HC Deb 02 June 1904 vol 135 cc680-705

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

*MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

said he rose to move that this Bill be considered this day six months. Up to the previous evening a similar Motion to that which he now proposed, and having the same object in view, stood upon the Paper in the name of one of the representatives of the Admiralty and he now invited the attention of the House while he addressed himself to the circumstances which led to the placing by the Admiralty authorities of the notice on the Paper and to its subsequent withdrawal. It was frequently pleaded that when a Bill had been considered by a Committee the House of Commons must demand very good reason indeed for interfering with such decision. That was. a general rule in which he acquiesced, but in this case the decision given by the Committee had not precluded the Admiralty from placing a notice of Motion on the Paper which, had it been persisted in, would have upset the decision arrived at by the Committee and brought about the rejection of this Bill. The promoters of this Bill when they found themselves opposed by this powerful public Department had postponed the Bill from time to time while they negotiated with the Admiralty with whom they had now come to terms. His submission was that it was most unfair that a municipal body should be allowed to come to terms in this way with a great State Department, and that when private interests were concerned they should be utterly callous and ignore them. A State Department and a private individual having property at stake should be treated in a similar manner, and it was not fair when the opposition was strong for a great municipal body to negotiate with their opponent and when the opposition was that of a private individual to ignore it and try and beat it down.

The Bill before the House proposed to establish a new service of steamboats on the Thames to run from the western to the eastern boundaries of the administrative county, beyond which it was not proposed to go. It was proposed to invest a capital sum of £280,000 for the purpose of carrying out this scheme, but there was nothing in the Bill which restricted the London County Council to that capital expenditure. This project had been before the House on three separate occasions. It was rejected by a Committee of this House in 1902, and a similar Bill was also thrown out in 1903, but on this occasion the Bill had been passed by the Committee. The £280,000 proposed capital was no doubt proposed to be raised on the credit of London, and he asked the House to seriously consider the high indebtedness with which the London County Council was burdening the ratepayers. It was proposed to add this huge item to outstanding capital account, yet the London County Council could not even claim that this service would then be self-supporting. Their own witnesses before the Committee admitted that the concern could not be made a profitable one for at least six years, while for the first three there must be a continual annual loss, so that year after year the ratepayers of London were to be called upon to make good the administrative faults of the London County Council,—tramways, first one venture and then another, always with an illusory prospect of profit in the future which was never realised. If the evidence given before the Committee on behalf of the promoters meant anything at all it meant that the House of Commons was being asked to sanction a proposal embracing a large capital expenditure which was to extend over twenty years, although the project was not likely to have so long a life; and in addition to that expenditure the ratepayers of London were to pay the annual loss. This was an instance of municipal trading of the very worst kind. He doubted the need for this action on the part of the London County Council. He doubted whether this service was ever likely to be of any value to the real workers of London or whether any steamboat service which had existed upon the river had ever met the needs of the working classes. No working man wanting to move quickly from Battersea to Westminster would look to a Thames steamboat as a means of quick transit. If any service was to be a success it must be one analogous to that upon the river Seine composed of very small boats running in very quick succession, but that was not the service proposed under this Bill. If he saw the least chance of this Bill conferring any benefit, on persons desiring to reach their work quickly he should be prepared to accept it and swallow a large number of the objectionable principles which it contained, but, knowing the river as he did and the class of people who filled the boats, he did not see the least chance of that being the case. The majority of the people who filled these boats were the bank holiday folk and the Sunday afternoon folk, the working man was seldom seen I upon them, they taking the opportunity of using a more rapid means of getting from east to west.

This scheme of municipal trading needed the most careful scrutiny. It was open to many and serious objections. Quite apart from the fact that it would place upon the London ratepayers an annual charge for an indefinite period, he failed to understand how anybody could stand up and advocate that this boon should be conferred on one section of the community at the cost of another. No benefit could be conferred on the dwellers in the extreme north and south of London by a system of cheap transit on the river, and therefore they should not be called upon to pay for it. He ventured to say that when municipal bodies embarked in trading of this character, they should be bound by the conditions which bound every private individual, that was to say, they should make such undertakings self-supporting. There were many other objections; for instance, there was the strong objection of the borough which he had the honour to represent. He had earlier in the day presented a petition signed by over 7,000 citizens of West Ham praying that the House should not pass this Bill in the present form as it would inflict upon them a permanent injury of a very serious character. The names in that petition were collected within the last five days, and had further time been devoted to their collection the petition would have contained from 50,000 to 80,000 names of persons all honestly opposed to the Bill in its present form. It was obvious in the face of the London County Council proposals that no private company could compete with this authority in this service. The London County Council proposed to start a service of steamers, build piers, charge pier dues and tolls, and the London County Council alone would be the authority running steamers up and down the river. It would be suggested that the Bill contained nothing which could prevent a private company running its own steamers, but with all the piers under the control of the London County Council such a thing was quite impossible, and to suggest it was most unfair. It was manifestly impossible for any company or individual to compete with the London County Council, because with the piers under the control of the County Council, with the tolls and dues upon them, it was impossible to make a private concern pay.

This Bill created the largest and most serious monopoly that London had yet seen. This Bill asked the House to create a monopoly all along the river, but it did not propose to deal fairly with the interests which it disturbed, or compensate those whose interest it destroyed. In the case of West Ham there was a population of nearly 300,000 people, with two miles of frontage on the river. This service proposed to stop some distance from the boundaries of West Ham. It was opposed to a scheme promoted by a private company which was prepared to supply West Ham with a service, yet that locality was unable to extract from the London County Council; any sort of pledge that they would give them any service whatever. It was distinctly unfair, if they could not give a service at all, not to allow an open field to those who were prepared to do so. He would, no doubt, be told that the London County Council was very generous, that they had constantly given West Ham grants. It was true that they had given West Ham grants to buy parks and open spaces, but West Ham was daily giving London grants. West Ham was the dormitory of London. The men who made the wealth of London came to West Ham to sleep, their children were the care of the locality. West Ham did not ask for charity but for justice. Inasmuch as these men were engaged in London from early morning till late at night, they said they ought not to be shut off from access to the river, and that if the London County Council sought to establish a monopoly, it should at least extend its service to the whole of the riparian portions of this urban borough. The southern portion of this borough was intersected with water-ways, owing to the Albert and Victoria Docks. To allow the coming in of big ships from the river the swing bridges were so often moved, that for hours during the day the place was a complete island, shut off from rail and road communication, and the people of this part of West Ham were naturally very anxious to secure the benefit of a river service. As it had been impossible to extract from the promoters of this Bill a pledge such as had been given by the promoters of the other Bill which was rejected by the Committee, he had to come to this House and ask it to take these circumstances into consideration and not to allow a monopoly of this kind to do West Ham this injustice.

On the Thames, ten years ago, was a fleet of steamers owned by the Victoria Steamboat Company; the company got into difficulties, and as a result of an investigation into their affairs by the London County Council, it was suggested that the approaches to the piers should be improved and private enterprise should be encouraged. The County Council subsequently went farther, and Sir J. McDougall, the Chairman of the London County Council, and the chairman of the committee which carried out the investigations, approached Mr. Hills, a well-known shipbuilder, and encouraged him to embark in this enterprise. There was but little difference between the statement of Mr. Hills and that of Sir J. McDougall, and certainly the Rivers Committee passed a resolution which would be construed by any ordinary man as a direct encouragement to private enterprise to take up this work. Pressure was brought to bear on the chairman of the committee, and the report which had been prepared by the committee, but not submitted to the Council, was withdrawn. The report itself had been published in The Times, but the fact that it had not been approved by the Council was not made public. Thus Mr. Hills was egged on to proceed with the enterprise, and, after he had spent £150,000 on boats and piers, the County Council, as another election was approaching, thought it would be a grand advertisement if they decided to run a service of boats themselves. That was manifestly unfair. Mr. Hills had been misled, he would not say deliberately, and what had been the result? That gentleman kept on the service for five years; 15,000,000 passengers were carried without a single accident to life or limb; the service was a safe, quick, and popular service, and it would have been pecuniarily successful but for the fact that Mr. Hills, being a strong teetotaler, refused to allow refreshments to be sold in the cabins, and thus lost a considerable revenue. The service was as good a one as could be obtained under the present conditions of the river, but the County Council now came along, claimed to crush their competitor out of existence, and calmly told him to do the best he could with the stock they bad induced him to purchase or construct. The Admiralty had under their care one single pier at Greenwich Hospital, and the County Council had to bargain with them for it; but Mr. Hills, who had purchased eight piers, being a private individual and not a Government Department, was left in the lurch. The Committee by which the Bill was considered said that they took note of the fact that the London County Council were prepared to deal fairly with the property of Mr. Hills, but the Council through their counsel immediately denied that they had given any pledge, and refused to agree to purchase even under what were known as the "old iron" clauses. It was unjust as between a great municipality and one of their prominent citizens who, in a time of stress and at their invitation, had undertaken this enterprise that the County Council should now attempt to ride rough-shod over Mr. Hills, and he appealed to the House of Commons not to allow so great an injustice to pass unnoticed. This was an attempt on the part of an ambitious municipality, who were prepared to be the makers and sellers of everything in London, to crush out anybody who attempted to compete with them, and if Parliament were prepared to make them the greatest monopolists this country had yet seen they ought at least to insist on fair treatment being meted out to those who were being hustled out of the field. He was anxious to see the riverway restored to its proper position, but he believed it could be done by private enterprise, and until it was proved that private enterprise could not maintain a service of boats on the river Parliament ought not to create this municipal monopoly, or, if they did, they ought to see that even-handed injustice was meted out to all concerned, whether State Department, local authority or private individual. He appealed to the House not to allow it to be said that inside Parliament might was right, and that right might cry for help in vain. He begged to move.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

, in seconding the Amendment, said that experience had shown that a steamboat service on the Thames could not be made pecuniarily successful, and he failed to see why the ratepayers of London should be put to the expense of maintaining a service which would benefit only a small proportion of the inhabitants. The past history of the question was this, the Citizen Company became bankrupt, and were taken over by the Victoria Company; they in turn lost a great deal of money, and were bought out by Mr. Hills; Mr. Hills, being an exceedingly rich man, did not become bankrupt, but he found the chances of making a profit so remote that two years ago he abandoned the service. These three attempts by private enterprise having failed, he was unable to see, looking at the matter from a commercial point of view, what chance there was of the County Council succeeding. The contemplated capital expenditure was £280,000, an annual expenditure of £98,000 was estimated, and the County Council did not pretend there would be a sufficient return to cover it. In the evidence given before the Committee the Council stated they would at first pay the same wages as were paid by Mr. Hills, but it was to be expected that as soon as the service was municipalised there would be an increase of wages and a reduction of fares, so that it would be impossible for the service to be remunerative. If they once admitted the principle that municipalities were to come forward as philanthropists and carry out schemes which were for the advantage, or the supposed advantage, of the few, and that the expense or profit was not to be considered, they would be embarking upon a policy the final results of which no man could foresee. Unless it could be proved that this service would be an advantage to the great majority of the inhabitants of London, the County Council had no right to place any charge on the ratepayers in respect of it. The only people who would derive any advantage would be those who lived upon the river and who desired to go to some other locality also on the river. The inhabitants of Fulham, Chelsea, and Greenwich would doubtless be benefited, but he objected to his constituents who were not on the liver and who would therefore gain no advantage having to pay for privileges enjoyed only by a small minority. In the days when the Thames was a great highway, there were no underground railways, tramways, or good roads, but matters were now very different. He was prepared to vote with his hon. friend, but he was not quite clear as to the proposal to give compensation to Mr. Hills. Mr. Hills went into a trading concern and be lost his money, bat he did not see that that had anything to do with the County Council. This Bill had been before three Committees within the last three years. Two of those Committees had rejected it, while one Committee had passed it only by the casting vote of the Chairman.

MR. CHARLES ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

It was rejected last year only by the casting vote of the Chairman.

SIE FREDERICK BANBURY

said that in that case the one balanced the other, and the third ought to be taken as conclusive. He hoped the House would not allow the Bill to pass on this occasion.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day sis months.'"—(Mr. Ernest Gray.)

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

*SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington)

said that seeing that he occupied the position of Chairman of the Committee whose decision was now being called into question he would naturally be expected to intervene in this debate. He had listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham, which he thought would have done infinite credit to the counsel for West Ham before any Committee, and personally he should have been very glad if the hon. Member had given evidence as a witness before the Committee which passed this Bill. He thought the hon. Member's speech was rather one of generalities, and he appeared to have avoided the real issue. They had before the Committee a clear issue. Two Bills were brought before them, one asking for Parliamentary powers for the London County Council to run steamboats on the Thames, and the other was a competitive Bill run by Mr. Arnold Hills who claimed that the County Council should purchase his boats, piers, and plant, and alternatively that they should enter into a partnership with him, the County Council finding a sum of £60,000 or £70,000, the only quid fro quo for which was to be the appointment of two of their number as directors of the joint board. On that issue the Committee, after twelve days hard work, came to an unanimous decision in favour of the County Council.

MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S. W.)

It was not unanimous.

*SIR JOSEPH LEESE

The courtesy of the hon. Member for Manchester is so well known that I will not give way to him.

MR. GALLOWAY

I beg pardon.

*SIR JOSEPH LEESE

said he would repeat his statement that it was an unanimous decision. The Committee over which he presided, after hearing all the evidence of the witnesses, decided to reject Mr. Hill's Bill and accept the preamble of the London County Council's Bill. In doing so the Committee rejected the proposal that there should be a partnership with the County Council, and they also rejected the suggestion that the County Council should be called upon to purchase Mr. Hill's boats, piers, and plant. And after this the hon. Member for West Ham put down a proposal to the effect that— The Council shall before exercising any of the powers of this Act, purchase such of the piers and such of the steamboats of the Thames Steamboat Company (1897), Limited, for such price and upon such terms and conditions as, failing agreement, shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade. That point was argued and witnesses were examined upon it, and the Committee determined that the case would not hold water. He submitted that this proposal contained in the clause put down on the Paper by the hon. Member for West Ham was directly subversive of the decision of the Committee.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

, on a point of order, asked whether it was competent for the hon. Member to discuss a clause which was not before the House. The question before the House was the rejection of the Bill.

*MR. SPEAKER

said that the hon. Member for West Ham had devoted a large part of his speech to the proposals contained in his clause.

*SIR JOSEPH LEESE

said he was sorry to see that the good manners of the hon. Member for Manchester were extending, [Cheers and MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."]

MR. GALLOWAY

asked whether the hon. Member was in order in making a suggestion that he was discourteous to him when he had no such intention, and had, indeed, offered him an apology across the floor of the House.

*SIR JOSEPH LEESE

said the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman showed itself by giving him a very direct contradiction on a matter on which he could not be well-informed.

MR. GALLOWAY

The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstood me. I did not contradict him.

*MR. SPEAKER

I hope this controversy will now close.

*SIR JOSEPH LEESE

, after remarking that he apologised if he had said anything offensive to the hon. Member opposite, said the Committee decided to give the County Council a free hand. I Mr. Hills possessed thirty-six steam boats, and their age averaged twenty-four years each. It was true that three of them were built in the year 1898. When Sir William White, who was one of Mr. Hills' own witnesses, offered his; evidence, he, as Chairman, asked him what was the average life of a Thames steamboat, and Sir William replied, "twenty-five years." This clause, which had been put down by the hon. Member for West Ham, would place upon the London County Council an obligation to purchase Mr. Hills' boats, most of which were, on that gentleman's own admission, within a year of the term of their natural existence. They also refused to tie the County Council's hands with regard to the eight piers owned by Mr. Hills, because it was put before the Committee that the tramways and the steamboats were to be made part of one general scheme of transit, that through tickets available by both trams and steamboats would be issued, and that in the interest of the public it might be necessary to put piers in places where they did not exist at present. On that ground they refused to tie the hands of the London County Council. There was an Amendment on the Paper with regard to West Ham. But West Ham was outside the jurisdiction of the London County Council, and made no contribution to the rates. The Committee had very carefully considered the matters involved in the Bill, and he hoped the House would not set aside their decision. The hon. Member had made reference to what had been said by him as Chairman in announcing the decision of the Committee. He read the shorthand report of his remarks on that occasion, and from that report it was clear that he had very expressly guarded against the introduction of any clause such as that which had been put on the Paper. Therefore he hoped that the House of Commons would not accept this Motion but pass the Bill.

*SIR ALEXANDER BROWN (Shropshire, Wellington)

said the Committee over which he presided heard the case thoroughly, and after careful consideration threw out this Bill upon its merits. The County Council now came forward with precisely the same proposals and asked the House of Commons to pass the Bill which the Committee ever which he presided had previously rejected. He did not wish to go into detail, but he would give briefly the reason why the Committee thought this Bill should not pass. The Thames, it was contended, was a great waterway which the Bill proposed to use in order to convey working men to and from their work. It was found, however, that working men going to and returning from work could be carried more quickly and cheaply by tram and railway. The river service could only become a great service for pleasure purposes in the summer months, and he and his colleagues agreed that the charge for such a service should not be laid on London as a whole. The tidal character of the Thames and its windings were serious obstacles to a successful service. The House would be well advised not to allow this charge to be imposed on the ratepayers of London.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

said the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Ham practically opened up a number of issues which would have been more appropriately discussed on the Second Reading of the previous Bill. In raising those issues the hon Member made certain statements, one of which evoked some sympathy, which he was afraid was given under a misapprehension. The hon. Member said in moving the rejection of this Bill that he had put down a similar Motion to that which was put down by a representative of the Government on behalf of the Admiralty. That was hardly the case. The Admiralty were the trustees for the widows and orphans, chargeable upon the revenues of the Greenwich pier, and consequently they had a right to defend the interests of those dependent upon them. The hon. Member opposite, however, did not inform the House that the Greenwich pier was the only pier along the Thames which the County Council sought to acquire compulsorily, and he thought that was sufficient to dispose of the misinterpretation which the hon. Member for West Ham built upon that mistake. The City Corporation did not oppose the Bill, and the Thames Conservancy and the County Council had agreed to clauses. The Admiralty had been satisfied, and all the borough councils with one exception supported the Bill. The House had been asked to reject this Bill for some of the most remarkable reasons which had ever been advanced. There was one person opposed to this Bill and that was Mr. Arnold Hills, who was a large creditor of the defunct steamboat company and the present owner of the derelict company which had not run a boat for three years upon the river. Mr. Hills lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Ham, and it did not surprise him that that gentleman, out of 5,000 or 6,000 men he employed, with their uncles, cousins, and their aunts, had managed to get 7,000 signatures to a petition against this Bill. He thought that would dispose of the petition. The hon. Member for West Ham objected for other reasons, and he asked the House to "look at the indebtedness of London." He wished to point out, however, that the object of the hon. Member's proposal was to increase the indebtedness of London and to relieve West Ham of its responsibility in this matter. In this connection he would ask the hon. Member to remember his little jaunt down the Thames that afternoon.

*MR. ERNEST GRAY

Allow me to inform the hon. Member that I have been in the House all this afternoon.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said that he was glad that the hon. Member had not taken part in a vulgar and impudent attempt to influence hon. Members by asking them to lunch and giving them a trip on the river, and parading some half-dozen of these steamboats, with an extra coat of paint, up and down in front of the Terrace. The London County Council were not unsympathetic towards West Ham, but they had no right to spend the money of the ratepayers of London upon questions external to the London ratepayers' jurisdiction. The London County Council had brought in a Bill to have a steamboat service from Hammersmith on the west to Greenwich on the east, to which the ratepayers of the County of London were asked to contribute. In regard to this proposal, West Ham had asked to have a look in, but the answer of the County Council was that in this Bill they could not sanction such a proposal, which ought to come before the Examiners in order that everyone interested could be heard, and therefore they were unable to comply with the request made by the hon. Member for West Ham. If this service turned out successful and Parliament was willing to allow them to help West Ham, then they would not object, but they must do things decently and in order, and they had no right to spend the money of London ratepayers upon a provincial community's interests. If they did thi3 in regard to West Ham, why not do it also in regard to Windsor and Tilbury? Wherever the County Council could help West Ham in reference to parks, drainage, the across-river ferry, or in other ways, they had always done so as much as they possibly could.

The hon. Member for West Ham had stated that the County Council had lured Mr. Arnold Hills on to promote this service, but it was not so; Mr. Hills knew his business as well as anybody, and he would remind the House that in 1893 and 1894, four years before Mr. Hills came upon the scene, proposals were made in election addresses for a municipal steamboat service on the Thames. The steamboat service on the Thames for a long time had been irregular and slow; it started late and stopped too soon; the boats were dirty and obsolete; and they were urged to establish an efficient steamboat service on the Thames long before Mr. Hills appeared on the scene. When the hon. Member for West Ham talked about the value of these steamboats, he would remind him that only some four out of thirty-six were considered to be at ail decent instruments of transit, The Daily Chronicle described them as "penny strugglers," and the Financier and Bullionist stated that no one would buy them at any price. The Sunday Sun declared that this was the very worst steamboat service in Europe. As The Times had said, they were "neither fast nor commodious," they were "old, dirty, and worn out," and afforded no shade in summer or shelter in winter. The cabins were dark and stuffy and the means for landing passengers were inadequate. In fact, the only way to improve the service was "to scrap existing passenger vessels." After that he should subscribe to The Times for the rest of his Parliamentary life. Another witness called by Mr. Arnold Hills this year declared that he should prefer to keep the three new boats of the fleet and have a new lot beside them, with one or two exceptions. The principal witness called by Mr. Hills, Sir William White, stated that no boat ought to be expected to last more than twenty-five years, and the average age of Mr. Hills' fleet was beyond that period.

They had been accused of ill-treating Mr. Hills in this matter, but he would remind the House that Mr. Hills frequently carried out large contracts for; the London County Council and they had no fault to find with his work. Therefore they had no prejudice against him, and they had such a good case that magnanimity took the place of prejudice, and they pitied Mr. Hills. The House should remember that Mr. Hills said that he would not sell his boats and that he would not be ignored, and he also assured that if the London County Council went to Parliament he would oppose them. Mr. Hills wanted joint municipal and private enterprise, but the County Council were not willing to adopt that course upon the terms suggested. He denied that they had lured Mr. Hills on, and therefore the accusation of the hon. Member for West Ham fell to the ground. He wished to point out that in this matter they were not treating Mr. Hills differently than the House of Commons treated gas and water and railway-companies. When a municipality in an Act of Parliament expropriated either a gas, water, electric lighting, or railway concern, it was compelled by Parliament to pay to the people expropriated the proper price of their undertakings, as a going concern, and their business was handed over to the community. In these cases, however, those companies had statutory rights and monopolies conferred upon them by Parliament, and so they had a legal right to be fairly and reasonably, and, in some cases, generously, compensated. Mr. Hills was not in that position, for he had no exclusive privilege to run steamboats on the Thames. There were three other steamboat companies on the Thames besides Mr. Hills' company, and, therefore, he had no statutory or monopoly claim, and his service was not a going concern. Mr. Hills' service had been derelict for three years, and it was bankrupt before he foolishly took it over. Mr. Hills would not sell, but he asked that in this Bill there should be inserted a clause which would treat him as if he had a statutory monopoly right. The London County Council said that out of regard for the interests of the ratepayers of London they could not consent to such an unfair and monstrous proposition, and he was glad that upon this point they had the strong financial support of the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham, who knew more about finance, especially in regard to steamboats, than he could claim to know. He asked the House not to place such a charge upon them, because if the clause of the hon. Member for West Ham was carried the County Council would not proceed any further with the Bill, for they had already decided to treat Mr. Hills as fairly as he deserved to be treated. In the event of Mr. Hills having any piers or steamboats which, in the County Council's judgment, could be adapted and used for the benefit of the new steamboat service, they would be only too pleased to purchase them. He would go further and say that other things being equal the County Council would like to give Mr. Hills a share of the contract for the building of the new boats. If they had a good service they would do their best to help West Ham.

The question was—Can this be made to pay? In the past it had been impossible for private enterprise to make this service pay. Why? Private enterprise had said that the piers should be in the wrong places—namely, between the bridges instead of at the bridges. The County Council, being the bridges authority and the embankment authority, and, in this matter, having the assistance of the City Corporation and the Thames Conservancy Board, who would let them have their piers for nothing, would be able to provide a pier at every bridge and a tramway at every pier, with a system of interchangeable tickets for the tramcars and the boats. They carried 150,000,000 of passengers on the tramcars, and they believed that, even if they had a small loss on the working of the boats during the first two or three years, they would ultimately derive a profit from the boat service. If they treated the boats and the tramways as one service they could make up on the tramways what they lost on the boats. The hon. Member opposite said the County Council had lost on the tramway service. They had only lost during the period of electrification, and in four years they had made £300,000 profit which they had been able to apply for the benefit of the ratepayers. The hon. Member for Peckham knew that they were more likely to gain than to lose, otherwise the bus proprietors would not oppose them as they had done. Whether that were so or not let the County Council have its chance. He asked the House with respect and confidence to allow the County Council to make an attempt to provide a steamboat service on the river worthy of London.

MR. PLATT-HIGGINS (Salford, N.)

said the hon. Member for West Ham had stated that if Mr. Hills had been allowed to have his way there would have been an efficient service provided. What did the people of West Ham regard as an efficient service? Was it a service that only ran in the summer time? What good would such a service be to working men who had to go to their work all the year round? The hon. Member for West Ham did not state that if this Bill were thrown out there would only be a summer service. The County Council should be entrusted with this work because they would give a service all the year round. It was not to be expected that they could get an efficient service from a: company that needed financial support From a report by the statistical officer of the London County Council seven years ago it appeared that the Thames Shipbuilding Company made proposals to them somewhat on the same lines as the present. He reminded the House that on a former occasion Mr. Hills put in the model of an electric launch which he considered a desirable type of boat for the river service. He recommended that small electric launches should run frequently. In view of that opinion he thought it would be outrageous if the House were to require, the County Council to purchase large boats of insufficient speed. If this Bill were thrown out West Ham would get a steamer service which would be of little or no use. West Ham was not a Sunday outing place or a week-end resort. This was a case in which municipal enterprise would step in and carry on a business which could not be carried on profitably by private enterprise, but was needed in the interests of London.

MR. FITZROY (Northamptonshire, S.)

said he did not intend to follow other speakers in going into the details of the evidence given before the Committee. He did not think this House was capable of sifting evidence of that kind, and he should prefer to treat only of the main principle which influenced him in opposing the Bill now before the House. As a member of the Committee that sat upstairs last year on the Bill of a similar character that was brought before the House by the London County Council, he should like to say one or two words with reference to this Bill and to give his reasons for opposing it. He only regretted, and he was sure the House would agree with him in that respect, that the Gentleman who acted as Chairman of the Committee last year had been removed from their midst by death. He deplored that he could not therefore give his views on this subject, which he would have done so much more ably than he (the speaker) could do. This was now the third Bill which had been brought before the House, the two previous ones having been thrown out by Committees upstairs, which had gone carefully and exhaustively into the evidence which was put before them. He would say at the outset that he thought Mr. Hills, the owner of the old steamboat service, was wrong in imagining that Parliament would sanction a Bill giving power for a county council to connect itself with a private individual in undertaking a necessarily speculative proceeding such as this must be, so the only question which really remained was as to whether the County Council should have the power, or rather the monopoly, of running a steamboat service on the Thames, or whether it was to be left to a private individual company to satisfy the public demands in this direction. Most people were of opinion that there should be a service on the Thames, and they were led to believe that unless the County Council established one there would be none. He believed that was an error; indeed it was shown in the evidence that if the London County Council would remove their opposition to Mr. Hills' company, and some better arrangement could be made in regard to freeing the piers from dues, the steamboat service would have been running these last two years and would continue to run.

Before a county council undertook an enterprise such as this with public money there were one or two points which should be definitely established. In the first place it should be clearly established that there was a very general demand for the undertaking by a good majority of the ratepayers. Otherwise public money taken from the pockets of all was being spent for the benefit of a small minority. From the evidence given Before the Committee he did not think it was at all clearly shown that there was a general demand for the County Council to undertake the steamboat service, the only demand coming from pleasure seekers who enjoyed a trip: on the river, and from one or two boroughs situated high up on the banks of the: river. Secondly, if it could not be shown that this would be a very great boon to the great majority of ratepayers, it should at any rate be shown that if it only benefited the minority, it could be undertaken with a reasonable prospect of financial success or at any rate with a very small loss to the ratepayers as a whole. Everything in the evidence pointed in a contrary direction. They had the experience with regard to the river service for a great many years back, and, so far as he knew, hardly, any company or private individual had been able to make anything, except a summer service on the river, pay. This Bill of the County Council proposed to run a service all the year round, but, from all the evidence they could collect on the subject, nothing but a service from April to September showed any adequate return for capital laid out, and even that depended on the weather. If, then, they accepted the fact that it was impossible to make an all-the-year-round steamboat service pay, and that it must be maintained by a body to whom profit is a secondary consideration, they might be inclined to ask whether to a county council loss was a secondary consideration also. It was astonishing to hear Gentlemen talk in giving evidence in support of this Bill, that even if it was a loss it would amount to something very small on the rates—a farthing or something of that kind. They seemed to forget that a multiplication of farthings on a variety of different enterprises amounted to pennies and pence to shillings, and so they got the enormous rate under which so many municipalities and local authorities suffered. The London County Council's past history was not an encouraging one to lead one to believe that this enterprise would be any more profit-table than their other undertakings. The London County Council laid great stress on the fact that up to now the service had not been efficient. He would point out that the tide, fogs, etc., on this river were of a different character from any other river in the world, and that influences of this kind would affect boats controlled by the County Council equally with any others, and that the fact of the County Council owning this service would be no more a guarantee of a punctual service than if any other company gave the same pledges. Altogether the evidence on this Bill distinctly pointed to the County Council being willing light-heartedly to enter upon this undertaking with the utmost certainty that it would involve them in financial loss, and put a further burden on the ratepayers in London, not for the benefit of the majority but of a small minority.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)

said he was a member of the Thames Conservancy Board, which at present was the only authority existing with respect to matters pertaining to the river. The hon. Member for Shropshire had stated that on two previous occasions a Bill similar to this had been thrown out. He wished to point out that on the two previous occasions the Thames Conservancy had offered strong opposition to it. On this occasion they had come to terms with the County Council. The County Council had given them ail that they wanted, and, when it was understood that the Committee had practically accepted the preamble of the Bill, general satisfaction was expressed at a meeting of the Conservators that at last the Thames was to be provided with an all-the-year-round service. All the municipal authorities of London, with the exception of St. Pancras, were in favour of the passing of the Bill, and he ventured to think that fact might well add to the weight of the evidence which had been adduced in support of the measure.

LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

said he would say nothing about the dispute, which had occupied a good deal of the time and attention of the House as between Mr. Hills on the one tide and the County Council on the other, because he was strongly of opinion that it was not a matter appropriate to be discussed in the whole House, but one appropriate for the consideration of the Committee which had already considered it. If the result arrived at was not satisfactory to Mr. Hills the matter could be considered by a Committee in another place. He felt, and indeed he thought his hon. friend the Member for West Ham would admit, that the opposing of a private Bill on the Third Reading was never a very convenient course. A private Bill ought not to be thrown out on the Third Reading on a mere question of private right—which was properly a. matter for a Committee—but on the ground of public policy. Therefore, considering the Bill entirely from the point of view of public policy, he felt bound to support it. The action of the London County Council in undertaking to provide a steamboat service upon the Thames was different from other cases of municipal trading, because here there was no entering into competition with private enterprise, as there was no steamboat service in existence. The riverside people wanted an efficient service. What was proposed by the County Council resembled the ordinary proceedings of a municipal body in affording facilities for the inhabitants in the district under their control. Compare it to the action of a municipal body in substituting wood pavement for stone pavement in a street. That was not an absolute necessity. They could get on without it. But wood pavement added to the amenity and conduced to easy communication in the street. The street was improved and the rateable area on which the cost of the wood pavement was thrown was much larger, and rightly so, because everybody used the street. It was the same with the waterway. The London County Council proposed to make the Thames an effective thoroughfare. He thought the House would be acting most in judiciously if, in opposition to the desire of the ratepayers of London as expressed by the municipal boroughs and the County Council, and the decision of its own Committee, it were to reject the Bill on the Third Reading.

*CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)

said it had been stated by previous speakers that the London boroughs were in favour of the Bill. There was a danger of this statement misleading the House of Commons, and he wished to point out that the City of London, City of Westminster, and the Borough of Chelsea, the rateable

value of which amounted to £11,000,000, or more than a quarter of the rateable value of the Metropolis, had expressed themselves in favour of the Bill only if the financial position was a sound one. He quite agreed that it was very important to London that there should be a proper steamboat service on the River Thames. The Bill under consideration gave a fifteen minutes service which was useless for the purpose of helping the workmen to easily get to their work. To be really efficient, there should be a five-minutes boat service, and he estimated that this would involve a charge upon the rates of three half-pence in the pound. This would be an unfair burden upon London generally, while the benefit would be solely with the riparian constituencies.

MR. CUMMING MACDONA (Southwark Rotherhithe)

said he supported the Bill. The hon. Member who last-spoke talked about certain parts of London paying the rate and the riparian owners only deriving the benefit from it; but the river belonged to the whole of London and all its inhabitants enjoyed the advantages of the steamship service. It was discreditable to London that the Thames should be without steam boats for passengers, and such a service would be a relief to street traffic, and a great convenience to all the inhabitants of London.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 156 Noes, 70. (Division List No. 132.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Causton, Richard Knight Denny, Colonel
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) Devlin Charles Ramsay (Galway
Allen, Charles P. Cawley, Frederick Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Worc. Dickson, Charles Scott
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Charrington, Spencer Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Bain, Colonel James Robert Clare, Octavius Leigh Duncan, J. Hastings
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Coates, Edward Feetham Edwards, Frank
Blake, Edward Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Elibank, Master of
Blundell, Colonel Henry Cohen, Benjamin Louis Emmott, Alfred
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex Cremer, William Randal Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Brigg, John Crooks, William Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Cross, Alexander (Glasgow; Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Cullinan, J. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Caldwell, James Dalziel, James Henry Gardner, Ernest
Cameron, Robert Davenport, William Bromley- Goddard, Daniel Ford
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets Markham, Arthur Basil Spear, John Ward
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Spencer, RtHn. C.R. (Northants
Grant, Corrie Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Stevenson, Francis S.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mount, William Arthur Sullivan, Donal
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Hall, Edward Marshall Norman, Henry Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Malley, William Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Parker, Sir Gilbert Thorburn, Sir Walter
Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. Parrott, William Thornton, Percy M.
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside Partington, Oswald Tomkinson, James
Horniman, Frederick John Platt-Higgins, Frederick Toulmin, George
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Pretyman, Ernest George Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Randles, John S. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Kearley, Hudson E. Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lambert, George Remnant, James Farquharson Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Rickett, J. Compton Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Laurie, Lieut.-General Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Weir, James Galloway
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Roberts, John H (Denbigbs.) Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton
Leamy, Edmund Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)
Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Leng, Sir John Rose, Charles Day Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Lough, Thomas Runciman, Walter Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Lowther, Rt Hn J. W. (Cum. Penr Russell, T. W. Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Lyell, Charles Henry Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd
Macdona, John Cumming Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Yoxall, James Henry
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Shackleton, David James
Maconochie, A. W. Shaw, Chas Edw. (Stafford) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. John Burns and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Shipman, Dr. John G.
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Slack, John Bamford
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North), Soames, Arthur Wellesley
NOES
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Flannery, Sir Forteseue Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Forster, Henry William Ratcliff, R. F.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W. Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Staly bridge)
Balcarres, Lord Galloway, William Johnson Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Gretton, John Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bignold, Arthur Hogg, Lindsay Sharpe, William Edward T.
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Hudson, George Bickersteth Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Brassey, Albert Hunt, Rowland Stroyan, John
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Talbot, Lora E. (Chichester)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Tuff, Charles
Clive, Captain Percy A. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Valentia, Visconnt
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Keswick, William Webb, Colonel William George
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. Lawson John Grant (Yorks, N. R Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lonsdale, John BrownJee Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Duke, Henry Edward Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Ernest Gray and Mr. Fitzroy.
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Majendie, James A, H.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

A Clause (Purchase of piers and steamboats from the Thames Steamboat Company (1897))— The Council shall, before exercising any of the powers of this Act, purchase such of the piers and such of the steamboats of the Thames-Steamboat Company (1897), Limited, for such price and upon such terms and conditions as, failing agreement, shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade, and in such arbitration the price to be paid shall be the value (exclusive of any allowance for past or future profits of the undertaking or any compensation for compulsory sale or other consideration whatsoever) of such steamboats, piers, landing-places, and other property of the Steamboat Company suitable to and heretofore used by them for the purpose of a steamboat service on the Thames."—(Mr. Ernest Gray.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

Bill to be read the third time.