§ * SIR CHARLE S CAYZER (Barrow-in-Furness)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed barrage for the Thames by building a dam at Gravesend which would do away with all dredging above Gravesend, keep the water in the river always at a high tide level from Gravesend to Teddington, and increase the navigable area; whether he is aware that Sir Douglas Fox, late President Inst. C.E., from an engineering point of view, and Mr. W. J. Dibdin, late analytical chemist of the London County Council, from a sanitary aspect, have reported favourably on the scheme; and whether he will appoint experts to consider and report to the House if the scheme is practicable prior to the contemplated expenditure for dredging and improvement of the Port of London.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,) Glasgow, BlackfriarsThe attention of the Board of Trade has been directed more than once to a proposal for a barrage across the 1348 Thames, but they are not aware that the details of a scheme have been sufficiently carefully thought out and formulated. I have also seen communications from the distinguished gentlemen referred to in the Question. I gather, however, that both Sir Douglas Fox and Mr. Dibdin made reservations of great importance. The Board of Trade do not desire to discourage the consideration of the question, and should they be satisfied that the time has arrived for an inquiry, the House may rest assured that they will not resist it. But the information at their disposal is hardly yet sufficient to enable them to recommend the spending of public money on such a report as that suggested.
§ * SIR CHARLES CAYZERMay I ask whether, in view of the far-reaching importance of the barrage scheme to the Port of London, the Board of Trade will be prepared, if the same is practicable, to appoint a Departmental Committee, together with Members of the House, to investigate the subject.
§ MR. BONAR LAWI do not think an inquiry of that kind would be of any use without expert evidence, which would cost a great deal of money, and the Board would not be justified in recommending it until they see how such a scheme is likely to be supported by public bodies.