PORT OF LONDON BILL.

HC Deb 04 December 1908 vol 197 cc1767-844

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,) Dundee

moved to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, in respect of the new clause standing on the Notice Paper on 12th November last. Owing to the noise in the House the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's observations were not heard in the Gallery. He was understood to say: When this Bill was in Committee, the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone pressed me very strongly, the hour being late, not to proceed with the new clause which stood in my name on the Paper, and urged that facilities should be granted for the discussion of the clause relating to the acquisition of land by the authority of the Port of London. The Motion which I now make is part of the bargain which was arrived at late at night, and which was that in consequence of the general assistance in the despatch of business which the Committee were good enough to give the Government, I should move to recommit the new clauses, before entering on the consideration of the Bill as amended. I beg to move.

Motion made and Question, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the new clauses standing on the Notice Paper on the 12th day of November last,"—(Mr. Churchill,)—put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

MR. CHURCHILL

moved a new clause giving power to the Board of Trade to authorise the construction of works, etc. He said: There are unnecessary misapprehensions in the House and outside it as to the scope and character of the new clause which I now move. In the first place, this clause in the form in which I have placed it on the Paper does not constitute the reintroduction of the clause which was mutilated by the Committee. The amended form modifies and very extensively restricts and reduces the character of the clause, which has been adopted with a view, so far as possible, to meeting the principal objections which led to its mutilation before the Committee upstairs. The clause, as originally conceived by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed to give the new Port authority special facilities in regard to the acquisition of land and certain other works of construction which they might be called upon to undertake. There was the clause and there was the schedule. The facilities were of two kinds. By the clause en easier, a more expeditious and more convenient procedure was substituted for the regular procedure provided by the Bill. In the schedule the conditions on which land could be acquired were assimilated to the conditions under which it may be now acquired in connection with the working of the Small Holdings Act. Now that was the clause as it was put before the Committee. As it is now the schedule is no longer in the Bill, and consequently we have not to deal with any proposal for modifying the usual practice for acquiring land under the Lands Clauses Acts. The procedure is perfectly known and will be rigidly followed in any acquisition of land under this clause. We are only concerned with the question whether we shall or shall not allow the Port authority to adopt some simpler means of procedure so far as Parliament is concerned than that which is generally followed. I do submit most earnestly to the House that there is a very strong case for not denying to the new Port Authority something like the same facilities as those accorded to and enjoyed by the great competing ports on the Continent—Antwerp, Hamburg, and other ports which are rivals to the Port of London. There are grave disadvantages about forcing an authority of this character to come to Parliament for powers in connection with every small piece of land, however insignificant, which it may wish to acquire, and to go through all the expense and all the friction involved in the controverted passage of a private Bill. The result of such a procedure would, I think, be that, instead of extending its wharfage, the Port Authority would endeavour to get along as far as it could without acquiring land. I submit that those who think that the Port Authority ought to have a fair chance consider that it is very desirable to give them a certain measure of confidence and elbow-room in respect to the acquisition of land. I feel, on the other hand, that where the transaction is on a large scale it is necessary and proper that Parliament should survey it. It has been proposed that power should be given to the Board of Trade to dispense with the need of access to Parliament where the transaction is small and uncontroversial. The anxiety which has been aroused, I think, quite unnecessarily, by the clause as it stands with the Schedule in its original form, still continues, though to a less extent, in regard to the clause as it is modified, and I have, therefore, endeavoured, so far as I can, to ascertain the views of Members on both sides of the House and of the Standing Committee. As a result of several conferences which have been held, I have been able to meet the general view of members of the Committee and of the House. Their point has been that, while it is desirable that the Port Authority shall have liberty as to the acquisition of land, they do not think the Board of Trade should be constituted the sole judge as to whether Parliamentary powers should be dispensed with. They think there is too much Board of Trade in the Bill, and that the Government are giving too great a discretionary power into the hands of a Department. I will, therefore, be prepared to move to subsection (3) an Amendment providing that, before making an order authorising the acquisition of land, the Board of Trade under this section shall appoint an impartial person to hold a public inquiry on their behalf. The effect of that would be that the Board of Trade may delegate their power to some impartial person, who would hold a public inquiry and decide whether the case is one which ought to come before Parliament or whether it is small enough to be settled by him. It would, however, still be in the power of the Board of Trade to say that the matter should come before Parliament in the ordinary course. I also propose to move an Amendment saving from the operation of the clause any existing statutory right in regard to land.

SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

Is the inquiry by the Board of Trade to be by only one person or are several persons to be appointed?

MR. CHURCHILL

Only one person is to be appointed. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman opposite. The idea is that very small matters may arise which would certainly not be of sufficient importance to be dealt with on the merits by the elaborate procedure of private Bills, and in that case the Board of Trade will appoint an impartial person to hold a public inquiry. I trust that the modifications and safeguards which have now been made will remove the apprehensions which have been felt and the prejudice which has existed against this clause. Let me once again remind the Committee how important these alterations are. First of all, the Schedule is gone. There is no new procedure as to the terms on which land shall be acquired; there is only a simplification of the procedure. In the second place, by Section 3 the operation is confined to small transactions. In the third place, an impartial person is to be appointed, not a departmental official, but one outside the scope and authority of the Department, and who will decide whether or not the transaction is small enough to be decided by him or whether it should come to Parliament.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said there was no allusion in subsection (3) to small transactions.

MR. CHURCHILL

I think I am right when I say small transactions— If it appears to the Board of Trade that by reason of the extent or situation of any land proposed to be acquired compulsorily, or the purposes for which such land is used, or any other circumstances, the land ought not to be acquired compulsorily without the sanction of Parliament, the order of the Board shall be provisional only and shall not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament. I am advised that this would confine the operation of this dispensing power to small transactions, and an impartial person would be able to make sure that a free, thorough, and dispassionate interpretation is placed upon what are or are not small transactions. With those safeguards I think the House ought to entrust the Port Authority with the powers we seek to confer upon it. It would be a great hindrance if this great Port of London had to tight for its prosperity and its existence against rivals equipped with far greater powers as to the acquisition of land and the construction of works than are possessed in this country at the present time. It would be unduly hampering the new Port authority in the struggle they will have to carry on against great and powerful Continental competitors, if they were denied by the House the very carefully safeguarded liberties which I now venture respectfully to demand on their behalf. I beg to move.

New clause— (1) Where the Port Authority propose to construct, equip, maintain, or manage any works, and the works proposed to be constructed are such that they cannot be constructed without statutory authority, or are such that in the opinion of the Board of Trade they ought not to be constructed except under the authority of such an order as is hereinafter mentioned, or compulsory powers are required for the acquisition of land, or it is sought to impose any charges not previously authorised in respect of the use of any works when constructed, the Port Authority may apply to the Board of Trade, and thereupon the Board of Trade may make an order:—(a) Authorising the construction and equipment of such docks, quays, wharves, jetties, or piers, and buildings, railways, and other works in connection therewith as may be specified in the order; (b) authorising the purchase and taking otherwise than by agreement of such land as may be specified in the order; (c) authorising the imposition, levying, collection, and recovery of such dues, rates, tolls, and other charges in respect of the use of any works proposed to be constructed, and conferring such powers of management of those works, as may be specified in the order; (d) authorising the Port Authority to charge to capital, as part of the cost of construction of any work authorised by the order, the interest on any money raised to defray the expenses of construction of any such work and the acquisition of land for the purpose, for such period and subject to such restrictions as may be mentioned in the order. Provided that:—(a) no land shall be authorised by an order under this section to be acquired compulsorily which is situate to the westward of the meridian six minutes east of Greenwich: and (b) an order authorising the construction of new works shall impose on the Port Authority an obligation to provide such housing accommodation for the persons to be employed at the new works when constructed as the Board of Trade may from time to time consider requisite. (2) Any order made under this section authorising the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts as if the order were a special Act within the meaning of those Acts. Provided that the Board of Trade may by Provisional Order make such modifications and adaptations of the; provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts to be incorporated in an order under this section as may be specified in the Provisional Order. (3) If it appears to the Board of Trade that by reason of the extent or situation of any land proposed to be acquired compulsorily, or the purposes for which such land is used, or any other circumstances, the land ought not to be acquired compulsorily without the sanction of Parliament, the order of the Board shall be provisional only and shall not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament."—(Mr. Churchill.)

Brought up and read the first time.

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

LORD R. CECIL

said he must tender his very sincere thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the complete way in which he had fulfilled the pledge which he had given on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House. He had carried out his pledge not only to the letter but in the spirit, and they had a fair opportunity of considering this clause in the fullest possible way. He must confess, however, that his doubts had not been removed by what the right hon. Gentleman had said. The argument put forward for this clause was that it was required in order to enable the Port of London to compete with Continental ports. That must mean that this was to be a really considerable power to be exercised in important matters. It was to be observed that other ports such as Liverpool, for instance, had been quite successful in competing with Continental ports, and so up to now had the Port of London, without these exceptional powers. He had had an opportunity of looking at the evidence given before the Committee, but he confessed that he had not been able to refresh his memory with regard to it for the purposes of to-day, because he was not aware until early that morning that there was any prospect of this Bill coming before the House. But when he did read the evidence he did not perceive any testimony at all that this power was required in order to enable the Port of London to compete against Continental ports, nor did he remember anything of that kind. Possibly he might be mistaken about that, but he was not aware of anything. Therefore he might say that they expected some very clear evidence before the House should be asked to consent to this very large departure from their usual practice in dealing with matters of this kind. He would remind the Committee that this clause as it stood was of a far-reaching character. It proposed to give power to the Board of Trade to— Authorise the construction and equipment of such docks, quays, wharves, jetties, or piers, and buildings, railways, and other works in connection therewith as may be specified in the order. In other words, as drafted, it gave the Board of Trade power to pass any such measure as had ever been brought before Parliament dealing with the construction of docks on the Thames or elsewhere. In subsection (b) it went on— Authorising the purchase and taking otherwise than by agreement of such land as may be specified in the order. The land was some of the most valuable in the country. Far below the line fixed by the Bill there was land of enormous industrial value, and the proposal was that it should be acquired without the consent of the parties by order of the Board of Trade. That was to be taken in connection with the enormous works clause in subsection (a), and he was not surprised, therefore, to find that the clause was opposed before the Committee, not only by the landowners, but by the Chamber of Commerce and the London County Council, and perhaps by others. Whatever reasons members of the Joint Committee might give for their decision now, they could only speak for themselves—they could not speak for the Committee as a whole, which had rejected the proposal, and he thought the House ought to be exceedingly careful before they reversed, even at the request of the Government, the decision of a strong Joint Committee of that kind on a question which was essentially a matter for evidence and argument. But, apart from that, he had the strongest possible objection to this departure from ordinary procedure. The substance of the proposal was that with reference to this particular undertaking a special law was to be made which did not apply to any other similar undertaking in the country, and the nature of that special legislation was to be to oust the jurisdiction of Parliament to a perfectly indefinite extent. The right hon. Gentleman said it was only intended to be used for small transactions, but really the security that the House had that it would be-only so used was of the flimsiest possible description. There was nothing whatever in subsection (3) which limited it to small transactions. All it said was that the Board of Trade: after an inquiry before an impartial person, who might, for aught he knew, be one of the officers of the Board of Trade, might authorise anything which was within the terms of this clause. He did not understand why the right hon. Gentleman said that was necessarily to be confined to small transactions. If he had put into the clause a statement that no transaction involving a capital expenditure of more than £1,000, or something of that kind, should be sanctioned under the order of the Board of Trade, there would be a real security; though he should still dislike the clause, it would be some ground for believing there would be an important limitation of the power of the Board of Trade. Otherwise, what it came to was this, that the House was asked to authorise the supersession of Parliament in reference to this particular matter. He regarded it as a very serious request from the point of view of the private interests involved in the territory below the line fixed by the Bill. It was a very serious thing to say to people who had built their works on the faith that they were going to be submitted to the ordinary risks of the law, and who knew that their property could not be taken from them compulsorily, apart from these provisions, without an inquiry before an impartial Committee of the House, and, if necessary, the other House: "The whole of that security on which you have built your works and laid out your money is to be taken away and you are to be remitted to the decision of any officer of the Board of Trade, not only at the present time but in future." That was a very serious thing from the point of view of private interests and a very important change to make in the position of those who had invested large sums of money in the land affected. But, apart from that, it was utterly wrong from the point of view of the Department. Here was a great undertaking, the greatest of its kind he supposed in the country. It had been set up under conditions which many people in that House—he did not share the view himself—regarded as of a very experimental character and by no means certain to be a success as the Bill was at present drafted. Surely it was more important than in any other case that Parliament should have control and supervision over the proceedings of a body of that kind. They ought to know and to have an opportunity of considering any great expenditure, any considerable change which the body proposed to be set up should authorise in future. He certainly thought if anybody was to be treated in an exceptional way it was not certainly a body of this kind, of enormous wealth and resources, and of a very experimental character. There was no reason in the world that could be given why the Port of London should have this exceptional privilege which would not be far more applicable to the smallest undertaking in the country, and yet nobody he supposed would suggest that it should be given to any private or semi-public company which came to ask for powers of this description. A great deal was made before the Committee of the light railway precedent. It was said that after all what was being done in this Bill was only copying what was done by the Light Railway Act of 1896. He was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had not repeated that argument, because it was really utterly worthless and wholly misleading. The Light Railway Act was a wholly different proposal, passed in order to assist poor agricultural districts where expenditure was necessarily likely to be of a very small character, and far greater safeguards were put into that Act than were proposed in this clause. There was to be an inquiry before what was substantially equal to, at any rate, a Committee of that House. A very strong Commission was constituted, with Lord Jersey at the head and an engineer and a lawyer to assist him, and every proposal for a light railway had to go before it and be sanctioned and confirmed by the Board of Trade. There were also far greater precautions with reference to notice than were proposed here. If they put aside this precedent the proposal was absolutely unprecedented. No single instance had come before Parliament of a proposal to give to a great body a special power such as this, and if it was done at all it should not be done in the case of a body of great resources and strength, which was exactly the body to be least injured by being forced to come to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if an undertaking of this kind might be hampered because it could not buy a small piece of land or make some trifling alteration in its works without a Provisional Order. But such a great undertaking would perpetually have great changes, the very things which the right hon. Gentleman thought ought not to be done by Board of Trade order. The practice was to keep these small things back for a year or do them without Parliamentary authority. They were then all put into a Bill and confirmed in one Provisional Order which was passed every other year and the whole thing was disposed of without any additional expense. He very seriously pressed the Government not to persist in this proposal. It was a serious precedent which would arouse a great deal of opposition to the Bill.

SIR EDWIN CORNWALL (Bethnal Green, N. E.)

said he did not follow the statement that this was exactly the body which ought to be compelled to come to Parliament whenever it required power to purchase land. It seemed to him it was exactly the body that ought not to have that burden placed upon it. The noble Lord would consider it a calamity that the Metropolitan boroughs exercised compulsory powers of taking land. It did not seem to be altogether a new principle.

LORD R. CECIL

said it was very carefully limited to widening existing streets. It was necessarily of a very small character.

SIR EDWIN CORNWALL

said that bore out his point. It was very wisely limited to the powers and duties of the authorities, and this clause was limited to the powers and duties of the authority. It seemed to be an exactly similar case. This was a most valuable clause to the new Port Authority. So far as one could judge, the House, irrespective of party, was agreed that this new Port Authority ought to be set up and London ought to be given the chance to bring the trade of the Port up to a higher level. He did not suppose anyone would suggest that the new authority was likely to be a predatory body, and to try to take land regardless of those who had invested in it, or that, with the protection of the Board of Trade, anything was likely to happen under the clause other than what would be advantageous to the new Port Authority. It was not child's play. It was not going to be an easy business for the new authority to come in and take over the whole of the docks of London, the duties of the Thames Conservancy, and the whole responsibility of the heavy debt which would be placed upon them to work out the salvation of the Port of London. Directly the new Port Authority found it wanted a piece of land for any purpose it would have to come to Parliament. The noble Lord opposite said that that was a good thing, and that Parliament ought to control this new authority. Personally he did not think Parliament ought to do anything of the kind. Why should a small body of men in the carrying out of their duties always be coming to Parliament? He had had a long experience on the London County Council and the Thames Conservancy Board, and he knew what coming to Parliament meant. It meant that the officers of the Port Authority, instead of going on with their work and devoting their whole time and energies to the service of the new authority, would have their time taken up obtaining permission from Parliament upon such matters as obtaining a piece of land for a dock. The officers of the new authority ought to be able to devote all their time and energy to the real business of the Port of London. If some very large undertaking had to be entered into it might be worth the while of the Port Authority to spend a great deal of time getting the permission of Parliament. The new authority would be placed more under the control of a Government Department than any other similar authority, and it would be a fatal mistake to press opposition to this clause. He hoped the House would decide to give the new authority a, fair and good chance of carrying out successfully the duties entrusted to it by Parliament.

SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

said he would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade what point was represented geographically on the River Thames by subsection (a).

MR. CHURCHILL

was understood to say that it would exempt all land west of Barking Creek.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

admitted that the clause had much to be said for it, because it certainly relieved them of some very strong objections which they had hitherto felt regarding the supreme authority and plenary powers given to the Port Authority. He was not speaking in any spirit of antagonism to the Bill, and he would be quite satisfied if what the President of the Board of Trade intended was carried out. He understood that private owners were going to be protected, but he wished to point out that there were some competitive private owners who would be in competition with the Port Authority itself. The Board of Trade in subsection (2) took precautions to prevent the Port Authority from abusing, however innocently, their great plenary powers by taking from private owners land and property which might be in competition with the very interests which the Port Authority represented. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade appreciated his point. He would take, for example, the P. & O. Company. That company owned a considerable amount of land which he believed they intended to make use of by erecting buildings upon it. The P. & O. Company were very much unsettled by the power to be given under this Bill to the Port Authority to acquire land compulsorily. The President of the Board of Trade said they were providing that in the acquisition of any very large piece of land or any very important piece of property the Board of Trade might decide whether it should be compulsorily acquired, or whether the new authority should come to Parliament in order to secure the right to acquire that property. He understood that it was only small pieces of property and small interests which would be dealt with independently of Parliament. He did not think the subsection was quite clear, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, from the beginning had been most reasonable, would see that the very thing that the right hon. Gentleman was always so strong about when he was sitting in Opposition—that Parliament should always be supreme, that the voice of the people should be heard, and that all interests should be safeguarded by an appeal to Parliament—was being disregarded, and that they were placing the whole responsibility upon the Board of Trade itself or upon its appointee. The Board of Trade said they were going to have an impartial person, and he supposed that the word "person" under an Act of Parliament might mean several persons.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,) Carnarvon Boroughs

It includes persons.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said there still remained absolutely in the hands of the Department the power to decide whether any application by the Port Authority to acquire property was large enough to warrant a reference to Parliament. Whatever confidence he might have in the permanent officials of the Board of Trade or the representative of the Unionist Party or of the Liberal Party at the head of that Department, he was opposed to giving power to any public Department to deal arbitrarily with any expenditure of money or the acquisition of property without Parliamentary control, because that was bureaucratic. This was a bureaucratic clause, and it was throwing more and more upon the administration of the Port Authority. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone made a suggestion which he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would accept, and that was that some limit should be put upon the value of the purchase which the Board of Trade might authorise. Suppose they limited the property to be acquired with the consent of the Board of Trade to £100,000 and provided that anything to a greater value than that should not be acquired compulsorily without reference to Parliament. It might be found necessary to place the limit at £200,000, but he thought there ought to be a safeguard of some kind inserted in the clause. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would find after the discussion they had had upon this point that the view which his noble friend had presented would have a response outside the House much more pronounced than the Government had any idea of. There were many interests involved, and the Government ought not to lose sight of the fact that the Port Authority would be a rival in the exploitation of river interests and acquiring property with private organisations, and the suspicion which existed among private organisations and river companies owning wharves and jetties was very great. That suspicion would not be allayed by this clause, excellent as it was in intention, because it did not go far enough or satisfy those who raised objection to the plenary powers which were being given to the Port Authority without reference to Parliament.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

There will be an independent inquiry.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said he was very doubtful about an independent inquiry unless it meant something more than sending down an official of the Board of Trade. Did it mean that?

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the President of the Board of Trade had already made it clear that it did not mean simply an inquiry by an official of the Board of Trade.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said he apologised to the President of the Board of Trade if he had misrepresented him. He understood they were going to send down an impartial person or persons to make the inquiry, and he did not think that promise was quite sufficient. The person appointed to inquire might be a colonel, or some one who might or might not know much about finance. While this Bill pretended to be a solution of a good many things it was not quite clear enough in its definitions. He appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to consider what the effect would be in the country, and especially on the commercial and industrial population on the river. The right hon. Gentleman had shown from the beginning that he did not wish to be in any way tyrannical in dealing with the river interests. He was anxious as President of the Board of Trade that the Port Authority should not have power which was too arbitrary. He himself believed still that the power proposed to be given under subsection (3) was too arbitrary, and if that was not so with respect to the Port Authority itself, the arbitrary power still remained with the Board of Trade. If the Unionist Party were in office, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would not trust them. [Cries of "Oh."] They did not trust them in connection with the administrative departments with Ml and unlimited confidence. The right hon. Gentleman himself would be the first to say that he did not think the Board of Trade ought to have this discretionary authority, and that there should be some limitation to its discretion. The power to purchase should be clearly restricted to an amount beyond which it should not be able to go without applying to Parliament. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to agree to insert some words in the subsection which would restrict the amount which the Board of Trade would have the option, as it were, of authorising in regard to the purchase of any given property without an application to Parliament. It might be £100,000, £200,000, or £300,000, but some amount should be stated so that the country would know the limit beyond which the Port Authority and the Board of Trade could not go without the sanction of Parliament. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to give that point his careful consideration.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

asked whether it was intended to give effect to the promise made on behalf of the Board of Trade at an earlier stage of the Bill that corporations which had acquired lands under Act of Parliament, and which might not be particularly using those lands, should be exempt from what might be called the administrative order procedure created by this Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

thought it was desirable that a statement should be made on that point. His right hon. friend had prepared an Amendment on this subject, and it was now in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman on the other aide. It was of a very drastic character and covered all undertakings of that kind. It was proposed by that Amendment to exclude from the operation of the clause lands which had been acquired under Act of Parliament for the purpose of railways or other undertakings. He quite saw the force of the contention of those who maintained that a mere order made by the Board of Trade should not over-ride an Act of Parliament, and for that reason they proposed to exclude all lands of that kind.

MR. RUSSELL REA (Gloucester)

said the noble Lord opposite had expressed regret that he had not had an opportunity of refreshing his memory in regard to the proceedings before the Joint Committee. He should like to refresh his memory. This was not the clause which was rejected by the Joint Committee; it was with a little modification the clause which was accepted by them. It was a surprise to himself that the Board of Trade dropped the clause, and then, thinking better of it, reinserted it. The Committee altered the clause by depriving the Board of Trade of the power to make a Departmental Order. The Committee accepted the provision that land might be taken by Provisional Order.

LORD R. CECIL

My objection is to ousting Parliament altogether. I have no real objection to proceeding by Provisional Order.

MR. RUSSELL REA

said the bureaucratic method was rejected by the Joint Committee. The Provisional Order provided for under this clause was not to extend to all purchases. It had excluded very small properties. He could not say that the Committee approved of that, but he himself did approve of the qualification. He could not conceive that any purchase, such as the hon. Member for Gravesend mentioned, of a property to the value of £200,000 or £300,000 could ever be sanctioned by the order of an administrative board. It would, of course, come under the purview of the House in the form of a Provisional Order. The clause as it now stood gave greater advantages to landowners and third parties than when it was passed by the Joint Committee. He thought the introduction of an independent arbitrator gave perfect security to third parties who might be interested. He could conceive of only one class of persons who might suffer in the least, and that was those who were interested in the costly and cumbrous procedure of Private Bill legislation. Individually, he should prefer this revised clause to the original clause as it was altered by the Joint Committee in Westminster Hall.

MR. W. PEARCE (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

said that in discussing this clause the Committee appeared to be losing sight of the most important fact that the new Port Authority would at once come into possession of much vacant land now the property of the. Dock Companies. Future purchases would thus be within very narrow limits. As to Tilbury Dock and the Albert Dock, it was evident that the possibility was most remote that the Port Authority would require any extension of land there, but they might require to get hold of some fringes of land adjoining them. Therefore, this clause was likely to be of considerable service to them. At the same time he did not think there could be any risk to the general public. He spoke feelingly because he happened to be a member of a firm of manufacturers with works on the river side, and if the clause were applied to any great extent, it would not be for the public benefit. He thought the House was viewing this clause with too much concern. They should allow it to pass, and get to the other parts of the Bill.

MR. W. GUINNESS (Bury St. Edmunds)

desired to express the very strong objection which the London County Council felt against this clause as it had been put down by the President of the Board of Trade. He quite recognised that it was rather less drastic in its present form than when it was considered by the Joint Committee; but still it had not been modified sufficiently to abate the considerable amount of alarm felt by the London County Council. They had been told by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, who had knowledge of these matters, that it was undesirable that the Port Authority should have to ask for Parliamentary powers to acquire small pieces of land, and that some clause of the kind was necessary. He agreed, but he thought that it would be best if the clause were put back to the form approved by the Joint Committee; that was to say to re-insert that a Provisional Order was necessary, and not merely an Order of the Board of Trade. The proposal of the President of the Board of Trade to limit what might be spent in buying land did not, he thought, necessarily meet the danger; because it might be quite possible for the Port Authority to buy a large quantity of small properties and by that method get beyond the statutory limit.

THE CHAIRMAN

said it seemed to him that hon. Members were talking, about Amendments to the clause. Would it not be better to read the clause a second time, and after that had been disposed of, the points of detail could be raised.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

said it was rather difficult to know in what way they were to vote, unless they got the opinion of the Government as to the different suggestions which had been made to meet the difficulty. Two had already been referred to; he had a third, which was to proceed by Provisional Order.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that the various suggestions made by hon. Members were down on the Paper in the form of Amendments to the clause, one in the name of the hon. Member who had just spoken. He submitted that it was desirable to proceed with these Amendments after the formal Second Reading had been given to the clause.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said he objected to the principle of this clause, on the ground that it gave, for no sufficient reason which had yet been shown, unprecedented and almost unlimited powers to the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green had said that it would be a most disadvantageous thing if the new Port Authority had to come to Parliament every time it wished to carry out some particular work, and his view was that there should be no restriction on the Board of Trade' giving the authority to do so. For his part he entirely objected to any authority, public or private, being able to deal with private interests, or indeed with public interests, without coming either directly or indirectly to Parliament for authority to do so. The President of the Board of Trade had said that the boundary had been fixed so as to exclude the great bulk of the building land around the Port from the operation of the clause. He had examined the map and marked off the boundary—the meridian six minutes East of Greenwich—and found that so far from the great bulk of the building land being excluded it was included within the operation of this clause. Moreover, the clause did not merely deal with the acquisition of land on the river side for docks, quays, wharves, jetties, piers, and buildings, but railways and other works in connection therewith. In other words, land might be taken compulsorily without Parliament being consulted, not merely for buildings and riverside works, but for railways which might involve the acquisition of any amount of land not directly on the river. He hoped he was not unreasonable in his attitude in regard to the matter. He thought the Bill was on the whole a most admirable one, and he earnestly desired to see it pass; but there was no sufficient reason for departing from the recognised practice which required the authority of Parliament for compulsory acquisition of property. The Bill conferred enormous, and, as he held, mischievous powers on a Government Department; and, as had been said by one hon. Member, there was too much Board of Trade in the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade had said that the Board would appoint an impartial person to hold an inquiry, but everybody knew that any Government Department was not unwilling to increase the powers given to it by this House, and he thought it was not a proper system that the decision of a question involving the position taken by the Board of Trade should be given to anyone appointed by the Board of Trade itself. He maintained that if any matter was to be inquired into it should be done not by a person appointed by the Board of Trade but by a person appointed in the ordinary way by the parties to the transaction. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that large transactions would never be sanctioned under this clause. Why not? What guarantee was there that they would not be? The only security against that would' be the decision of the Department itself. There was no reason why the House should abrogate its functions in favour of the Board of Trade, and for this wholly exceptional procedure being applied to a Government Department. His objection might be met if the powers to be given to the Board of Trade were confined to small matters.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he trusted that the Committee would now come to a decision on the Second Reading of the clause, and then proceed to the examination of the details when the Amendments on the Paper were moved. Every hon. Member who had spoken, including the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, had accepted the principle of the clause. The noble Lord had admitted that it was desirable that there should be a cheap method of acquiring land, although his method was different from that of the Government. What was the object of the clause? It was to render it unnecessary for the Port Authority to come to Parliament whenever they wanted a few acres of land for the purpose of increasing the facilities of the Port. Coming to Parliament in order to obtain a private Bill meant enormous expense. It meant that every time general questions could be raised. The noble Lord knew that if a railway company came to Parliament for a few acres of land for the purpose of a railway siding or an extension, the whole question of the rates would be raised.

LORD R. CECIL

said that that was done in Committee and not in the House.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

agreed; but why should the Port Authority every time it wanted a few acres of land to increase the accommodation of the Port have to come to Parliament for powers? The noble Lord said, "Look at Liverpool and other ports in the Kingdom; everybody knew from experience what they did. They saved up these little things, and did not bring in a Bill every time they wanted to acquire a few acres of land: they waited until a sufficient number of such requirements had accumulated to justify the trouble and expense entailed by coming to, Parliament and promoting a private Bill to obtain the necessary powers. But that was not once a year, or every two years, or three years." How often did the noble Lord imagine that the Port of Liverpool had been coming to Parliament with these Bills? Not very often; he remembered one Bill. What did the noble Lord suggest? He suggested that when the Port Authority wanted a few acres of land for an extension, they were to wait for years until there was an accumulation of these needs before they came to Parliament. Really that was not necessary. Here was a great Port, the greatest Port in the world, which must suffer inconvenience, at all events, to that extent, because they would not have the power to acquire the land when they wanted it unless they came to Parliament. Why should they not get it when they wanted it, instead of having to wait, as they would have to do, perhaps for a long time, if the view of the noble Lord was adopted? Besides, the expense of going before a Parliamentary Committee was enormous, as it rendered necessary payment of very expensive counsel and expert witnesses. He made no imputation on the noble Lord when he said he took the traditional view of the Parliamentary barrister as to the desirability of bringing everything upstairs. That, however, meant the piling on of expense, and anybody who wished to inconvenience the Port Authority, or, still worse, anyone who wanted a big price out of them, would be glad of this procedure. Very often these proceed- ings upstairs were blackmailing proceedings, and were fought simply in order to get a big price from the company promoting a Bill. People objected very often because they knew they would get a very big price from the company in order to get them out of the way. This was done deliberately, and Parliament ought not to be a sort of huge blackmailing machine for the purpose of extracting extravagant prices out of great commercial and industrial enterprises. High railway rates were now being paid, largely as a result of the railway companies being compelled to come to Parliament every time they needed power to build a station for the convenience of the public, or to form a crossing, or to widen their line. There should be some cheap method by which they could secure authority on paying fair value in respect of the property affected. Why should they adopt the present method which involved very great expenditure in regard to compulsory purchase? He maintained that it was the business of Parliament to help this Port Authority to acquire the land which they might need as cheaply and expeditiously as possible, in order to enable it to do its work. The noble Lord quoted the precedent of the Light Railways Act under which people did not have to come to Parliament every time they wanted land for a light railway. The noble Lord said that simply because Lord Jersey happened to be on the Light Railways Commission, it was not a question of principle with him, but merely of a particular person who administered the particular Act.

AN HON. MEMBER

Lord Jersey is not on the Commission now.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he was not saying a word disparaging of Lord Jersey, who was a very admirable, worthy, and judicial man, but surely there were plenty of men in this country who were able to administer an Act of this kind judicially, ably, and with the utmost impartiality. A Government Department would direct an inquiry in the circumstances mentioned in the clause, but as everybody knew perfectly well, would not interfere with a judicial investigation of that sort, or overrule such an inquiry.

LORD R. CECIL

said that, similar inquiries had been over-ruled more than once.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said Government Departments would never interfere in such an inquiry, and if it over-ruled the result it would only be in the very interests which the noble Lord wished to press upon Parliament and the Committee. Supposing the Commissioner decided that it was a case for Parliamentary inquiry, the noble Lord surely did not imagine that the Board of Trade would overrule that. They could not face Parliament under such circumstances. His right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, who was very well acquainted with the clause as drafted, assured him that the Department could not over-rule the decision of a Commissioner, after a judicial inquiry, that a particular case was one which should come before Parliament, in the sense of making an order in spite of his decision. If there was any doubt about that his right hon. friend wished to make the point clear, and, if necessary, would insert an Amendment to do so. If the Commissioner reported in favour of an order being made the Board of Trade might over-rule that, but surely the noble Lord would not complain of that. Really the Government were not proposing anything nearly so strong as the Light Railways Act, which was proposed by a Conservative Government, and which gave certain powers to Commissioners, with an appeal to the Board of Trade.

LORD R. CECIL

said the right hon. Gentleman was inaccurate. He did not want to go into the details of the Light Railways procedure, but as a matter of fact if the Light Railways Commission rejected an application his impression was that there was no recourse at all. Certainly there was practically none.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said if the noble Lord said so he would not dispute it as he knew that he had more practical experience than he himself had of the working of that Act. He would take it that they adopted the same procedure here. They did not propose to take power to override the decision of the Commissioners. The power proposed to be given was conferred on every Continental port; he had never heard of a case where it was not.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

did not like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought it would help the Committee if he could elicit some information. There was a particular provision in the clause under which there might or might not be a provisional order. There was to be one if it appeared to the Board of Trade that by reason of the extent or situation of the land proposed to be acquired compulsorily it ought not to be taken without the sanction of Parliament. What he should like to hear was what the right hon. Gentleman considered a large extension and what would be considered a small one.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the Board of Trade were proposing to put a very considerable limitation upon the clause, and to restrict the power to operations of a very small character. The hon. Gentleman suggested a limitation of value, but he would tell him at once why a limitation of value would not really assist him on the point whether a particular operation was of importance in its effect upon other interests. He could understand an operation which would be a small one in value being a very considerable one in importance. They might have a very small operation which by its effect upon the navigation of the river might seriously affect other interests either above or below the place where it was made. Therefore, his first objection to the limitation was that it really did not meet the case which had been put by the Opposition. A £50,000 transaction might be regarded as small, but might turn out to involve a most important operation, whereas £500,000 might refer to a very trivial operation as it might have regard to a large tract of waste land, the acquisition of which did not affect anybody, the only question being one of price. It might not affect the navigation of the river or the riverside trader and might belong to somebody who was very glad to get rid of it at a price. A large transaction might therefore be a very small one from the point of view of importance, and a small transaction might be a very serious one. Therefore, he suggested that value was not the best criterion in a matter of this kind. How, moreover, were they to get at the value? They might send someone down to sit in judgment upon it, and he might say he did not think it was worth more than £100,000. He was not an expert, and the value was not fixed by one until after the order of the Board of Trade had been issued. When the valuation under the Lands Clauses Acts came it might be discovered that land which was thought worth only £80,000 was worth £150,000. What was to happen then: were they to go back to another inquiry and begin afresh?

SIR GILBERT PARKER

You may take it into account.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

Who may take it into account?

SIR GILBERT PARKER

The Commissioner will take it into account.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

But he does not decide the price. If the whole matter was to be carried through and it was discovered under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts that the land was of much more value, that was a very serious thing. It was no use to put in a clause of this kind unless it was going to be operative. To say they were exceedingly anxious to give the authority full powers to buy the land cheaply and expeditiously, and then to hedge it round with all sorts of restrictions and conditions of this kind would be futile. He thought the Board of Trade had gone just as far as they could, and that there was ample protection afforded under the clause. The last subsection was a much better guarantee than the value because, as he had pointed out, there would be pieces of land so situated that they were small in value.

MR. BOWLES

asked whether, supposing Parliament took the view that this was a thing of a large character and that they ought to be consulted and the Board of Trade took the opposite view, would the order be a provisional one. Under this section he submitted not.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

pointed out; that hon. Members would have the check upon the Government which they had in every Act of Parliament. That was the only check they ever could have either in this or any other Act. The Board of Trade was as free from prejudice as any department he knew of, and was perfectly impartial. They" appointed an expert to examine into' this matter and he having considered all the circumstances decided whether the thing should be brought before Parliament or whether an order ought to be made.

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

asked whether the last subsection was not governed by the words, "If it appears," which gave only a discretion to the Board of Trade.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

replied that his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade was going to move words which would meet the point raised by the hon. Baronet, and make it perfectly clear that it was not merely discretionary, but that the Board of Trade was compelled by the Act to exclude cases of that character. He appealed to the House to bring this discussion to a conclusion and get to the details of the clause, as everyone agreed that it was desirable to acquire cheap land.

MR. RENWICK (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

, speaking in the interests of those engaged in river and wharf traffic, which represented nearly half the shipping trade of the Port, said they viewed with the greatest apprehension the object of this clause, which was, clearly, to leave to the Board of Trade the decision of very important matters affecting the interest of the whole of the traders of London. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade had endeavoured to prove that the clause was intended to deal only with small matters. He ventured to point out, with all deference to these right hon. Gentlemen, that it meant something more than the purchase of an acre of land for a jetty. The clause provided for the building and construction of jetties and docks, and, in view of the increased size of ships, any dock which the Port Authority might build hereafter would not be built on a few acres of land, but would require many acres of land. It would, obviously, be a large matter, and, in such a matter, the Authority ought to be compelled to come to Parliament. The President of the Board of Trade had said the object of this clause was to enable the Authority to create a Port which should be able to compete with the great Continental ports. The new Authority would, no doubt, regard a great scheme with a light heart, but they must remember that that scheme would have to be paid for. He sincerely hoped the President of the Board of Trade would give them some guarantee that, if the scheme exceeded a certain sum of money, the Authority must obtain Parliamentary sanction to spend that sum. If they had a guarantee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to return to the Board of Trade or that the President of the Board of Trade was going to remain there, then they would have confidence in them, but from past experience the commercial community had not that confidence in the Department which right hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think, and as in the near future there might be a change at the Board of Trade, he sincerely hoped they would grant the request made to them and make some limit at any rate beyond which that new Authority should not go without the consent of Parliament.

MR. ROWLANDS (Kent, Dartford)

supported the request which had been made by hon. Members opposite, that some limit should be put in the clause. He had listened to the whole of the debate, and he felt that the objections that had been raised to this new clause had not been met. All those who supported the clause seemed to look upon these matters as most trifling matters. He, on the contrary, was of opinion that the undertakings under the clause would be of great magnitude. The clause would give power to go to new places where the authority had no docks whatever. If they intended to undertake anything in the area specifically marked out below Barking Creek they would have to make new docks and new gates and loading wharfs, and things of that sort. Under those circumstances there ought to be some assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that the expenditure which might be incurred outside the control of Parliament would be limited. All those traders who were outside the London area and who were already paying double rates for their goods looked with great fear on the new Authority having these uncontrolled powers.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

pointed out that the explanations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the result of the inquiry were not quite clear. He wished to ask whether the Board of Trade would feel themselves bound by the decision of the Commissioner, either for or against a scheme. If the Commissioner said it was a small scheme and need not go before Parliament, or if he said it was one which ought to be sanctioned by Parliament, would they accept his decision without question? In other words would he be an expert the opinion of whom the Board of Trade would be bound to accept?

MR. CHURCHILL

I think I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. There is great difficulty in fixing a numerical financial limit. I do not say the difficulty is absolutely insuperable, but I do believe that it would be a disadvantage and would work inconveniently to insist on a precise and exact limit. One must assume a degree of commonsense and integrity among the parties engaged in carrying out judicial or semi-judicial functions. In the first place, the question of the dispensing power, as I will call it, has to be decided by an impartial person. If that person decides that it is not a case for the exercise of the dispensing power but that it must come by the regular method to Parliament, the Board of Trade would, under the Amendment I propose to move, have no power to overrule that decision. If, on the other hand, the impartial person decides that, in the circumstances, it is a proper case to be dealt with by the dispensing power, the Board of Trade may, as a result of pressure in this House or of Parliamentary attention being directed to the matter, or of a reconsideration of the whole subject, over-rule the decision of the impartial person and place the whole matter before Parliament.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he should like to support his noble friend against the clause. He did not see how it would be possible without a limit—

THE CHAIRMAN

There is a specific Amendment as to the limit, and that matter would better be discussed then.

SIR F. BANBURY

said the reason why he wished to vote against the clause was that he conceived it was going to be a distinctly bad precedent. He did not doubt that the new authority would probably do its work well, but they must not forget that a new authority, animated by a desire to make its work successful, might be led away into undertaking big works which, when completed, would be unsuccessful and place a large further expenditure on the Port. There was no question but that in the City of London there was a great fear that the Bill would put a large expense on the people who used the Port, and he did not want to do anything which would in any way tend to increase that expenditure, and he believed that if they passed this clause the result would be to increase the expenditure which so many people in the City feared. If they did not pass the clause the only result would be that the Port Authority would have to come to Parliament. It might cost them something to do that, but the money they would save by bringing their matters before Parliament and allowing the public to discuss them was, in his opinion, likely to outweigh any possible disadvantage arising from the fact that they might have to pay a few fees to counsel and persons of that sort. If Parliament were to abrogate its powers of revision and give them to all these different authorities, they might just as well do away with Parliament altogether. It was no use saying that the new Port Authority was a commercial body and not likely to abuse their powers. It was a question of precedent, and local authorities would desire to have the same powers as the Port Authority. The argument could be advanced that the local authorities were the directly elected representatives of the people and that they could not refuse to give them powers which they had given to a commercial undertaking. He did not want to allude to the Poplar guardians and to a variety of cases such as that which had lately been before the public, but he would just mention that they would do well to keep these powers in their own hands. It was because they desired that Parliament should not part with its authority in a bureaucratic direction that he and his friends opposed this clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about 5,000 acres. Was it contemplated, then, that 5,000 acres were going to be taken and developed into docks? If so, that opened up a vista which all those interested in these matters would regard with grave concern. Under these circumstances he had no option but to vote against the clause.

MR. MORTON (Sutherland)

thought they had reason to complain as to the manner in which this matter had been brought on that day, because they were given to understand that it would not come on before next Thursday. He was now told that they were considering an Amendment which was not on the Paper, and he knew nothing of it. Not a hint was given until late the previous night that the Bill was coming on. In regard to this particular clause, the Amendment ought to have been on the Paper. He dared say it was important, but he did not know. He did know, however, that the clause as it stood was an exceedingly wild one, and that it gave power to the Board of Trade and to the Port Authority to speculate with other people's money in any way they chose. He had got to bear in mind this—he might not have much sympathy from the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London—that, in certain circumstances, the Board of Trade might call upon people to pay for all these things by putting a tax on their food. Subsection (a) of the new clause would enable the Port Authority to do almost anything they liked, and all the protection the public would have would be, apparently, the Board of Trade. He was sorry to say that the Board of Trade was never much protection, because they only found out things as a rule after they had happened and did not do much to prevent them. He was not making it in any way personal to the present President of the Board, but they must not rely too much on the Board of Trade, because he had found in so many things that they did not find them out in time to be of any use. He remembered some years ago that the House was induced to allow a railway embankment to be placed across the parish of Battersea, and that almost cut the parish in two; that was allowed to be done by the Board of Trade, and the local authorities afterwards had to find money to open it up. It was only the other day he noticed, with regard to an accident on a tube railway, that the Board of Trade had issued a long report in which they said there were a lot of things that ought to have been done to prevent that accident, but they never lifted a finger when those tube railways were being built to get those matters carried out. That was a reason why they should, as far as possible, preserve their liberty and insist, before these wild speculations and schemes were carried out or put in hand, that they should have the opportunity in that House of objecting to them. They should be very careful especially with regard to an authority like the proposed Port of London Authority, which would not be a representative authority like the London County Council, but would be a closed body. The President of the Board of Trade had refused to provide that the meetings should be open to the Press and public, and everything could be carried on secretly. So far as the elected members were concerned they would be elected, not to look after the public, but to look after their own private and perhaps selfish ends. Therefore, there was more than the usual reason why they should take care that people were protected. The only object in having the powers conferred by this clause must be to set up competition with private undertakings, because one of the objects of the authority in buying the docks was to wipe out of existence the private enterprise which, after all, had made the Port of London what it was, and had done very considerable business in an economical way, and had made and kept London the cheapest port in the world, whereas in all probability this Bill would make it the dearest. The main business of the Port of London was to supply food to the millions of inhabitants, and that was all the more reason why the public should be adequately protected. Any order made under this section authorising the purchasing and taking of land other wise than by agreement shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts as if the order were a special Act within the meaning of those Acts. They had never heard any explanation of that. He was told that there was an Amendment to be moved. The authority was to be authorised to purchase land otherwise than by agreement, so that they would be able to do exactly what they liked with anybody, perhaps for the reason they wished to cover up the deficiency that would be caused by the extraordinary price they proposed to give for the docks.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

pointed out that they were not discussing the Bill as a whole, and the clause now being considered was to enable the authority to construct certain works. On the Second Reading of the clause they could not go into questions of detail which would have to be dealt with by Amendments after the clause had been read a second time.

MR. MORTON

said he desired to obey the ruling of the Chair. He was very sorry that he could not go into the clause as it stood on the Paper. He was only trying to show the danger to the people concerned under the powers to be given by this clause. If he was assured that he could go into details in Committee he would not pursue the matter just now.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

You can go into details on Amendments moved by yourself or others; you cannot go into details on the clause itself.

MR. CHURCHILL

There will be opportunities to address the House on the Report stage.

MR. MORTON

said it might depend on the Government Whips whether there was any opportunity. He understood that unless Amendments were moved he could not discuss the details. With great respect he was only reading the various subsections and commenting on them as he found them on the Paper.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said that on the Second Reading of the clause they only discussed its principle as with the Second Reading of a Bill, and the details of the clause were dealt with in the ordinary way by Amendments, after which the Question would be put "that the clause, or the clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."

SIR F. BANBURY

asked whether he was not right when he said that the Second Reading of a clause was conducted in the same way as the Second Heading of a Bill. A Member might give his reasons for moving the rejection of the Bill, and similarly with regard to the Second Reading of a clause. A Member could not go through the clause, line by line, or every word of every line, but he could generally give his reasons for objecting to what was in the clause just as with the Second Reading of a Bill, advancing arguments against the second Reading.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said that was just what he had stated.

MR. MORTON

said he was really trying generally to object to the clause; he was trying to explain his reasons in a general way, and for that reason he had passed over subsection (1) altogether, while he referred to others which he thought were vital so far as the Second Reading was concerned. He might say that he had no Amendments down with regard to the clause, therefore he did not propose to raise discussion by way of Amendment. But he did propose to object to the Second Reading of the clause, because it ought not to be passed in any shape or form unless it was so minimised that it would not be worth anything at all, like clauses that were often inserted in certain Bills. As far as he read the clause, and the powers which it proposed to confer on the Port Authority, practically it was submitted with a view to proving that they were right in purchasing the docks. All the new powers were conferred in order to make the new Port Authority a success, although everybody connected with it, except the shareholders, knew that it would be a failure. Some of the matters contained in the clause would have to be done by Provisional Orders, and he supposed that they would have an opportunity of discussing them. If this new authority was to be allowed to speculate in any way with other people's money and not their own, if they were to sit with closed doors and tax the food of the people in order to find funds, then the very least they should do was to come to Parliament and ask for what they wanted, so that all those who represented the millions to be taxed might have an opportunity of saying why they objected. No explanation, to his knowledge, had ever been given why this clause was introduced at all. If an explanation had been given earlier when he was not present, then his absence was the fault of the Government in misleading him as to what business was to come on that day. In a matter of such vital importance he trusted that the Government would give them some fair consideration, and not rush this through, as apparently they were doing, without proper notice to Members of the House.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said the President of the Board of Trade intended to move an Amendment dealing with the first words of subsection (3), authorising the appointment of a Commissioner. He wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether an opportunity would occur on his Amendment for discussing the question of the authority of the Commissioner, the scope of his inquiry, and the subsequent action which would ensue on that inquiry. This was a very grave question, and they ought not to leave the Second Reading of the clause before they had some assurance on the point whether they would be able to discuss these matters on the Amendment, which they did not possess, and the wording of which they did not know.

MR. CHURCHILL

The hon. Member can certainly discuss these questions. Even if I did not move my Amendment, it would be open to him to move one, or some similar Amendment in regard to the point to which he refers. But I would very respectfully appeal to the Committee to bring this discussion to a close so that we may get to the important Amendments which are on the Paper in the names of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. I have tried very hard to meet the general convenience of hon. Members, and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone has frankly and generously recognised that the Government have fulfilled their pledge in a very ample manner. We have now been engaged on this discussion for two hours and a half, and I hope that the Committee will now read the clause a second time and resume that friendly business-like conduct of the Bill which so pleasantly marked its discussion when it was last before the House.

MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)

said the right hon. Gentleman had informed them that if the Commissioner proposed to go on with the inquiry himself it Was still open to the Board of Trade to intervene. Would the right hon. Gentleman give them the safeguard that the order of the Commissioner should lie on the Table for thirty days so that it might be dealt with by Parliament in that period? That would give Parliament an opportunity, particularly where there were any works to be dealt with under an order of the Commissioner, to call attention to the scheme. He thought that after the remarks of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire, and in view of the powers conferred to tax others, they should have the safeguard that the order of the Commissioner should be allowed to lie on the Table for thirty days. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the difficulty of fixing a limit. But it might not be a question of 5,000 acres. Take this case. Supposing it was sought to divert the channel of the river where there was a sudden bend; they might cut through a piece of land which was not very large, but was a place where wharfingers and others would be interfered with. In such a case the amount of land involved would not be large, yet the consequences would be far-reaching.

Question put and agreed to.

MR. WHITEHEAD (Essex, S.E.)

, who had on the Paper the following Amendment: "To insert after the word 'thereupon,' the words 'after holding an inquiry at which all persons interested shall be heard" said, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he was not sure whether he should move that Amendment or not. They had not got on the Paper the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman himself was going to move, but if it covered the intention of his own Amendment he would not move it, but if it did not cover it, then he would. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not mind stating to the House the precise words of his Amendment and what course he intended to take.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause— In line 9, after the word 'thereupon,' to insert the words 'after holding an inquiry at which all persons shall be heard."—(Mr. Whitehead.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHURCHILL

My hon. friend has correctly anticipated the effect of the Amendment which I propose to move. That Amendment arranges for the holding of a public inquiry with respect to any acquisition of land. The hon. Member's Amendment proposes that an inquiry shall be held into all matters coming under the operation of the clause. I cannot agree to that, because it appears to me that it would be worse than useless to hamper the Port Authority with a public inquiry whenever they wish in the pursuance of their business even, for example, to put up houses for the accommodation of the labourers who may be working in connection with the London Docks. I think that it would be hampering the whole of the functions of the Port Authority. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman only wishes to have safeguards, and I think that he will see that we are going a long way to meet his views in favour of the obligation of holding a public inquiry in all cases where land is to be acquired.

MR. RENWICK

asked whether it was proposed that the tribunal of inquiry should receive evidence from all parties concerned.

MR. CHURCHILL

A public inquiry will be held with all the advantages of publicity attendant upon a public inquiry. Certainly there will be power to take evidence; in fact there is an obligation to take evidence so far as is necessary to arrive at a true decision.

MR. RENWICK

said the question was what right or power the parties interested had to give evidence.

MR. WHITEHEAD

, after the explanation of the President of the Board of Trade, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS (Bury St. Edmunds)

moved an Amendment to insert at the end of line 10, the words "Provisional Order as provided in this section." The object of his Amendment, he said, was to reinstate the clause in the form in which it was when it was approved by the Joint Committee. He had several consequential Amendments down, and he supposed that it would be most convenient if he said a word or two about them on this Amendment, because if it were rejected it would not be possible for them to deal with is particular application under subsections (a), (b) and (c). By the first subsection the Board of Trade would be able to make an absolute Order— Authorising the construction and equipment of docks, quays, wharves, etc., as are specified in the Order. That was a very dangerous provision, because in the case of railway companies and every other dock company, if they wanted to make works of this kind they had to get powers by way of private Bill legislation. He did not see why the Port of London should be in a different position from any other undertaking and be freed from the control of Parliament. Considerable alarm was caused to the London County Council by this provision, because the Board of Trade might allow a dock railway to be made under this subsection in places which would have a very bad effect on the general interests of London. Take an extreme case. They might authorise a dock to be made in the City if they were able to acquire the land by agreement. He thought that was a very dangerous extension of the Board of Trade powers, and that they should not be allowed to decide such questions without recourse to Parliament. Subsection (b) authorised the purchase and taking otherwise than by agreement of such land as might be specified in the Order. He did not think that the proposal to send down an official to make inquiry would really meet the case. They had been told that no official of the Board of Trade would be appointed; it would have to be an independent arbitrator. He thought that an independent arbitrator was less desirable than an official of the Board of Trade, because they knew that the Board of Trade would at all events have knowledge of precedents, whereas an independent person might not have a knowledge of the usual procedure or of the manner in which Parliament generally dealt with these matters. There undoubtedly would not be the same confidence in the decision of an inexperienced person of that kind as there would be in the decision of a Private Bill Committee of that House. They had had another concession promised, namely, that those undertakings which had got land under statutory powers would be exempted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the undertaking of the London County Council at Crossness, where there were very extensive sewage works, would be exempted. No doubt this would cover the actual outfall works, but the London County Council wanted to extend those works, and a very much larger area would have to be taken in eventually. If the Port Authority took the land which was required for sewage works, they ought to have some opportunity of laying their views before Parliament, or before some tribunal which would give it very careful consideration. The clause laid down that no land was to be acquired compulsorily to the west of a line running north and south through Barking Creek. Grays, Southend, and Erith and Gravesend were all to the eastward of this line, and in one case there were cement works in which £7,000,000 of capital had been invested. It was most undesirable to give the Board of Trade power, if it was so advised by an inexperienced person who went down to make an inquiry, to jeopardise the prospects of large undertakings of this kind by taking the only land which might be suitable for their development. He thought the Board of Trade had admitted the danger of acquiring this land compulsorily without recourse to Parliament by this very provision that they were only to do it eastward of this line through Barking Creek. If it was not safe to do it to the west of Barking Creek why was it safe to do it to the east where there were four very large communities and great commercial interests at stake? The other place in which he wanted to insert the necessity for a Provisional Order was in subsection (c) which as it stood would allow the Board of Trade to authorise dues, rates, and tolls in respect of the use of any works proposed to be constructed. The dues, rates, and tolls which might be charged for the undertaking as bought from the dock companies were laid down in the Bill, and there was nothing in this subsection to limit these dues and tolls to the maxima which were found necessary in the case of the rest of the dock undertaking. He thought that was undesirable. It was a very important question what were to be the charges. The Port of London after all was a matter of national interest, and he thought the Board of Trade ought to lay these tolls before Parliament, because it might quite easily arise that the tolls might be so high or so ill-advised in various respects that it would be necessary to modify them in order not to endanger the position of the Port. The only subsection where he did not want a Provisional Order was subsection (d), and in that he was simply following the decision of the Joint Committee which considered the Bill. It authorised the Port Authority to charge to capital as part of the cost of construction of any work, the interest on any money raised to defray the expense of construction. That was a power which might safely be exercised by the Board of Trade. On the general question he thought the Provisional Order was a means of procedure which involved very little expense to the Port authority. It might involve expense to those whose interests were affected, but that was reasonable enough. If they felt very strongly on the matter, they must be prepared to go to considerable expense in opposing the Provisional Order in Parliament. But he thought if the Board of Trade would only accept this small Amendment, they would really get all they wanted. They had been told that the Port Authority would not want to buy much land. If that was so, perhaps these matters would hardly arise, but he very strongly protested against the tendency of Government Departments to substitute their own initiative for the powers of Parliament. If this went through in its present form a great amount of disquiet would be caused not only in London but in those growing commercial districts to the east of London, and he was quite sure it would not be to the advantage of the Port Authority that at its inception all these interests should be alarmed and prejudiced against it.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause— ,'In line 10, at the end, to insert the words 'or a Provisional Order as provided in this section.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHURCHILL

The question before the Committee is a plain and simple one, because, after all, there is only this issue. Will Parliament give to the new Port Authority that easement and convenience, those facilities in the conduct of their business which are not denied to the great rival ports on the Continent, or will they not? As far as this proposal is concerned, I say, frankly, if I had to choose between accepting the Amendment and dropping the clause, I would drop the clause. I do not believe it would be of the slightest advantage to us. I am advised that it would be much better to revert to the regular system and deny the Port Authority the facilities which are now asked for once and for all. I am advised that procedure by Provisional Order would be just as uncertain, and practically as laborious. In small cases there would be smaller fees to be charged, but in large cases—in any case which raised controversial issues—you would actually have a dual inquiry, the Board of Trade inquiry and the whole Parliamentary procedure in both Houses, in Committee, and so forth. I am advised that that really would be a more inconvenient procedure than to leave it to the ordinary course. I submit to the Committee that although I think the proposal is ingenious, that I know is made in a conciliatory and helpful spirit, the consequences of our adopting it would be worse than the consequences of our not putting in this clause in which we are making great exertions in the interests of the Port authority.

LORD R. CECIL

said he could not think the right hon. Gentleman had been correctly advised as to the respective merits of Provisional Order and private Act of Parliament. In the vast majority of cases where Provisional Orders were issued they went through without opposition. Cases of opposition occurred every session without doubt, but he should think they were not 10 per cent. of the Provisional Orders issued and the reason was clear. Where a Provisional Order was employed for the purpose of carrying out small public improvements which did not excite great feeling and opposition, after the local inquiry the Order was allowed to go through without further opposition. Where great interests were involved, and the only people who could tell whether great interests were involved were those who owned them, they were given an opportunity to appeal against the Government Department to Parliament, and they ought to be allowed it. Therefore, the Provisional Order really operated as a kind or sieve, selecting the really important cases for the consideration of Parliament and leaving those which were not of great importance for the consideration of the Department and determination by them. Therefore, he should think if they granted a Provisional Order it would be a very serious advantage to this body. The right hon. Gentleman thought existing conditions were necessary in order to enable competition to be carried out with Continental ports. But surely competition had to be carried out not only with Continental ports but with ports in this country, and he was not sure that it was legitimate to give to one great port a special advantage which they did not give to the others. It appeared to be a matter of very grave doubt if it was in the interests of public policy to put one port in an exceptional position. He should certainly support the Amendment.

SIR A. SPICER (Hackney, Central)

said he was one of the Members of the Joint Committee, and a Member in an official position connected with the London Chamber of Commerce. He was one of those who did not care for the clause as originally put down, but now that the President of the Board of Trade had given them an intimation with regard to the two Amendments that he proposed to add, especially the one providing for a public inquiry, he was prepared to support the Government most heartily. He believed those two Amendments would allay any real ground for suspicion on the part of those who had large interests in the Port of London, and who, in some cases, were competitors of the Port Authority themselves, and he thought now would have all needful protection.

MR. RENWICK

thought the insertion of the words "Provisional Order" would allay a great deal of the alarm caused by the proposals of the clause, but pointed out that while the dues on goods from beyond the seas were limited to one-four-hundredth of their value, there was no stipulation as to the limit of dues on goods carried coastwise, and they might find themselves in the position that goods carried coastwise were saddled with more dues than those carried oversea. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. He had mentioned, not for the first time, that he wanted to give the Port Authority in London the same power as foreign authorities had over foreign ports. But nearly all large ports on the Continent were carried out by State grants and under the direct authority of the State, which was quite a different matter. Unless this question of Provisional Order was agreed to he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman would find that dissatisfaction in London and throughout the Port generally would continue instead of being allayed, and, therefore, he supported the Amendment.

MR. WHITEHEAD

said he was reluctant to speak after having withdrawn his own Amendment a moment or two ago, but after the observations of the. President of the Board of Trade it seemed to him that they stood in a very curious position. In his first speech, with every word of which he agreed, the right hon. Gentleman laid great stress upon the importance of protecting the Port Authority from the necessity of coming to Parliament when dealing with small parcels of land. He thought it was a very valuable principle that was introduced by the clause. But in his speech a moment ago the right hon. Gentleman said they were dealing with large cases. His speech in support of his present position was entirely inconsistent with the speech in support of the clause as a whole.

MR. CHURCHILL

I was very careful to make it clear that I meant the disadvantages of the Provisional Order system were greatest when the Provisional Order was considered to be of a controversial character—not necessarily that the issues were large, but were controversial in character, or were, perhaps, regarded as controversial by a small number. I do not admit that anything I have said in support of this Amendment has been inconsistent with anything I said before.

MR. WHITEHEAD

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would acquit him of any desire to make a personal charge against him, but here they were dealing with very great and important private as well as public interests. So far as the debate had gone, the only assurance the House had that those interests would be properly safeguarded was the promise of the President, and he could not help thinking he was justified at this stage in probing as far as possible what was the real position of the Board of Trade in the matter. It had been said by the Chancellor that the land which would be dealt with was waste land. It was not the first or the second time that that word had been used. The county, a part of which he represented, had a large frontage on the river, and he was told the rateable value of the land which might be affected by the clause in that county alone was something like £3,000,000. They had there very large industrial businesses and important works of various kinds, as well as agricultural land which was by no means waste land, but was of very considerable value. If the Board of Trade looked up the records of the War Office they would find that the price paid for so-called waste land had been not inconsiderable. He looked at the clause to see whether it enabled the authority to deal with large cases. He did not want to give the word any unfair meaning, but in subsection (a) power was taken to construct docks and build railways. These were very large undertakings indeed. He did not think anything on that scale had ever been authorised hitherto except by private Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to limit the operation of the clause to the small cases indicated earlier in the debate, he would not press for a Provisional Order, but if he was going to take the position that the clause as it stood was verbally inspired and that no alteration would be permitted he should reluctantly be obliged to support the Amendment, because only in that way would the large private interests be sufficiently safeguarded.

MR. SEAVERNS (Lambeth, Brixton)

realised most fully the great advantage of being able to acquire small parcels of land or other property without the expense of coming before Parliament by private Bill, but he felt there was great weight in the argument that the new authority was to have an exceptional, if not unprecedented, privilege and yet that that Port Authority was a new, an untried, and an experimental one. The authority was not only new and untried, but it was not yet even in existence. The first authority which would control the finances of the Port of London would be a nominated authority. The second, three years afterwards, which would be put in command of its fortunes, would be practically dictated to by the officials of the Board of Trade which had reserved to itself the right of laying down rules under which the franchise should be employed by the payers of dues. It appeared to him, therefore, that the House ought to be very careful before it parted with its ordinary rights in a matter such as this to an authority whose position was entirely unknown. Most of the speakers had referred to the rights of property and the injury which might result to them if the Port Authority took an arbitrary or an unreasonable view of its rights and privileges. But there was another side to the matter, and to his mind a far more important side, and that was the side which affected the rights and privileges and the risks and responsibilities attaching to those who provided the money for carrying out the schemes of the new Port Authority, and the necessary funds for the improvement of the Port of London. In the past an enormous amount of money had been sunk in unprofitable dock undertakings, and he thought it just as necessary that the interests of the payers of dues, those unfortunate and usually little-considered people who provided the money, should be considered and safeguarded against any rash or ill-advised operations on the part of the new Port Authority as that the interests of the owners of property should be borne in mind. Therefore, he was very sorry the President of the Board of Trade was not willing to put into the clause some definite financial limit which would, to his mind, carry into effect what he understood to be the right hon. Gentleman's own desire that special and unlimited authority should be given regarding small transactions only, and should not be extended to large transactions. That appeared to him to be a very natural course, and if the right hon. Gentleman was not able in some way to meet the point which had been advanced by his hon. friend, he should be reluctantly compelled to vote for the Amendment.

MR. CHURCHILL

said that if it would meet the views of the whole of the Committee and enable them to progress he would be prepared to consider the question of a fixed limit.

MR. BOWLES

said the President of the Board of Trade had stated that he would be willing to consider the question of a fixed limit if that was the general view of the Committee. He could not help thinking that the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman upon this Amendment threw a very strong and clear light upon the real effect of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman told them that if he had to choose between the acceptance of this Amendment, which provided for the Provisional Order procedure, and the clause he would not hesitate to drop the clause because he preferred the present arrangement. What was the difference between the present system and that proposed under the clause? The right hon. Gentleman said the clause would be confined to small undertakings. He wished to point out that such a work as the construction of a dock never could be a small undertaking. Supposing they were to proceed by a Provisional Order as provided by the Amendment instead of adopting the system provided for in the clause. In small matters which did not involve great sums of money or evoke serious opposition, he contended that procedure by Provisional Order would substantially be as good from the point of view of the Port Authority as procedure under this clause. Where there was no opposition the Amendment could do no harm. The difficulties would arise in cases where works were proposed which involved serious opposition on the part of one or more interests concerned. In such a case if they were to proceed by a Provisional Order, no doubt that Order might be opposed, and in that case certain expenses would fall upon the Port Authority. By the clause as it stood the President of the Board of Trade contended that all those expenses would be got rid of. That might be so, but any interest which felt itself seriously aggrieved would have no remedy at all. The point was whether they were going to deprive persons, who might be vitally affected, of the remedy they would have if this Amendment were carried of dealing with the matter under a Provisional Order instead of placing their entire interests in the hands of the Board of Trade. The real object of the clause, and certainly the object of resisting the Amendment, was the natural desire of a Government Department to increase its own authority. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the Board of Trade would act impartially. That might be true, but it was not a sufficient reason for depriving large interests which might be very seriously prejudiced by works undertaken under this clause of any effectual remedy. He hoped the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would not be the only member opposite who would see that this was a very serious matter, and that the Amendment provided a way out of the difficulty.

MR. WATERLOW (Islington, N.)

said he should support the Amendment because the clause proposed by the Government was creating a precedent of a very wide-reaching effect. If the authority to purchase land compulsorily with the sanction of the Board of Trade were sanctioned in the case of the Port Authority, many other large public bodies such as county councils, corporations, Thorough councils, and, in fact, all other large public bodies would seek to have the same power conferred upon them, and they would be perfectly justified in asking for it. He was not aware of a single public authority which possessed such power outside the control of Parliament, and he was sure many county councils would be very glad to have a power of that kind. He did not see how the Government could resist granting that power to other public bodies if they established the precedent in the case of the Port Authority. This was a matter of great importance indeed. The Port Authority would be able to acquire land, but the clause did not state how much land they could acquire, where it was situated, or whether it would have buildings upon it or not. It might be argued that under the clause they could only acquire land, but there was only a very small amount of land that had not some sort of buildings upon it. He took it that they could acquire land belonging to the London County Council with an electric lighting station upon it. That might be an exaggeration, but it seemed to him on the face of it that this was a very wide-reaching proposal, and he should vote for the Amendment.

MR. ROWLANDS

thought the President of the Board of Trade was beginning to realise the wide scope and the vast magnitude of the issues now before the House. They were proposing to give to the Port Authority and the Board of Trade huge powers of acquiring land in every direction, and it was time that some of the officials of the Board of Trade made a journey down the river to investigate the class of property which existed on either side of the river. Besides having the power to acquire land and construct great works, they were proposing to give to this new authority the power to levy, collect, and recover dues, rates, and tolls. The hon. Member for Brixton had just told the Committee how the position of those who had to provide the money for these schemes would be affected by the clause. He was speaking on behalf of a large number of persons who already paid heavy dues for their goods as they came up the river. Those interested in the trade of the river had already had some experience in regard of the payment of extra dues to keep the river in a proper condition under the administration of the Thames Conservancy Board. It was now proposed to give the new Port Authority power to saddle those traders with the cost of works which they might be able to convince Parliament were entirely unnecessary if they had the opportunity of doing so. Therefore, it was very likely that such charges in the future would be very heavy upon the people who had to supply the money all along the Thames. It had been stated in evidence that there were many industries in the lower reaches of the river where goods not of a particularly valuable character were brought into the Port. They were bulky and cheap, but if even a very slightly increased charge was placed upon such goods by the new authority it was quite possible that that trade would be driven outside the Port of London. He trusted the President of the Board of Trade would see his way to concede this point, and then progress might be made with the measure.

SIR F. BANBURY

said the President of the Board of Trade had advanced the argument that he was only claiming the same facilities for the Port of London as existed in the case of great Continental ports. That was a very bad argument because Continental ports and Continental nations were governed in a different way. Several hon. Members opposite had advanced some very cogent reasons for supporting the Amendment. The hon. Member for South-East Essex had told them very truly that these powers would deal very harshly with all the people who had invested large sums of money on property along the banks of the river. It had been argued that the privileges asked for had already been granted in the case of light railways and that if they once passed a provision of this sort it would constitute a valuable precedent for other things. It was because he did not want to create such a precedent that he was going to support the Amendment. It had been stated that light railways were in a different position. The promoters of light railways acquired land for the benefit of the neighbourhood, but here it was proposed to allow the Port Authority to buy land to the detriment of people who had invested money in the Port. The hon. Member for Brixton had said that the question had been argued from the point of view of the rights of property, but that there had been no mention of the point of view of those who would be affected by the increase of dues. If so, he thought that was due to an oversight on the part of hon. Members on that side of the House. The Amendment had been moved for two reasons. First of all, they did not want to give the Board of Trade on the application of the new Port Authority the enormous power of making an Order "authorising the construction and equipment of such docks, quays, wharves, jetties, or piers, and buildings, railways and other works in connection therewith as may be specified in the Order." He thought that the hon. Member for Brixton would see that they on that side agreed with him. Really the passing of the clause without the Amendment of his hon. friend opened up a vista from which he shrank with horror. There was absolutely nothing that the Port Authority and the Board of Trade could not do under the clause. The only safeguard he could see was that there would be an inquiry. An inquiry by whom? By the Board of Trade.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I have repeatedly said that it would not be by the Board of Trade.

SIR F. BANBURY

said the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it was a little difficult to know what was proposed seeing that the Amendment was not on the Paper, But that did not alter his position. He did not wish this power to be given to anybody. He desired to maintain the control of Parliament, and for that reason he supported the Amendment.

MR. MORTON

said he concurred with the last speaker that it was their duty to protect the rights and liberties of Members of Parliament who represented their constituents in these matters. If these were taken away, they might as well leave everything to be arranged by the Government or by a Committee consisting of a few Members of the House without their having an opportunity of submitting to the House the views which their constituents might desire to be urged. He was surprised to find a Liberal Government bringing forward a proposal to take away the rights of the representatives of the people in this House. He should not have been so much astonished if the proposal had come from the other side. He had no doubt that the Board of Trade had its sane moments, but how was he to know when it had those moments? Two years ago when a company of gentlemen proposed to construct a deep-water jetty on the south side of the river two or three miles above Gravesend with money which they themselves were finding, they applied to the Thames Conservancy for the usual licence. The Thames Conservancy were willing to grant the application, but the Board of Trade said that they ought to come to Parliament for power to construct the jetty. What these gentlemen proposed to do was a small matter compared with the enormous undertakings which the Port Authority with the sanction of the Board of Trade would be empowered to carry out if the clause was passed without Amendment. If that was the opinion of the Board of Trade in a small matter of that sort, it appeared to him that Parliament ought to have an opportunity of considering the proposals made by the Port Authority in order that they might be able to judge whether the interests of the people whom they represented were properly protected. He was astonished that the Board of Trade did not give way at once and accept the Amendment. Why did the Board of Trade wish to protect the Port Authority as if it were something sacred? The Committee were not allowed to consider whether the docks ought to be purchased or not. He objected to the Port Authority being able on a Departmental Order to do what was provided for in the clause without coming to Parliament.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said that the more he looked into the clause the more disappointed he was. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had pointed out that the setting up of a Commission of inquiry would not afford a sufficient safeguard, and he was disposed to agree with him. It would be noticed that subsection (a) gave the Port Authority absolute freedom of action with respect to the construction and equipment of docks, quays, wharves, jetties, piers, buildings, railways, and other works, which might be specified in the Order made by the Board of Trade, but subsection (3) of the new clause, provided that where land was to be acquired compulsorily the sanction of Parliament would be necessary if it appeared to the Board of Trade that that should be applied for.

MR. CHURCHILL

The hon. Gentleman is unduly alarmed. The clause only authorises the Port Authority to construct docks on land within the area which belongs to them.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said it was a very great power to give to the Port Authority. Suppose that the construction of docks, wharves, jetties, piers, and so on, by the Port Authority meant competition with commercial and industrial organisations—suppose that its scheme conflicted with interests already' established and contiguous to the Port Authority's interests—was the Port Authority to have independent power, on the Order made by the Board of Trade, to carry out its scheme? The right hon. Gentleman had not thrown any light on the question. The Port Authority would be engaged in a commercial enterprise intent upon making its business pay, and it would compete with various interests which did not enjoy the powers proposed to be conferred on the Port Authority. Did not the Committee see the extremely dangerous position that would set up? If it was right to protect the interests of landowners by sending down a Commissioner where it was proposed to acquire land was it not also right to safeguard in some way commercial interests of various kinds which under the Bill at present had no protection whatever? He submitted that if the Committee allowed the clause to pass without inserting the words of the Amendment, the House would have cause to regret a grave dereliction of duty. What earthly reason could there be for not accepting the Amendment? This was a question of the gravest importance to the commercial interests of the river.

MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.)

said he was heartily in favour of the Port of London Bill, but as the representative of a constituency which had large manufacturing interests which were dependent on cheap freightage he was opposed to any proposal which would have the effect of increasing the cost of production. In his constituency there were potteries which used large quantities of coal, clay, and various other materials, and if a charge was going to be put on them the cost of production would be greatly increased, and the new authority instead of doing good to the Port of London would do harm. This proposal reminded him of some great octopus, which would come sailing up the river, put out its tentacles, and seize land on all sides.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

It does not touch a yard of land.

MR. MYER

agreed it did not touch a yard of land, but it touched the materials which were brought up the river. Any charges which the Port Authority might put on goods coming up the river would touch those industries. If the Port Authority got this land without coming to Parliament for powers, they would charge dues on everything that came up the river.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

Not at all.

MR. MYER

said he might be wrong, and he would be glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. He, at any rate, regarded it as a very serious matter indeed. He might almost say that he had a mandate from a great number of the manufacturers in his constituency to represent their fears of the possible increase in the dues upon the goods on which their livelihood depended.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said his hon. friend had made a speech on the question of the general charges on the river. That had nothing to do with the question before the Committee. The hon. Member said he had a mandate from certain people, but he was too late in redeeming his promise. What was the new clause? He wished his hon. friend had taken the trouble to read it.

MR. MYER

What about subsection (c)?

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that if his hon. friend had taken the trouble to read the clause he would have seen that his speech was hopelessly irrelevant. The object of the clause was that whenever there was an extension of existing works or whenever land was required for the erection of new works they should have cheap and expeditious methods of acquiring land. He should have thought the hon. Member for Dartford would have been the first to sympathise with an object of that sort. No one had done more than the hon. Member to support the policy of the clause, but when it came to the putting of it into operation he found that there was difficulty in the case. When the Government proposed to put into opera- tion the doctrine which he had put into their minds he jumped up and objected in the interest of some factories in his constituency. The hon. Member pointed to a particular manufacture which he thought would be damaged by this proposition.

MR. ROWLANDS

said that thousands of working men were employed in the manufacture to which he had referred.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

agreed that it was in the interests of these working men that there should be cheap facilities for developing the river. He should have thought that the hon. Member for Dartford would have been the first to sympathise with an object of that sort. Was it in the interests of the working men that the Port Authority should spend thousands of pounds upon Parliamentary lawyers and experts, and hold up the development and extension of works for years and years, because the expense of Parliamentary proceedings could not be faced? They had heard from the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, who objected to the Second Reading, that what happened in these cases was that these little transactions were set aside until a sufficient number of them had accumulated before an application was made to Parliament for powers.

LORD R. CECIL

said he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was quoting him correctly.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he was putting in his own words what the noble Lord had said substantially.

LORD R. CECIL

said that what he had stated was that a railway company inserted these small transactions in an Omnibus Bill, and that practically meant that they came to Parliament every year, or almost every year.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that was all very well in the case of a railway company which might have a system of 400 or 500 miles in extent. But the Port Authority might have only one case in three or four years, and it might have to wait for perhaps ten years before they had such an accumulation of these cases as would make it worth while to go to Parliament for a Bill. There was no doubt of the fact that if the Port Authority were compelled to come to Parliament every time a few acres of land were wanted it would retard the development of the Port. Subsection (c) did not mean that the moment they built a jetty on land which they acquired that fresh tolls would be exacted upon all the trade in the river. He did not think that any sane man could put an interpretation of that kind on the subsection. It simply meant that if a jetty were built and a ship came to that particular jetty, it would be subjected to the charges for the use of the jetty. It was just like a Railway Extension Bill which contained a rate clause, and that rate clause was only operative on the particular extension. The clause could not alter the general charges on the river; that would be preposterous.

SIR F. BANBURY

said that, as he understood the matter, the money for the extension or for other works would have to be raised, and if the revenue from the works or extension did not pay interest on the capital expended, the general provisions of the Act would then come into force, and the dues would have to be increased.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that the clause simply meant that whenever they made an extension the charges which were applicable to the rest of the river should also be applied to that particular extension. This was a clause for the purpose of acquiring land for extension, nothing more. [An HON MEMBER: Then strike out the other words.] What was the use of acquiring land unless they were allowed to make some use of it? They might as well not buy the land at all. An hon. Member suggested that all they ought to do was to take power to acquire the land, but not power to make use of it. The hon. Member for Sutherland said that the Port Authority should proceed by Provisional Order; but that meant that it would have to go upstairs where it would get exactly the same opposition as was got on an ordinary Private Bill, when it was the interest of every one to pile up and accumulate expenses. All this had been explained and debated over and over again. All that was wanted was a cheap and expeditious method of acquiring land for an extension, and in his opinion there was adequate and complete limitation of the exercise of the powers of the Board of Trade by subsection (3) of the clause.

SIR WILLIAM BULL (Hammersmith)

said he was deeply interested in the Bill and was anxious to see it passed. The point which the Committee had been discussing was very largely the outcome of a compromise which had been arrived at. The five London Members of the House of Commons on the Joint Committee thought that this was an honest attempt to get the best machinery for the working of a huge undertaking of this kind. He would point out that the inquiry would be entirely a judicial one, and that the Board of Trade did not suggest that any one particular person should be appointed to conduct the inquiry. They only said that it was to be an independent person. It would not only be an inquiry with regard to the land, but also as to whether any injury would be done to the vendor of the land. It was not to be supposed that the Board of Trade would appoint any one man to conduct this inquiry who was not of the highest character. As a way out of the present difficulty he suggested that the Board of Trade might agree to some limit in the case of money or land or both. The limit for land might be ten acres, which would be sufficient for a dock of considerable size, and the money limit might be £25,000 or £30,000.

SIR F. BANBURY

thought that the hon. Member for Lambeth was right in his interpretation of subsection (a) that it might involve the acquisition of land for railways away from the riverside works.

MR. CHURCHILL

said that he was anxious to respond as far as he possibly could to the appeal made by his hon. friend the Member for Hammersmith, whose interest and attention had been lavished upon the Bill with very great advantage to the measure at every stage. But he did not think they would be making a good Bill, or putting good machinery into the Act of Parliament if they were to insert a sharp, fixed limit either with regard to acreage or with regard to money. They could not stereotype or codify these transactions in that way. He was, however, prepared to defer to a certain extent to those who used the argument that these transactions were being witheld from Parliament, but while he said that he must insist that the Minister representing the Board of Trade in this House was responsible to Parliament for every act done by his Department. In order to make progress with the Bill he was prepared to insert a new subsection after subsection (3) providing that: "An Order other than a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under this section for the acquisition of land shall not take effect until a draft thereof has been laid for thirty days on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, and if either House during these thirty days presents an address to His Majesty against the draft, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the laying of a new Order." That would be following out the suggestion which fell earlier in the afternoon from hon. Members on those benches, and it would keep the whole of this procedure within the action of Parliament. If Parliament did not wish to admit the dispensing power, or thought it was an improper exercise of it, it would be within the power of Parliament by a most simple and effective procedure to terminate the whole transaction.

SIR F. BANBURY

suggested that in order to expedite matters they should divide on the question of Provisional Orders and discuss the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion afterwards.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

said the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman did something to meet their case, but did not go half far enough in regard to the point as to having a Provisional Order. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to realise the strong objection they had to sub-heads (a) and (b).

THE CHAIRMAN

said they were not discussing sub-heads (a) and (b). They only came in as pertaining to this particular Amendment.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

pointed out that if his Amendment was rejected in line 10, and as he took it, it would be, it would be out of order for him to move to put in the word "Provisional" before the word "Order" in line 14.

THE CHAIRMAN

Oh, yes, of course, it would; it applies to the whole of the paragraph.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

said this was the only opportunity of discussing the question of having a Provisional Order to deal with the construction or equipment of "docks, quays, wharves, jetties or piers and buildings, railways and other works in connection therewith." But he would only say one word. He did not think either of the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken for the Government had attached so much importance as they ought to this matter, and although they had an illusory compromise in regard to subhead (b) they had been offered no compromise in regard to sub-heads (a) or (c). The Government had ignored that and the local authorities would be very much affected by that, and he could imagine the House being affected by it. What was to prevent the Port Authority from acquiring St. Thomas' Hospital and putting up creaking cranes there.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he was very anxious to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and suggested that if he were to leave out from his proposed new subsection the words "for the acquisition of land," then the Amendment would apply to all those matters. He was ready to do that.

SIR F. BANBURY

said that they must divide on the question of the Provisional Order.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 185. (Division List No. 431.)

AYES.
Ashley, W. W.	Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)	Seaverns, J. H.
Balcarres, Lord	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	Starkey, John R.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hills, J. W.	Verney, F. W.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Kimber, Sir Henry	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Waterlow, D. S.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	M'Arthur, Charles	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Clive, Percy Archer	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Younger, George
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cross, Alexander	Myer, Horatio	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Walter Guinness and Mr. Bowles.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Gardner, Ernest	Percy, Earl
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Esslemont, George Birnie	Lyell, Charles Henry
Acland, Frances Dyke	Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Everett, R. Lacey	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs
Atherley-Jones, L.	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Fardell, Sir T. George	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight	Fenwick, Charles	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Ffrench, Peter	Macpherson, J. T.
Barnard, E. B.	Flavin, Michael Joseph	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Beale, W. P.	Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Callum, John M.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	M'Crae, Sir George
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.	M'Kean, John
Bennett, E. N.	Glover, Thomas	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Grant, Carrie	Meagher, Michael
Birrell, R. Hon. Augustine	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Menzies, Walter
Bowerman, C. W.	Gulland, John W.	Micklem, Nathaniel
Branch, James	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Brigg, John	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Morrell, Philip
Brooke, Stopford	Halpin, J.	Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale	Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T (Cheshire	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Bryce, J. Annan	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r	Nicholls, George
Bull, Sir William James	Haworth, Arthur A.	Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hazleton, Richard	Nolan, Joseph
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Heaton, John Henniker	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Carr-Gomm, W. W.	Hedges, A. Paget	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Henry, Charles S.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Higham, John Sharp	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cleland, J. W.	Hill, Sir Clement	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Clough, William	Hogan, Michael	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hooper, A. G.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Horniman, Emslie John	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Cooper, G. J.	Idris, T. H. W.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd	Illingworth, Percy H.	Pirie, Duncan V.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jenkins, J.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Pullar, Sir Robert
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Jones William (Carnarvonshire	Radford, G. H.
Cox, Harold	Kekewich, Sir George	Rainy, A. Rolland
Crean, Eugene	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Crosfield, A. H.	Kilbride, Denis	Reddy, M.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Lamont, Norman	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Dillon, John	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Ridsdale, E. A.
Dobson, Thomas W.	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Donelan, Captain A.	Lewis, John Herbert	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Duffy, William J.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Lundon, W.	Rowlands, J.
Essex, R. W.	Lupton, Arnold	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Whitbread, Howard
Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland	Sutherland, J. E.	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh
Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne	Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton)	Whitehead, Rowland
Seddon, J.	Thorne, William (West Ham)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Sheehy, David	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P.
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Vivian, Henry	Wiles, Thomas
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Walsh, Stephen	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Soares, Ernest J.	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Spicer, Sir Albert	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Stanger, H. Y.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	Watt, Henry A.
Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. WHITEHEAD

said he would not move the two Amendments next on the Paper, but he proposed to move the one suggesting in line 16, after the word "land" the insertion of the words "and subject to such conditions and reservations." The Amendment was more of a drafting character than anything else. While the Commissioners were to direct that the land should be purchased they had no power to indicate conditions or insert in the Order reservations in favour of the landowner. He thought it was clear that the clause should be amended in this direction.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause— In line 16, after the word 'land,' to insert the words 'and subject to such conditions and reservations.' "—(Mr. Whitehead.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHURCHILL

was understood to say that this would be a dangerous Amendment, and he certainly should not claim on behalf of the Board of Trade or any other Department the powers which his hon. friend would entrust to them. It was much better that the matter should be fought right out. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHURCHILL

formally moved in fulfilment of a promise made earlier in the discussion an Amendment withholding from the scope of the clause all lands which had been acquired under statutory powers.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause— In line 31, to insert after the word 'Greenwich,' the words 'or which has been acquired by the owners thereof under statute.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR F. BANBURY

said, to put himself in order, he would move a proviso standing on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for the Epping division of Essex, to the effect that nothing in the Bill should empower the Board of Trade to authorise the purchase and taking of any land belonging to any railway company, used as part of or in connection with their railway and acquired under Acts relating to their undertaking. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had moved an Amendment dealing with this question, but he was afraid he did not hear the words, which were not on the Paper. He therefore moved this in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining the matter. If the Amendment were covered he would withdraw it, but he begged to move it formally.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause— In line 36, at end, to insert the words 'Provided also that nothing herein contained shall empower the Board of Trade to authorise the purchase and taking of any land belonging to any railway company and used by such company as a part of or in connection with their railway and acquired by such company under any of the provisions of the Acts relating to their undertaking.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHURCHILL

explained that the Amendment which had already been inserted had the effect of withdrawing from the scope of the clause all lands which were possessed under statutory authority and which had been acquired under any statute, and that was the better way of doing it. They had not named railways, although railways were included.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHURCHILL

formally moved another Amendment, also promised earlier in the debate, viz., to insert at the beginning of subsection (3), words to the effect that before formulating an Order under this subsection the Board of Trade should appoint an impartial person to hold a public inquiry on its behalf.

Amendment proposed— In line 45, at the beginning of subsection (3) to insert the words 'Before formulating an Order under this subsection the Board of Trade shall appoint an impartial person to hold an inquiry on its behalf.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR GILBERT PARKER

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would not only include in that Amendment a scheme for the acquisition of land but also any other scheme, such as one for the construction of docks. He did not think the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory unless the change was made so that the inquiry would include the general items.

MR. CHURCHILL

was understood to assent to the proposal.

MR. RENWICK

asked the right hon. Gentleman to insert words giving all the people interested power, to give evidence before the inquiry.

MR. CHURCHILL

Yes: there will be a public inquiry.

AN HON. MEMBER

thought it might be as well to insert some words, because only the other day under the working of the Small Holdings Act great hardship was caused by interested parties not being allowed to be heard by counsel. The insertion of words could do no harm.

MR. RENWICK

expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to insert some words.

MR. CHURCHILL

thought "public inquiry" was sufficient. If interested parties were not heard they would be able to make a protest, and if that protest was audible the whole system of our Government institutions would come into operation. He was very unwilling to cumber the Bill with particular drafting.

THE CHAIRMAN

said he understood that the right hon. Gentleman was willing to move an Amendment or accept an Amendment striking out these words. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment and move it in a new form.

MR. CHURCHILL

Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause— To leave out subsection (3), and to insert the words' (3) Before making an order under this section the Board of Trade shall appoint an impartial person to hold a public inquiry on their behalf, and if he reports or if it appears to the Board of Trade that by reason of the extent or situation of any land proposed to be acquired compulsorily, or the purposes for which such land is used, or any other circumstances, the land ought not to be acquired compulsorily without the sanction of Parliament the order of the Board shall be provisional only and shall not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, proposed— After the words last inserted, to insert the words '(4) Any order other than a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under this section shall not take effect until a draft thereof has lain for thirty days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if either House during those thirty days presents an address to His Majesty against the draft no further proceedings shall be taken thereon but without prejudice to the making of a new order.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

MR. RENWICK

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would insert after the words "thirty days" the words "while Parliament is sitting."

MR. CHURCHILL

understood that such an order could only lie for thirty days on the Table while Parliament was in session. If the House was not sitting it could not lie, but this matter had come upon him rather unexpectedly, and in his desire to meet the wishes of the House, he would accept such an Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 3, after the word 'days,' to insert the words 'during the session of Parliament.'"—(Mr. Renwick.)

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. MORTON

, in moving a new clause relating to tolls and levies, said that at the present time the Government ships had full use of the waterway and paid nothing toward the upkeep of the Port or the dredging of the fairway, and his object in asking this clause to be inserted was that these ships should, with others, pay a fair share towards the cost. The right hon. Gentleman might tell them it could not be done, but the same thing was done in the case of rates on buildings, and as it was done in that case, he asked that it should be done in the case of the river. He knew that the Government said in the case of the rates on buildings that it was a matter of grace; but it was sufficient to show that it was done. In his opinion the Government ships ought to pay their fair share towards the cost of the upkeep of the Port in the same way as others paid. He begged to move.

New clause— Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 54 Geo. III., c. 159, the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, or any Act amending the same, any rates, dues, tolls, fees, or other charges leviable under this Act, or under any Provisional Order made thereunder, or under any Act incorporated therewith, shall be chargeable to and payable by the Crown upon the same conditions and in the same manner as they are chargeable to and payable by other bodies or persons.'"—(Mr. Morton.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. CHURCHILL

expressed some doubt whether, as this would impose a charge upon the Exchequer, it was in order. He would simply say that the passage of His Majesty's ships up the Thames without payment of charges was only the practice followed in every port in the kingdom, and it was the invariable practice of Parliament to allow the exemption. The Bill made the new authority heirs to all the right and obligations of the present authorities and it would not be in accordance with the principle of the Bill to insert suck a clause.

MR. MYER

felt he must support any proposal that would tend to make London a cheaper port. It was not quite the case that in all ports the Government were free from such charges. In Portsmouth Harbour the cost of dredging, buoying, and clearing the fairway was largely borne by the Government. As such a clause as this would lighten the burden of London and make the port a cheap port, he was in favour of it.

MR. MORTON

said the objections were similar to those urged against the payment of rates by the Crown, but finally the Government yielded with regard to that as they said an act of grace, and he would have been satisfied if he could have got an assurance in that direction. He did not intend to divide on the clause.

Proposed new clause negatived.

MR. MORTON

, in moving a new clause to provide for dock and river accounts to be kept separately, said that this was possibly the most important clause that had yet been proposed. In it he asked that the accounts in connection with the docks and the river should be kept separate. This matter had been discussed by the Joint Committee and had only been defeated by two votes, and that was at the instigation of the dock companies who apparently did not want the true state of affairs to be known. The clause provided that the accounts of all the money spent on the improvements of the docks should be kept separately from these of the money spent on the improvements of the river, and that the dock receipts should be kept separate from the river receipts. He was astonished that there should be any objection to the clause. Certainly no reason for such an objection could be given except the desire of the dock companies that their profits or losses should be kept secret. At the present time they wanted to tax the food of the people in order to make up the loss that must occur with regard to the docks. This principle was carried out at Liverpool in regard to the Mersey Docks and Harbour. Section 55 of the Act governing the Port provided that no portion of the Conservancy receipts for the use of the river should be applied to dock expenses, and by asking for the insertion of this clause he was only asking for what Parliament insisted upon in the case of the Mersey docks. It could hardly therefore be considered an extraordinary proposition. In the case of London the chief source of revenue was the power to charge dues on all goods coming into London, and that depended so far as the dock companies were concerned upon whether they were brought into the docks or handled in the river. That was another reason for this separation of accounts, because a good deal depended upon the amount of business that was handled in the river. Up to about twenty years ago there were two different authorities for the government of the Thames. The old Conservancy (the Corporation) had charge from Southend to Staines, and for the upper portions of the Thames there was a Board composed of all the owners of the land adjoining the river. That was found to be a bad system. What did Parliament do then? Parliament insisted that there must be separate accounts kept of the upper and the lower river. These had been kept ever since, and, speaking as a member of the Conservancy, he could say that there was no difficulty at all in keeping them separate and the very fact that they were separate was of great use to them in carrying out the work and the control of the river. He was astonished that the President of the Board of Trade advised the Joint Committee to object to this, and he had not heard why, except the statement of Sir E. Clarke, counsel for the London and India Docks Company, who said that the Amendment to give them separate accounts would be fatal to the Bill; that it interfered with the structure of the Bill in a serious manner. What that all meant he had never heard and probably never would hear, and he could not understand the necessity for all this secrecy, unless there was something like the engineer's report that they were afraid even to show the Joint Committee. The dock companies had a curious power over the Joint Committee, excepting the Members of the House of Lords on the Committee, who were not frightened so easily. He was sorry that that Committee was not more independent and did not take into consideration that it was there representing at any rate the people of London, if not the people of the country, and not simply acting as agents for the dock companies, to get rid of their shares, he supposed, and unload them on to the public. He would be very pleased if the President of the Board of Trade would at once give way and agree to the clause, because it would astonish him if the right hon. Gentleman had any good reason why they should not have the accounts kept separately, as was done in the case of the Mersey and other Port authorities, and even in the case of the Port of London itself. That being so, he begged to move the new clause.

New clause proposed— The following accounts shall be kept separately by the Port Authority in addition to any other accounts which are by this Act prescribed to be kept as separate accounts, that is to say:—(1) An account (to be called the Docks Capital Account) showing: (a) The amount of port stock created and issued in substitution for the existing stocks of the dock companies; (b) the amount of money expended by the Port Authority on capital account in improving the docks, basins, cuts, and entrances by this Act transferred to the Port Authority or in constructing and equipping new docks, basins, cuts, entrances, and other works or otherwise on capital account in improving the Port of London. (2) An account (to be called the Docks Revenue Account): (a) Of all sums received in respect of vessels entering, lying in, departing from, or otherwise using the docks, basins, cuts, or entrances from time to time vested in the Port Authority other than the duties of tonnage prescribed in Section 155 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, as amended by Section 7 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1905, and by this Act and in respect of all goods imported into or exported from such docks, basins, cuts, and entrances, and in respect of services rendered or accommodation provided by the Port Authority within the same and of all other revenue received by the Port Authority in respect thereof (to be called Dock Receipts); (b) of all sums expended in respect of the maintenance, management, and improvement of the Port of London, including all sums paid by way of interests on or redemption of money expended on Dock Capital Account (to be called Dock Expenditure). (3) An account (to be called the River Capital Account) showing: (a) The amount of port stock created and issued under this Act in substitution for Thames Conservancy Redeemable 'A' Debenture Stock; (b) such amount of the money expended by the Port authority on capital account as, in the opinion of the auditor of the Port Authority, is capital expenditure necessitated by the requirements of persons and vessels not using the said docks, basins, cuts, and entrances of the Port authority. (4) An account (to be called the River Revenue Account): (a) Of all sums received from the said duties of tonnage and in respect of all vessels, goods, services, and accommodation, other than the vessels, goods, services, and accommodation referred to in subsection (2) (a) of this section, and of all other revenue received by the Port Authority (to be called river receipts); (b) of all sums paid: (1) by way of interest on or redemption of money expended on River Capital Account; (2) such proportion of the expenditure referred to in subsection (2) (b) of this section as, in the opinion of the auditor of the Port Authority, is expenditure necessitated by the requirements of persons and vessels not using the said docks, basins, cuts, and entrances of the Port Authority (to be called river expenditure). (5) The dock expenditure shall be defrayed out of the dock receipts and the river expenditure shall be defrayed out of the river receipts, and no portion of the river receipts shall be applied in aid of the dock expenditure."—(Mr. Morton.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. CHURCHILL

The sting of the proposed new clause is in its tail, in subsection (5). The effect of saying that no surplus on the river trade shall be devoted to balancing a deficit on the dock trade, or vice versa, would be seriously to impair the financial structure of the Bill and would upset the bargain which the House has decided to enter upon. I therefore say that it is impossible for me to accept that Amendment. I think I have already gone a long way to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen on this subject when I accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, which does arrange that the receipts from Port rates shall be separately published, but I think it would be impracticable to go beyond that. I do not think the case of the Mersey Board is on all fours with that of London. There is no free water trade in respect of goods in the docks at Liverpool, and the passing trade on the way up to Manchester and elsewhere does not in any way participate in the hospitalities of the Port in the same way as in London. The Amendment was very carefully considered by the Committee, and after much examination they rejected it; and that is the only course I find open to me.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said he was in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in regard to subsection (5), but he really thought it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to accept the rest of the Amendment. The position regarding the Port of London was a very difficult one. The right hon. Gentleman knew that they had really two sets of interests on the river, the dock interests and the river interests. They were sharply distinct. The Government, he had no doubt, wished to co-ordinate and to harmonise those two sets of interests, but that could not be done so long as there was a strong element of suspicion on the part of the various interests which were competitive, though not opposed, to the docks. It had been common talk outside the House that the right hon. Gentleman was going to accept this Amendment. It was the general impression among those representing the river interests that this separation of the two accounts, the docks capital account and the docks revenue account from the river capital account and the river revenue account, was going to be agreed to, and it seemed to him to be an entirely reasonable suggestion. He thought it would be subversive of the best interests of the river ultimately if they were to say that revenue proceeding from river interests should only be devoted to certain specific river interests, and the same with regard to the docks; but if the accounts were simply kept separate, the public—the commercial public, the river public—would be able to see exactly what the position was, and could from year to year find out the proportions of expenditure.

MR. CHURCHILL

I think the point is sufficiently met by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington's proviso, in Clause 23, subsection (1), which says that— All receipts from port rates on goods discharged from, or taken on board, ships not within the dock premises of the Port Authority shall be shown separately from the receipts from port rates on goods discharged from or taken on board ships within such premises. Why does that not meet the case?

MR. MORTON

I am advised that that does not meet the case at all.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said it did not meet the whole case. In that clause they had only the showing of the revenue, whereas in the Amendment of the hon. Member they had the capital accounts separated, whereby they could see exactly what the position of the original capital was, and its relation to the subsequent revenue under the new Act. He did not think the Amendment was acceptable to the Committee as it stood, and therefore, in view of the great difficulty of the situation, the dissatisfaction that existed, the suspicion and uncertainty that existed among those representing the river interests, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider the advisability of adding to the clause that the dock capital accounts should be kept separately as well as the revenue accounts.

MR. CHURCHILL

thought the proper place to raise that question would be on Clause 23.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

asked if, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, he would give any kind of assurance that when the matter came up on the Report stage he would assent to this division.

MR. CHURCHILL

When we reach the proper place in the Bill where this should be discussed, I will give my most undivided attention to any statement the hon. Gentleman may then make, and will do the fullest justice to any argument he may advance.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

asked whether he understood that the view of the right hon. Gentleman, as at present advised, was that it would be inexpedient so far as could be seen to separate the dock capital account from the river capital account. That would govern his own action in the matter very largely.

MR. CHURCHILL

I should suppose that the proper distribution of the capital account between the dock trade and the river interests would emerge from the regularly compiled accounts of the Port Authority. So far as the receipts are concerned, there is an Amendment that they shall be kept separately, but so far as the expenditure is concerned, the separation of those accounts, I am informed, is impossible.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

thought it well to interrupt this question and answer proceeding between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman. He desired to acknowledge with all gratitude the concession made to him at an earlier stage, but he must point out that it was of a very limited character and did not go at all the length of the clause now before them. The clause was, except as regarded one part of it, a most excellent clause, and it had been fully discussed in another place. It was like clauses which existed in other statutes, and he thought it required more consideration than it had received in that debate. There was one fault in the argument of the hon. Member who moved the clause; he did not say a word in defence of subsection (5), and of course he was pounced upon and torn in pieces by the right hon. Gentleman for that neglect. He argued all from his first four sections. The clause was entirely devoted to the keeping of the accounts separate, except subsection (5), which was dragged in to dictate as to the source from which certain money should be paid. It was irrelevant to the clause altogether, and his hon. friend did not give a single reason in support of that subsection. His right hon. friend, if he might say so, made just the same kind of mistake; he devoted his answer entirely to sub-section (5). He would like to suggest that they should leave out the tail of the clause, and that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the clause without subsection (5). He regarded it as of the very greatest importance. He had taken some pains to set out how the accounts of local authorities which were set up should be kept, and there was never a case in which it would be of greater importance than to the mercantile community of London that they should have these accounts kept in clear form, and the receipts and expenditure under all heads kept perfectly distinct. He did not think a single objection to the first four subsections had been stated, and he would suggest, as a step that would go far to promote harmony, that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the new clause, leaving out subsection (5). He pressed that upon him with some confidence, because he had already been the recipient of a small favour With regard to the dues on goods. There did not appear to him to be a single item in this long clause that would not be necessary and useful to the mercantile community of London and very helpful to the Board of Trade in watching the affairs of this new authority hereafter.

MR. RENWICK

said he supported the clause. He had listened to the whole of the debate and had come to the conclusion that the Committee had never recognised the importance of this matter to the two interests affected, namely, the dock interest and the river interest. They could never be reconcilable, and the extraordinary thing in regard to them was that no improvement of the river or docks contemplated by the Bill could be of any use or benefit whatever to the ships which used the river. They were perfectly satisfied with the present accommodation and with the depth of water, and they were naturally jealous that in any improvements of the docks—and there would be very large improvements, with an enormous outlay possibly—their interests should not be sacrificed, and therefore they were most anxious to have these accounts kept separately. He could understand the right hon. Gentleman if he said he would agree to the clause, say, for a period of five or ten years. This was a new authority that was to be set up, and no one knew what amount of money the authority would spend, but they all knew very well that the amount spent would be very large, and naturally those whose interests were affected adversely by the money spent were anxious that the river interests should not be handicapped to provide funds to improve the docks. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary that the accounts should be kept separately. He was sincerely sorry that in the whole of the debate the Committee had never recognised the enormous value of the riverside trade. If any Member of the Committee were to take a walk in that direction on a Monday or a Tuesday morning he would see the Pool and the wharves there crowded with shipping, none of which used the docks. The accommodation for that shipping had been provided by private enterprise, but the owners of these wharves did not come and ask for money to develop their wharves. They did it themselves, and naturally they said that if this new authority was to deal with the docks it should not be at the expense of the riverside trade. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this very reasonable Amendment, including subsection (5), which set forth that no portion of the money that was raised by the revenue of the river should be used in improving the docks, or vice versa.

MR. CHURCHILL

I am afraid I cannot entertain the Amendment. The whole matter was considered by the Committee who rejected a clause almost identical with this after very careful examination. The Chairman said— We feel we can safely rely on the Board of Trade to give all the information useful to those who have introduced this Amendment. That refers to the power which the Board of Trade have under Section 2 (b) of prescribing the form of the accounts. We shall prescribe the form of these accounts in the manner best calculated to give the fullest information to traders and the general public that can be given them without unduly hampering with pettifogging and vexatious restrictions the work of the authority. I would ask the Committee to come to a decision upon this matter now. We have made very slow progress to-day, and I earnestly submit to the Committee that I have done my best to avoid points of dissatisfaction. I should still be ready to consider any Amendment which may be moved with a view to making concessions wherever possible, having regard to the position of the Bill.

MR. MYER

said there could be no doubt that there might be an attempt on the part of the new Port Authority to put these charges upon the goods

which went to the wharves and private properties on each side of the river which had been put up at great expense by the riparian owners. There was an enormous amount of trade depending upon their free access to these wharves, and he regretted that he could not support the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. CHURCHILL

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 15; Noes, 175. (Division List No. 432.)

AYES.
Balcarres, Lord	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Clive, Percy Archer	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rowlands, J.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Hills, J. W.	Waterlow, D. S.
Doughty, Sir George	Jenkins, J.
Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr Morton and Mr. Myer.
Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)	M'Arthur, Charles
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Clynes, J. R.	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Acland, Francis Dyke	Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Gulland, John W.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Cooper, G. J.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cox, Harold	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Crean, Eugene	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Crosfield, A. H.	Harwood, George
Beale, W. P.	Cross, Alexander	Haworth, Arthur A.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Curran, Peter Francis	Hazleton, Richard
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets. S. Geo.	Dalziel, Sir James Henry	Hedges, A. Paget
Bennett, E. N.	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Henry, Charles S.
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd	Dillon, John	Higham, John Sharp
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Dobson, Thomas W.	Hogan, Michael
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Donelan, Captain A.	Hooper, A. G.
Bowerman, C. W.	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall	Horniman, Emslie John
Branch, James	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Hyde, Clarendon
Brooke, Stopford	Essex, R. W.	Idris, T. H. W.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Esslemont, George Birnie	Illingworth, Percy H.
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. T. (Cheshire	Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Jackson, R. S.
Bryce, J. Annan	Everett, R. Lacey	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Fenwick, Charles	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Bull, Sir William James	Ffrench, Peter	Kekewich, Sir George
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Flynn, James Christopher	Kimber, Sir Henry
Byles, William Pollard	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lamont, Norman
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Gardner, Ernest	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.	Lundon, W.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Glendinning, R. G.	Lupton, Arnold
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Glover, Thomas	Lyell, Charles Henry
Cleland, J. W.	Grant, Corrie	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs.
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Pirie, Duncan V.	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Pullar, Sir Robert	Starkey, John R.
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Macpherson, J. T.	Reddy, M.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
M'Callum, John M.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Sutherland, J. E.
M'Crae, Sir George	Ridsdale, E. A.	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Meagher, Michael	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Menzies, Walter	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton
Micklem, Nathenial	Roche, John (Galway, East	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Whitbread, Howard
Morrell, Philip	Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.
Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne	Wiles, Thomas
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Seaverns, J. H.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Napier, T. B.	Seddon, J.	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Nolan, Joseph	Seely, Colonel	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Sheehy, David	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Younger, George
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Simon, John Allsebrook
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Master of Elibank and Mr. Herbert Lewis.
Parker, James (Halifax)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Soares, Ernest J.
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Spicer, Sir Albert

Question, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."

And, it being after Five of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.

Whereupon Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

MR. MACARTHUR (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

, on a point of order, said he had a new clause to be introduced on the Report stage. Would that be precluded by the Motion to report the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member does not seem to know that we are discussing merely the new clauses in Committee which were on the Paper on 12th November. Our proceedings have nothing whatever to do with the Report Stage.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 390.]