consequences which would result from the passing of such a measure as that proposed. There is no trade interest in London, down to the smallest consumer, that would not he affected. It had been estimated that the prices of certain commodities, including some necessaries of life, would be greatly raised owing to the increase of the charges upon them to the extent of even 200 per cent. in the case of some classes of goods. My hon. friend who moved the Bill said no principle was involved; but surely the highest of all principles is involved — namely, that of Parliamentary contracts— because when the Act was originally taken in the last century by the dock companies it was the very basis of that arrangement that they should maintain what has been called the freedom of the Port of London. They abstracted from the Thames water for the purposes of their docks, and Parliament then very properly laid it down that, as these facilities were offered, and as river frontage was taken which reduced the accommodation of the port, for these considerations there should be this freedom of overside trade. That was the principle on which Mr. Card well contended in the debate of 1855 that this question of freedom affected the very tenure of the docks. It went to the very root of their title to this property, and he added, most properly, that there had been a dedication, now by 100 years user, of these waterways to the public and commercial interests. So that it seems to mo that a very great principle is involved—whether that which is taken upon the basis of freedom of trade is afterwards, even 100 years thence, to be departed from on the ground that it has not been found to have been a profitable undertaking. As to information being needed, I think I may say that the chairman of the Docks Committee needs some information. I read the case which he put before the country carefully, and I find that he states that this system of exemption exists at no other port in England or in the world than London. My hon. friend who moved the Bill was much better aware of the circumstances, but I differ from him in saying that the principle of that exemption has never been tacitly or actively admitted. On the contrary, we have that privilege in Hull. It is a privilege which, so far from interfering with the trade of the port, is most beneficial to it, and I am quite sure it would never be raised, having regard to the experience in that port, without exciting most strenuous opposition. I see the chairman of the dock company said that was the means of ruining the docks. So far from that having been the case, the dock share- holders made a beneficial agreement with the North Eastern Railway Company, and they did so for the very object which we have in opposing this Bill, namely, to secure greater and better facilities and to reduce the charges in order to add to the attractiveness of the port. That object has been attained, and there is nothing which would be of more value than this privilege, which exists in Hull to this day. The chairman of the docks in his manifesto states that it did exist in Hull, and he alludes to that apparently as a reason for taking the course proposed by this Bill. We have the contrary case of London, and I do not hesitate to say that the dearness of London has injured it as a port; and if we continue to forgot what are the modern demands upon navigation and commerce, if we fail to take steps, not at the expense of a class, as is suggested in this particular Bill, but by raising the means from proper sources, if we fail to take care of the conservancy of our river, if we are not thoroughly up to date in regard to the dock and mercantile appliances, and, above all, if we increase the reputation which London now has, and which has led to great diversion of trade, that the charges here are excessive, we shall, I think, fail in that duty which touches the very permanence of the commercial position of London. I was going to say pre-eminence, but that is gone in a very large degree, owing to the conditions which have existed here, and which have given the preference to other ports in the United Kingdom and abroad on account of cheapness and the like. My hon. friend said, most properly, that if we prove that what has taken place under the dock company has diverted trade from London, that would be, I think he admitted, an almost unanswerable argument against a Bill for the purpose of increasing charges. I think he cannot have read the proceedings at a great meeting in 1896 at the Cannon Street Hotel, at which I took the chair as President of the London Chamber of Commerce, at which all these questions were discussed from the mercantile and shipping point of view. He said, most properly, you must not use that argument by way merely of suggestion. I quite agree that is not sufficient, and I will comply with his challenge in a very few moments by stating what the mercantile body feel on this question from actual experience, and what they know of the consequences of the system which has been going on. I take, first, Alderman Ritchie (as he was then—now, I think, Sir Thomas Ritchie), who spoke at that meeting and gave this illustration of what was happening. He said he had a ship under charter, waiting orders at Falmouth for any Continental port between Dunkirk and Hamburg. He wrote to the shipowners to see what concession they would make if she were diverted to London. The reply was, "We will not have London except upon an increased rate of 2s. 6d. per ton" in consequence of the dear charges as against shipowners.; That vessel did not come to London, and the consequence was loss to the port, not only in that particular instance, but it was a typical loss to the port. Alderman Ritchie also gave this instance: At Hamburg recently goods had been warehoused by him for three months, and the landing charges and the rent were only half of what they were if the goods had been brought to the Port of London, and we have undoubtedly a standing illustration of the state of affairs when we see splendid warehouses, I am told, in a large degree unoccupied, simply because the charges are prohibitive. Another high authority, Mr. Stephen Ralli, said at that meeting that London was the dearest and slowest port in the United Kingdom. Mr. Rouse said Hamburg and Antwerp were one-third less expensive than London, and many contended that the charges there were half only of those which were made in the Port of London. I quite admit the great difficulty of making these comparative observations. There are numerous conditions to be taken into account. But I have read a table which bears out the estimate of one-half, and Mr. Rouse justified his argument by saying that the cost of weighing cotton in London was 3½d. per bale, and that the same work was done for 1d. at Antwerp, and, to show the differential system, which was highly objectionable, that cotton was delivered by water in London at 4s. 3d. per ton whereas by land it was only charged 1s. 9d. And a former Member of this House told the House, in the debate of 1855 that he had diverted goods from London to other ports because the London charges were too heavy. If these are at all typical instances, if they are reliable, it proves, I think, conclusively that this is not a subject for inquiry by a Select Committee in a matter of a few weeks, but for a very broad and searching inquiry as to the whole conditions under which the trade in London has been conducted, and as to what will be the consequences if we proceed in the same manner as in the past. I think that the great remedy is cheapness instead of increased dearness of cost. If enterprise is thrown into the matter, if a real competition ensues with regard to warehousing and the like, I think the result would be found to be highly beneficial. We have to remember this in dealing with the matter, that a discussion took place here in 1855. Since then I believe the dock acreage has been very largely increased, and the dock directors stand face to face with the fact that either they did not then attribute such importance to the argument for the exemption of lighters and craft, or that they have increased their outlay with their eyes open, and, if so, they should not be rescued from a position which has shown some want of foresight in dealing with the trade of the port. Moreover, in not contemplating the great change which has taken place with regard to port matters, the rapidity of delivery and distribution instead of putting goods into warehouses, the influence of the telegraph, telephone, and the like in expediting commercial actions, they showed a want of commercial foresight, the consequences of which should not be made good by the mercantile community. I have only to add that there is one trade of which we ought to be very careful in London. We still maintain the position of a great emporium for the purpose of distribution, but if this tax is imposed it will strike at the trans-shipment trade, it will add to the diversion which has been going on of our own colonial products into competing ports, and we shall lose that which is at the present time a matter of the greatest advantage to the Port of London. I hope the House will realise the vast, far-reaching importance of the question, and that it will feel that the only way in which it may be solved in the interest of the community is not by a rapid and hasty inquiry, quite inadequate for the purpose, but that it will seek to send it to an expert tribunal capable of dealing with the multitude of interests involved, and of giving a decision in the interest of the trade of the Port of London and also of the whole country, in the direction, probably, of the substitution for a private quasi-monopoly of some form of public and representative trust.

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. Alban Gibbs.)

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of this Bill said that there was one precedent in favour of it, but he immediately proceeded to add that the circumstances were not the same. I think, therefore, I need not deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's single precedent. Referring to the argument which has been used that the effect of these additional charges would be to drive away trade from the Port of London, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether anyone had a greater interest in maintaining the trade of London than the dock companies. In reply to that I would point out that the very grievance alleged by the dock companies is that at present only one quarter of the trade of London pays dues to them, and I would therefore observe that the existing trade of London might be very materially reduced under the new proposal, to the material gain of the dock companies. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the trade of London had very greatly increased during the last twenty years. That is perfectly true, but surely that is a strong argument in favour of adhering to our present system. As a matter of fact, the proposals submitted to the House are as between the custom of London on the one hand and that of Liverpool on the other. How does London compare with Liverpool in respect of trade? During the last ten years I find that whereas the trade of London has increased by 32 per cent., the trade of Liverpool has increased by only 12 per cent. The hon. Member for South Islington said that London had lost its supremacy. I think it would be more correct to say that the trade of the United Kingdom as a whole had lost its supremacy. The trade of the United Kingdom is losing ground in competition with Continental ports. I find, for instance, that in the last ten years the increase in tonnage entering the ports of the United Kingdom has been 25 per cent., whereas the increase in the tonnage entering the ports of Germany has been 44 per cent., of Holland 63 per cent., and of Belgium 68 per cent. That shows very clearly that Antwerp, Hamburg, and Rotterdam are gaining very rapidly on London. But if we compare London with other English ports, we shall find that London is not falling behind. I have shown that the total increase in the tonnage of the English ports during the last ten years was 25 per cent., whereas the increase in the trade of London during that period was 32 per cent., and therefore London is comparatively prosperous under the existing system. What I feel is that a Parliamentary bargain was really made with these dock companies. It is said that without docks no big ships could discharge in the Port of London. In answer to that I would say that without the monopoly that was given the docks could not have existed. The dock companies have really got all they bargained for, and I do not see that the fact that their warehousing business has very considerably declined is any reason why the House should take the step it is now asked to take. Having regard to the fact that this system is based on a Parliamentary bargain, that it has existed for 100 years, that on the last occasion when a similar proposition was made it was rejected contemptuously by the House of Commons. I say that the House would be really prejudging the question by granting Second Reading to this Bill until a thorough inquiry has been made into all the circumstances of the Port of London.

MR. GRAY (West Ham, N.)

The fact that a very large number of my constituents are interested in the prosperity of these docks must be my excuse for addressing the House on this occasion. I will not venture to enter into detail. In my opinion no Bill has ever been before Parliament on which it is more difficult to form an opinion than on this measure, and it is a Bill which undoubtedly, in my opinion, should be carefully examined by a Committee, who would inquire into all the details which a large assembly like the House of Commons is totally incompetent to investigate. It is said that this is a Parliamentary bargain, but it was made more than 100 years ago, and all the conditions have changed during the century which has elapsed. That is a fair contention and a fair justification for the companies coming to Parliament and asking that the whole question should be looked into again. It is said that they asked Parliament in 1855 what they are now asking for, but it must be admitted that the state of affairs was totally different then to what it is now. Then dock stock was quoted at a very high rate, and the docks were prosperous. To-day they are languishing without prospect of recovery, and very serious injury is inflicted by the large number of men thrown out of employment. This Bill ought to go to a Committee or Commission for careful examination. I go further, and say that the whole question of dock accommodation in London ought to be referred to a Committee, and the way to secure that is not to throw out this Bill. If the Amendment is carried the Bill will be thrown out, and there will be nothing left—no Bill, no Commission, and no prospect of it, and the condition of things which we are lamenting to-day will be likely to continue year after year. I hope that the House in dealing with the question will not regard it merely as a question between the dock directors and the wharfingers and lightermen. There are the men employed, the commercial prosperity of London, and the tens of thousands who are the owners of the £17,000,000 of capital of the companies to be considered. It is a question in which a large number of people, rich as well as poor, are concerned. I should like to make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to take up this very complex question, and grapple with it firmly, with a view to putting the dock accommodation of London on a satisfactory basis. Let him send this Bill to a Committee, as many another complicated question has been settled, with a wider Instruction than the mere reference to the Bill—an Instruc- tion to inquire into the whole dock accommodation of London. In that case if this Bill can be justified by its promoters they will get it at an early date, and the further question can then be considered by the same Committee. That is a practice not unknown to the House. Those who are not familiar with the East End of London know nothing of the condition of the docks at present. This is not a mere question of a private undertaking endeavouring to get some increased powers. It affects the whole of the country, and is a national question, and I would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to take it into his hands and let the Bill pass its Second Reading, not as an endorsement of its principle, but in order that all the circumstances may be investigated. It is said, when Bills of such a complicated character are given Second Reading, that the House adopts their principle, but everyone knows that is not the case. It is the only way in which a private person or company can work in order to obtain a Parliamentary inquiry, and having regard to the very large interests involved, I think the House of Commons ought not to refuse it.

MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is under a misconception when he states that the only way by which there can be an inquiry by the House of Commons into this matter is by reading this Bill a second time. I can assure the hon. Member that there are other methods. I myself have put down on the Paper a notice of Amendment which, if it be discussed and adopted, will secure the rejection of the Second Reading of this Bill, but will also result in the establishment of an inquiry of the fullest and most exhaustive character. The motion, as it stands in my name, is for a Select Committee. I believe myself that a Select Committee appointed for a definite purpose is a more speedy and a surer way of arriving at a decision on a great and complex question than a Royal Commission. But I am not going to dispute the point, because by either one or the other a full and complete inquiry can be obtained. And, undoubtedly, when we consider that during this session—and certainly next session—there may be a dissolution, and that many of the Members who might now be appointed on a Select Committee might not be returned to the new House, there is more to be said for a Royal Commission at the present moment than would, perhaps, otherwise be admissible. I may remind hon. Members that many of the greatest questions before this House have been dealt with by Select Committees, which, of course, expire at the end of each session, but are re-appointed session after session, with as small a change in their personnel as possible. The advantage of a Select Committee over a Royal Commission is that it has power to call for Papers and compel the attendance of witnesses. I do not wish to argue between the two, because I am clearly of opinion that in the immediate circumstances in which we find ourselves much may be said for a Royal Commission that could not be said under ordinary circumstances. At an early period of the debate we should hear from the Government whether they are prepared to appoint some such body as a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, because we shall fumble about a good deal until we know that. The hon. Member who has just spoken says that the only hold we can have, if anything is to be done, is to have something definite before the House in the shape of a Private Bill. But there is a method of dealing with this complicated and important question other than to pass this particular Bill to its Second Reading. There are instances in which a Bill involving more important issues, but which we could not altogether approve of in all its details, has passed the Second Reading of this House; but that was where the principle of the Bill was large and covered the area generally covered by the investigation of the Committee upstairs. But the principle of the Bill in this case is an exceeding small and narrow one. It is whether there ought to be a charge placed by this Bill upon wharfingers, bargemen, and lightermen to assist in procuring an adequate revenue for the docks. Will anyone in the House suggest a more hopelessly inadequate method of dealing with the Port and docks of London than that proposition? Whether that charge would enable the dock companies to emerge out of their difficulties or not I am not prepared to say, for I do not want to prejudge the question. But it is looking at the matter from only one point of view—that of the dock shareholders, and that alone. Now, the inte- rests of the Port of London go widely beyond those of the dock shareholders, and widely beyond any proposition that could legitimately, under our Standing Orders, be received in connection with such a Bill as this. I am, however, glad that the Bill has been brought forward, and I do not think we shall have the dock directors against us in what I am about to say, because it gives an opportunity to this House to deal with the question as we are now, in our debate, endeavouring to deal with it, from a large point of view. For a large number of years there has been no Bill or measure before the House which could allow the House in any way to take up the dock question. The only way it could have been raised would have been by a motion on a Friday or Tuesday, and we all know how very inadequate any such motion is for securing immediate legislation, or action for legislation. It depends upon the choice of the ballot, the luck of the evening, and many other things. We have never had the opportunity of bringing before the House the request that I venture to make in the Amendment which stands in my name, and which I ask the Government to take cognisance of and to deal with. I request that "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the accommodation and facilities provided and the charges levied at the Port and docks of London as affecting the commercial and general interests of London, and what, if any, changes could be made to improve the administration of the Port and docks." Now the wording of anything that the Government may be prepared to do by Royal Commission or Select Committee may be different from anything I have stated in that Amendment, but my object is to secure a large general inquiry, in which all interests may be heard and the various proposals may be ventilated, and on which responsible, and above all, open-minded persons may be able to give a decision upon what they want to be done. There are proposals evolved in various quarters. Some are visionary, some are sound and practical. Many of them press on all sides that we must adopt that which is not only in the interests of the shareholders of the docks, but in the interest of the mercantile community of London, the interest of the traders, the interest of the wholesale traders and retail distributors, and of the working classes, and of every person connected with London, which is involved in the security and satisfactory position of the Port and docks of London. In using these words, "the Port and docks of London," there is a very considerable point. It is of the extremest importance that we should have not only an inquiry into the docks of London but into the Port of London itself, including the docks. I do not want to say a word against the Thames Commission, because I know that I have stood with them in their desire to procure more money in dealing with the lower Thames. But they have not got funds for that. In a very instructive debate which took place in the House, in which a right hon. Gentleman I see before me took part, I and others pressed various points of view on the House as to the desirability of steps being taken which might lead to the better dredging of the lower part of the Thames; because we all know that it is not possible for the larger ships to come up the river except in certain states of the tide. A question was raised by the hon. Member for South Islington about the relations of the ports of Hamburg, Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Bremen, and the Port of London. I am informed by the journals that have to deal with trade matters that there is not any doubt whatever that in Hamburg there are lower charges than in the Port of London. I think I have said enough to make out a fair case that what is required is that a general inquiry on this matter should be carried out by persons whose past, whose business circumstances and relations generally, make them well able to determine such a matter from an independent point of view — such an inquiry as would cover practically the points made in the Amendment I have put on the Paper. I hope the Government will prevent the continuance of the debate by making some pronouncement on the subject, for my action on this matter will be very much guided by what steps they are prepared to take. If the result of this debate comes to this, that we get such a Commission or Select Committee as I have endeavoured to indicate, then I think not only the commercial interests of London, the greatest commercial city in the world, the interests of London as a town generally, and the interests of the working classes, will have good cause to thank this debate and the causes which have given rise to it.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,) Croydon

There can be no question as to the great importance of the matter now being discussed. It is very much more than a local question affecting London alone. In fact I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that it is not only a local but a national question—namely whether London is to maintain the position which it now occupies as well as to be able to enter into effective competition not only with our own out-ports but with foreign ports. Now, there are so many things which the House is agreed upon in connection with this matter that it is really not necessary for me to detain the House at any length. We are agreed upon two points. One is the insufficiency of the docks in London for the work which they have to do and which we hope they will have to do in the future; and the other is the necessity for some inquiry as to how the condition of things now existing in London is to be improved. These are the two points on which the House is generally agreed, and indeed the only question, I think, which the House has really to consider now is the form which that inquiry is to take—whether the inquiry shall be an inquiry merely by an ordinary Private Bill Committee or even by a Select Committee into the proposals of this Bill, or whether the inquiry will be larger and more general, embracing the whole merits and conduct of the docks, the accommodation provided by the docks, and generally as to how the revenue is to be raised, if further money is required to be found, and in what way the docks in future shall be administered; and also the extremely important question which the hon. Gentleman who spoke last raised — not only how the docks are to be improved, but how the water-way which leads into the docks is to be improved. Well, with regard to the accommodation afforded in the London Docks, I agree that it is not in a satisfactory condition, but I think it is right to say that I consider that those who are responsible for the management of the docks have of late years done a very great deal to improve the accommodation in the docks. They have expended large sums of money in the improvement of the docks, and I think I may say generally that they have exercised all the powers which they possess to fulfil properly and adequately, as far as possible, the duties which devolve upon them in managing these gigantic concerns. But notwithstanding all that that has been done it has been found that even the Tilbury Dock, which alone can accommodate vessels of great size, cannot accommodate ships equal to those accommodated by some of our out-ports, and hardly approaches the accommodation given in some foreign ports. Now, that is a state of things with which no one in London or the country ought to be satisfied. The dock directors themselves are not satisfied. They are desirous of improving the condition of things at the docks, but they say, and properly say, "How is it possible for us with the revenue we possess, with our stocks standing at the figures they now are, to raise the money necessary for improving the conditions of things in the London Docks." And that is an answer which it is impossible to dispute. They are unable to do it, and they come before the House of Commons with a proposal which, in their opinion, would enable them to fulfil the responsibilities which devolve upon them. That is a proposal to raise the charges upon barges from which they are now exempt. That is a proposal which has been made before in the House of Commons, and which has been rejected by the House of Commons when it was last before it in 1855. I think it then only obtained twenty-six votes in this House, and I venture to say that on the proposal which is now made, which is practically the same proposal—I am not speaking of the actual details, but in principle it is the same—this House of Commons is not at all likely to come to a different conclusion from the previous House of Commons in refusing its assent to this bald proposal for remedying the state of things of which we all complain. It is said by my hon. friend the Member for Bow and Bromley that the House would not depart from, that position if the Second Reading of the Bill was passed, and the Bill referred to a Committee. I think my hon. friend is hardly right in making that assumption. I am satisfied that if we did vote for the Second Reading of a Bill which imposed these charges, we would consider that we were voting for the principle of the charges. There may be many other remedies which might be suggested for a full inquiry. Of course a full inquiry would not be made into the whole case if this Bill were read a second time. Although it is said by the friends of the Bill that unless that is done and the alternative of referring the matter to a Royal Commission is adopted that would mean delay, I greatly question whether that is true. If this Bill were referred to a Committee and rejected there would be an end—for at least this session or for a long time—of the proposals made on behalf of the docks; whereas, if a Royal Commission were appointed to inquire into the whole matter, that Royal Commission would be bound to consider not merely this particular remedy, but the whole question of what dock accommodation is required, and the kind of accommodation, the cost, and how that expenditure was to be met. It would also consider whether, if it were necessary that further burdens should be imposed on London and the Port of London, that ought to be done by something in the nature of a public trust rather than by a private company. For although, no doubt, the House of Commons would reject a proposal to allow a private company like the docks company to impose this additional charge, it is not at all to be supposed that they would be prepared to reject a similar proposal, or something analogous to it, if made by a public authority. However that may be, I am sure that the mode proposed by the promoters of the Bill is not the right method of getting at the bottom of this extremely important matter. That inquiry is desired is undoubted, and I hope that my hon. friends who proposed this Bill will not consider it necessary to come to a division, but agree to accept my assurance that the Government feel the necessity for inquiry on this matter as much as the dock company itself, and that that inquiry ought to be, and that that inquiry should be larger and wider, and ought to embrace much more than the financial aspect of the question with which this Bill alone deals. We propose, therefore, to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of a Royal Commission to make full inquiry into the whole matter. I wish it to be understood that I do not intend to suggest that it should be a Royal Commission composed of partisans. I think it right to make that statement, because, since it has been known that the Govern- ment favoured the appointment of a Royal Commission, I have been approached by all sorts and conditions of men, representatives of various sections of the community which have interests in this matter, with requests that representatives of these particular interests should be appointed on the Royal Commission. If this thing is to be inquired into, the first necessity is that it must be an impartial and not a partial or partisan inquiry, and that the members of the Commission must be judges, men who will go into the matter with impartial minds, and prepared to come to a conclusion on the evidence placed before them; not representatives of this, that, or the other interest, but representatives of the whole community. I can assure my hon. friend, if he is prepared to accept the proposal I now make, that in the appointment of the Royal Commission there will be no delay, and that within two or three weeks that inquiry will be begun, and that the inquiry will result in great good to the whole community.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

I desire, in expressing my hearty concurrence in the proposal to refer this matter to a Royal Commission, to disclaim any hostility to the present Bill. I do not think we ought to pass judgment on the proposals in the present Bill; but the more I consider them the more I am convinced that the House is not prepared to deal with them. For the Bill raises only one small part of the subject, and we cannot deal with that without being drawn into the larger question. The right hon. Gentleman has stated the decision of the Government, and as I think the supporters of the Bill will probably acquiesce in his proposal I have little to add. I would, however, like to add a word as to my preference for a Royal Commission over a Select Committee. I think there are two strong advantages in the Royal Commission. In the first place the Committee could do very little this year, and I do not know whether it would sit next year; whereas the Royal Commission could work during the vacation, and would make much more rapid progress than a Select Committee. I hope for that reason that the promoters of the Bill will acquiesce in the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of the Government. The only other remark I want to make is that I am sure the President of the Board of Trade has carried us all with him when he said that the Commission should be a non-partisan body. We have heard far too much of having Royal Commissions and Select Committees in which all interests were represented. It is unsatisfactory, and involves loss of time. It would be far better to have invariably an independent, non-partisan body. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also see that it is to be a small Commission. It ought not to exceed seven in number. I am persuaded that it will proceed much more rapidly if it be a small and impartial body rather than a larger Commission composed of representatives of various interests. In that view, and believing that the promoters of the Bill will not suffer by the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope we will be spared a division.

Question put, and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.