PORT OF LONDON BILL.

HC Deb 09 December 1908 vol 198 cc607-62

As amended, considered.

MR. STEADMAN (Finsbury, Central)

said he had no desire to obstruct this Bill. On the contrary he desired to see it passed into law, so that something might be done for the Port of London. But he was strongly of opinion that the Board of Trade and the Admiralty should have no right of representation on the new board. They were only lay figures on the present Conservancy Board and knew nothing whatever about the matter. There were hon. Members ready to get up and talk upon any question under the sun and they generally knew nothing about the subjects upon which they spoke. In that way a good deal of time was wasted. The Port of London could only be managed by those who knew the requirements of London. The Board of Trade knew nothing about it and the Admiralty knew less, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would agree to delete the representatives of those two bodies and put others in their place who understood the business.

* MR. MORTON (Sutherland)

said he had not altered his mind about this Bill not having had a Second Reading debate and it had never been considered in Committee, in fact it had been rushed through regardless of the best interests of the people of London, and apparently at the dictation of trusts and companies. Bearing in mind, however, the late hour of the night, and also the time of the year, and the fact that it was impossible to get a proper debate upon the subject, he proposed to follow the example of his hon. friend the Member for Central Finsbury, and he would not move the Motion standing in his name.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL, Dundee) moved a new clause amending the Pilotage Order Confirmation Act, 1896. At present Trinity House had a Pilotage Committee upon which there was a representative appointed by the General Shipowners' Society and they had to provide for another representative to take the place of the one hitherto elected by that society. This new clause proposed to give the Board of Trade power to nominate a representative after consultation with the General Shipowners' Society of London to replace the old representative. He begged to move.

New clause— As from the appointed day, and unless and until a Provisional Order under Section 577 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, dealing with the matter is made and confirmed, a shipowners' representative on the Pilotage Committee of the Trinity House shall, instead of being elected in the manner provided by the Order scheduled to the Pilotage Order Confirmation Act, 1896, be appointed by the Board of Trade after consultation with the General Shipowners' Society of London, and such other persons or bodies having knowledge or experience of shipping in the Port of London as the Board think fit, and the Order scheduled to the Pilotage Order Confirmation Act, 1896, shall be read accordingly as though references to such an appointment were substituted for references to elections by shipowners."—(Mr. Churchill.)

Brought in, and read a first time.

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

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said the drafting of this clause must have been exceedingly difficult and he could not quite understand it. What was the Provisional Order under Section 577 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and why had that been selected rather than a Provisional Order under this Bill? There were powers under the Bill to issue a Provisional Order, and he wished to know why the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the procedure under the Merchant Shipping Act. He objected to legislation by reference and the whole of the clause was difficult to follow.

MR. CHURCHILL

said there was a clause under the Merchant Shipping Act, under which the Pilotage Committee of Trinity House appointed a shipowners' representative. A new method was being chosen of appointing a representative of the shipowners' interest, but the Provisional Order would be made under the Merchant Shipping Act which governed such an appointment.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)

said this clause was giving a preference to London over other ports in regard to the arrangements with Trinity House. London was being placed in a better position than any other port, and in this clause they were going to give the General Shipowners' Society of London the right of appointing a representative on the Pilotage Committee of Trinity House without reference to other shipowners in the Kingdom. So long as there was this distinct preference given to London over the other ports of the Kingdom he should protest against the action of the Government.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. CHURCHILL moved a new clause dealing with mutual rights as to the inspection of documents. It was necessary to provide which documents should remain with the old authorities, and which should be transferred to the new authority. The two parties concerned were the Thames Conservators and the Watermen's Company, and both these bodies were agreed upon the course suggested by this clause. He begged to move.

New clause— In page 33, after Clause 34, to insert the following clause:—'All minute books, books of account, vouchers, maps, plans, and other documents transferred by this Act from the Conservators or the Watermen's Company to the Port Authority shall at all reasonable times be open to the inspection, free of charge, of the Conservators or the Watermen's Company, as the case may be, and all minute books, books of account, vouchers, maps, plans, and other documents belonging to the Conservators or the Watermen's Company and not so transferred shall at all reasonable times be open to the inspection, free of charge, of the Port Authority, and if any question arises as to whether any such documents are to be transferred to the Port Authority, the question shall be decided by the Board of Trade.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Brought up, and read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER

The next dame (Provisions as to lighting, buoyage, and beaconage) standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale division of Liverpool is out of order because it proposes to transfer the property of other people to the Port of London governing authority without having given any notice to Trinity House that it is proposed to take over their property without paying anything for it. That may be done by public Bills, but it cannot be done by private Bills.

* MR. MCARTHUR (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

said that the lights and buoys were not the absolute property of Trinity House, but were held by that body in trust for the people who paid the money.

* MR. SPEAKER

I do not think it matters whether it is trust or other property, you must give notice to those who own the property which you propose to take in order to give them an opportunity of looking after their interests.

*MR. MORTON moved a new clause, providing that the dock and river accounts should be kept separately. He said that the object of the clause, which had been carefully drafted, was that the accounts should be kept separately of the dock business and the ordinary business in the river. He was quite unable to understand why the Board of Trade had objected to this clause. In the case of the Mersey Dock business at Liverpool they were compelled by Act of Parliament to keep separate accounts between the Mersey Conservancy business and the dock business. In the present Thames Conservancy they were also compelled by Parliament to keep the upper and lower river accounts separately. Now neither in the Mersey accounts nor in the Thames Conservancy accounts had there been any difficulty whatever in keeping them separate so that everybody concerned was able to understand how the money was received and expended by the different departments. The only reason given before the Joint Committee against the clause was given by the dock companies. They ought not to be dictated to by the dock companies as to what they should do. They wanted a free hand and they should be able to consider the matter without regard to what the dock companies thought of the clause, because after they had sold their docks what did it matter to them how the accounts were kept? It had nothing to do with the dock companies after they had received their money. What was said by Sir Edward Clarke and others was that if they kept separate accounts as those suggested it would wreck the Bill. He supposed the meaning of that was that, notwithstanding that they were told that the net receipts would balance the net expenditure and pay interest on the stock, there was going to be a loss on these matters and the Board of Trade and the Committee did not want people to know it. But they surely had a right to have the accounts kept separate, and the Government and the Board of Trade ought not to be afraid or ashamed to show their accounts. It was estimated the other day that there was to be a loss on the purchase of the docks of £180,000 per annum. But the other night the Government practically admitted that it would be £300,000 per annum, because when they offered to limit the dues to be collected on goods—when that was being discussed, and they were asked to put a limit, they said they must have at least £300,000, and they put forward some calculations showing that some thousand articles dealt with would produce that £300,000, and that was evidently the estimated loss on the purchase of the docks. Why the people of London should be called upon to lose all that money for the benefit of speculators and adventurers, which was the only reason why the Bill was introduced at all, as far as he could see, he could not understand. Be that as it might, surely the people of London who were called upon to pay this, and whose food was to be taxed to make up the deficiency in this large amount, had a right to see the accounts and have them kept so that they could understand what had been earned on the one hand by the dock undertakings, and on the other what was paid by charges on the food of the people of London to make up the great loss that must come. He would not go into every detail of the proposed clause, but unless the Board of Trade were afraid of it being made public they ought at once to agree to this. The right hon. Gentleman told them he had already agreed to put something at the end of the clause which he (Mr. Morton) was told on excellent authority would not carry out what they wanted, that separate accounts should be kept. They found on the Thames Conservancy Board that the necessity of keeping separate accounts for the upper and lower river had made the Board more economical, because they had had to practise economy so as to make both ends meet; and this, by showing receipts and expenditure, had enabled those who wished to carry on business in a businesslike way to know where there was a leakage if any. He trusted now that he had removed subsection 5, to which objection had been taken, the House would agree to have this very righteous clause inserted.

MR. WARDLE

seconded.

New clause— 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)."—

Brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. CHURCHILL

said his hon. friend had certainly made some very strong assert ions, but scarcely any more far-reaching than the suggestion that the Government had admitted that the loss on the Port as conducted by the new authority would aggregate at least £300,000 a year which would be borne by taxes on the food of the hard-working people of the Metropolis. His hon. friend went to a division when the Bill was in Committee on this very subject or on a question phrased in almost identical terms.

* MR. MORTON

I did not go to a division; you closured it, without even allowing me to explain some objections that had been raised.

MR. CHURCHILL

said that the closure at any rate was moved upon the clause on which this question arose and his hon. friend marched into the lobby with only fourteen supporters. Nevertheless he was very anxious to conciliate his hon. friend. He felt that the Bill lacked only his support, and if by any reasonable effort of draftsmanship or of good will it were possible to encourage him to support the measure, or at any rate remove some of his apprehensions and objections to it, he would be prepared to make great exertions to placate him. He would remind the hon. Gentlemen that they had already gone a long way to meet him: they had provided that the receipts from Port rates were to be accounted for separately, but as he had explained there was great difficulty in giving accounts separately of expenditure on different parts of the river.

* MR. MORTON

said there was no difficulty in Liverpool or in London.

MR. CHURCHILL

said there was no difficulty in Liverpool because there was no free water in that port. He could not accept the clause in the form in which his hon. friend had moved it, although he was sure the House would recognise the knowledge, skill, and care with which he had presented it. He was prepared, however, to move at the proper time an Amendment to the effect that in prescribing the form of accounts the Board of Trade should have regard to the desirableness of showing separately as far as practicable such items of receipts and expenditure on capital and revenue accounts as were wholly or mainly attributable to the dock undertakings of the Port Authority in particular. That would secure the maximum of information to the public, and secure it by statutory enactment.

* MR. MORTON

said he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy; he thought he had better take what he could get, and therefore he asked leave to withdraw his clause on the understanding that his right hon. friend would move his Amendment at the proper time.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. WALTER GUINNESS (Bury St. Edmunds)

said he wished to move an Amendment to Clause 1 to increase the number of appointed members of the Port Authority from ten to eleven, and to add that new member to the representation of the Board of Trade, at the same time making that Board responsible for the whole of the representation of Labour to which the President of the Board of Trade consented at a previous stage of this Bill. As the Bill left the Committee, the London County Council was, after consultation with the Labour Party, to appoint one Labour representative, and the Board of Trade the other; but he thought that it would be more convenient if the Board of Trade appointed both. He was of opinion that the London County Council had been somewhat badly treated. Originally, the County Council was to have had five members, but one representative had been taken away in Committee, and when the Bill came downstairs another representative was practically taken away as, they were to be deprived of the right of making a free choice and only to make the appointment in consultation with organised labour. He did not think that a Labour representative appointed in that way would be in touch with the views of the majority of the London County Council and could not be expected to represent them. He quite approved of the proposal that Labour should be represented. The weight to be given to that particular interest had, however, been increased, and he saw no reason why it should be at the expense of an authority whose claim to be heard on the Port Authority was equally strong. The President of the Board of Trade had all through resisted the demands of the local authorities to have their representation on the Port Authority increased. His Amendment could not, however, be opposed on that ground as it was not a proposal to give added representation to the local authorities, but merely to alter the authority who should nominate the representatives of Labour. This matter was not adequately discussed in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman then made it quite clear that he would reconsider the matter on Report, and he hoped he would see his way to protect the interests of the London County Council by leaving them their already reduced representation of four members unfettered by any conditions, while at the same time preserving the extra member to represent the interest of Labour. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 2, to leave out the word 'ten,' and to insert the word 'eleven.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

MR. CHURCHILL

said he would be the last man in the world to impose restrictions on the Board of Trade. He was inclined to think that the London County Council ought to make a selection of a really good representative of labour, and that no harm would be inflicted on them if they were entrusted with that duty. If the hon. Gentleman really spoke for the London County Council, and they wished to divest themselves of this one member, or if they wanted three instead of four, or was it three and a half, he would not resist it; but so far as the Government were concerned, and he spoke after carefully considering the situation as it was revealed as they left the Committee stage, he did not feel that it was desirable to add to the nominated members. Quite apart from the question of keeping the nominated members in their present position, an ugly rush might occur at any moment on the part of suburban districts and boroughs who had very good claims for representation. He might have all these claims ranking equally, and it would be impossible to satisfy them. He thought they ought to adhere to the number at present in the Bill. It really came down to this, whether the London County Council should have a fourth member or should transfer him to the Board of Trade, who were willing to undertake the duty of dealing with the question. He felt that on reflection the hon. Gentleman would come to the conclusion that, alike in the interests of a small and compact Port Authority and those of the London County Council, they had better stick to the framework of the Bill.

LORD R. CECIL

said he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the point raised by his hon. friend, which was that when the Bill was drafted the London County Council had five members, but one was taken away and given to the City Corporation. When they got I into Committee another member was not taken away, but the choice of the County Council was confined, and they were directed, in fact, to appoint a Labour member. His hon. friend said he had no objection to two Labour members being put on the Port Authority, but he thought that ought not to be done at the expense of another authority. That point did not appear to have been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, who only said that the number was fixed and unalterable, and he could not extend it even for the London County Council He did not think that was very satisfactory and he hoped the Government would treat the London County Council differently.

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

said there was nothing to prevent the London County Council sending along to the Board of Trade and saying that they should prefer them to select their fourth member, but surely it could not be argued that in the great County of London the County Council could not pick out a Labour man who would understand the interests of London. Surely he would not be a prominent Labour man if he did not understand the administrative work of the County Council. He thought that they were making a mistake in handing over this power, but if they did hand it over there was nothing to prevent them from suggesting the nomination should be made by the Board of Trade.

MR. ROWLANDS (Kent, Dartford)

said he agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that, if he was going to give way on this question, he certainly would have to face the whole of the demands which would be made by authorities who had quite as strong a case as that put forward by the hon. Member, who was very anxious to see that Labour was well represented on the new Port Authority, but did not wish to take the responsibility for it. Another thing, the hon. Member was afraid that owing to the action of the Committee in allocating one of the seats to Labour, he and his colleagues had lost an opportunity of appointing a middle-class gentleman on the Port Authority. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] That was the case. The hon. Member wanted the power strengthened so that they could have as many of one class of the community on the Port Authority as they would have had but for the Amendments which had been made. So far as he was concerned, if the President of the Board of Trade gave way on this point, he and others would consider it their duty to fight for that representation which they thought had not been justly granted to them at the present time.

MR. BOWLES

said the right hon. Gentleman refused to accede to the Amendment, because it would involve increasing the number of appointed members to eleven. That really was not so. The point was this: they had decided and the right hon. Gentleman had decided, that of these ten or eleven members two were to be representative of Labour. The question was, who was to appoint those men? His hon. friend below him said it was rather hard upon the County Council that they should be made to appoint one of those gentlemen, and the Board of Trade said that no other authority would be equally competent to choose another man. What had been done deprived the County Council of a quarter of the members they could send. That was unfair, because they had already taken away from them the fifth man whom they had allotted to them and given him to the City Corporation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might consider whether the equity of the case could not be met by allowing the City Corporation to have the great privilege, which they would highly value, but of which the County Council was not so proud, of appointing a representative of the great cause of Labour upon the Port Authority. He did not know how that was regarded by the City Corporation and how they would care to accept the charge of appointing a representative of Labour upon the Port Authority. He was bound to say that he thought the County Council, for whom his hon. friend spoke, had a grievance when they said: "You have taken from us one man and given him to the City Corporation, and you have further limited our discretion in forcing us to exercise our power as to the fourth member in a particular direction." There was a second alternative. The right hon. Gentleman had said there should be two members to represent Labour, but he did not know what objection there was to the Board of Trade appointing one member. He did not know why some explanation could not be given, and unless one was given, if the Amendment was pressed to a division, he should support it.

MR. CARR-GOMM (Southwark, Rotherhithe)

did not think anyone who knew the Port of London would have imagined that there would have been all this difficulty. It showed, however, where the shoe pinched, and he could assure the hon. Member that if the Government stood by the view it had taken up, the County Council would find that the shoe fitted better. He thought it was most important that the two representatives of Labour should not be selected by the same authority. The policy adopted by the Board of Trade would be very different from that of the County Council, and it would be unfortunate if the two representatives of Labour were selected by the same political party. If one were selected by the Board of Trade and the other by the Council they would be much more likely to get two men who really represented Labour. He thanked the Government for having stood by the sub-clause.

* MR. MORTON

said he did not object to the increase in numbers, for his only objection was that the number twenty-eight was too few. They might, with advantage, increase the number to forty. Small bodies were too often controlled by officials, and they wanted sufficient members to make the members of the Board masters in what was their own house. The old Metropolitan Board of Works, one of the most useful boards that ever existed, had been virtually ruined by the smallness of its numbers, which enabled the officials to boss the show. His experience, which was considerable, was that there should be popular representatives because they represented the people. He hoped the Government would allow the number of members of the board to be increased because it would be in the best interests of the authority itself.

Amendment negatived.

MR. STEADMAN

said the object of the Amendment which he now moved was to substitute for the representation of the Board of Trade and the representation of the Admiralty one member nominated by the West Ham Borough Council, one member nominated by the Essex County Council and one member nominated by the Kent County Council. He believed the Amendment would be a very useful one, and he intended to make an honest effort to convert the President of the Board of Trade to that view. He was encouraged to hope by the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the last Amendment. He had said that he had been very much impressed by the representations the counties had made to him, and the great objection had been that to carry them out it would have been necessary to increase the number of members of the board. He was prepared to agree that the number of members of the new board were quite sufficient. The present board had thirty-seven members to cover an area extending over the river, from thirty miles above Oxford to the lower reaches. Middlesex and Surrey would have plenty of members to represent them on the Upper River Board. The Board of Trade representatives knew nothing about the work. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman to put the present representative through an examination, and see how he would come out of it. As to the Admiralty, there might be a lieutenant in one of His Majesty's warships or an admiral or two who knew something about the river, but it was 1,000 to 1 that they had seen it only from a penny steamer or from the Thames Embankment. What connection had the Board of Trade or the Admiralty with the business they wanted to transact on the river? They were surrounded by competition, and unless the Bill was a success, they were going to lose the little trade they had at present. The one thing which he noticed in connection with the Bill was the connection running through it between the Port Authority and the Board of Trade. It put him in mind of the connection between the Local Government Board and the local authorities throughout the country, which did a great deal more harm than good. Speaking from experience, he said that if the Local Government Board had done their duty there would have been none of those scandals about which they had read of late. It was a mere matter of form writing up to the Local Government Board. If they were going to have a new Port Authority, they ought to allow it to manage its own business more than the Board of Trade proposed to allow it to do. In regard to the counties he had mentioned, he spoke from experience. They had no two harder-worked representatives on the Thames Conservancy than those for West Ham and the county of Essex. Trade was not going up the river, it was gravitating down the river, and it would be concentrated in those two counties. If they had no representation on the Board the Board would be continually in hot water, but the difficulties could easily be avoided. He did not believe in nominated members, he had seen enough nominated aldermen: he had seen the difference between a progressive county councillor elected by a constituency and the same man defeated and made an alderman. The difference was like that between a Member of the House of Lords representing nobody but himself and a Member of the House of Commons who represented the people who sent him there.

*MR. MORTON seconded the Amendment. The hon. Member knew from, practical experience all about the subject with which the Amendment dealt, and would not, he was sure, advise anything which would not be an improvement.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words 'Admiralty 1, by the Board of Trade 2,' and insert the words 'West Ham Borough Council 1, by the Essex County Council 1, by the Kent County Council 1.'"—(Mr. Steadman.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Bill."

MR. CHURCHILL

said the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had told the House that nominated members were under all circumstances bad, and that as that was so, members should be nominated by the County Borough Council of West Ham, and the County Council of Essex. When it came to representing local and special interests, however, he thought that representatives of the Board of Trade and of the Admiralty, both of which were large Departments with Ministers in that House responsible for them, would be more regularly kept in touch with special interests than those proposed by the hon. Member and for whom he had made so strong an appeal to the Government to alter the represensation that had been arranged. He much regretted to tell the House that the did not think it would be a useful thing to adopt the Amendment. They had had a long and exhaustive discussion on the composition of the Board's nominated members on the Committee stage, and after that discussion had progressed a considerable way, he had offered certain concessions which had procured for the time being general agreement. He hesitated to do anything to upset that agreement. If he agreed to the claims put forward by the hon. Member he certainly would upset it. What would then happen to Surrey and to Middlesex? This was a House of Commons Bill if ever there was one, and it would not do, therefore, to upset the balance the House of Commons had arranged.

MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster)

desired to express the view that the Government's position was one which undoubtedly deserved every possible support.

Amendment negatived.

*MR. RADFORD (Islington, E.) moved the omission of Clause 3, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity for justifying the terms of purchase contained in the clause. There was no doubt as to the existence of a widespread anxiety, to put it no higher, in regard to the terms of purchase. They were dealing with a sum of money running into millions of pounds, and among hon. Members in that House and in the City of London and elsewhere, there was grave apprehension that they had been committed to a very bad bargain. When the matter was last before the House the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Trade did not do anything to dispel the anxiety with which the purchase was regarded. The hon. Baronet told them on that occasion that he had had no valuation made of the property which the Port Authority proposed to acquire. He (the speaker) did not think that was anything to boast of. He thought that if there had been a valuation showing them that some substantial property was being acquired it might have been some consolation to the persons who were interested in, the Port Authority to know that they would have a valuable asset in their hands even when the time arrived, if it should arrive, when the income failed. The hon. Baronet told them that lands would be acquired with the docks, which he thought were worth more than a million of money although he had no valuation made. He hoped the hon. Baronet was right, and he thought he was right, but that only accounted for £1,000,000, whereas the purchase money was £23,000,000. Therefore that did not carry them very far. Moreover, the hon. Baronet told them, in justification of the terms of the clause, that he thought they were doing better under it than if they went to a compulsory arbitration under the Lands Clauses Acts. That was very faint praise for a Minister in charge pi a measure, because probably no property ever acquired by a public authority was worth the money they had to pay under the Lands Clauses Acts. The hon. Member went further than that in saying that he thought they were making better terms, than in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board. The terms that were made with regard to the Water Board ought to be borne in mind by that House as a warning for all time. What did that House do? The House generously compelled the London water companies to part with their undertakings at several millions more than they were worth and sent in the bill to London. They were in danger, it seemed to him, of making a very similar mistake on the present occasion, and it was in order, to give the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of allaying the anxiety that certainly, existed in regard to this matter that he ventured to move the omission of the clause. The hon. Baronet told them that they were levying an income; he believed a net maintainable income of £809,000 a year. That was a very substantial sum, but the figures which the hon. Baronet very frankly laid before them really did not justify the statement that there was an income of that amount. The figures were taken as the average of the last six years. The first figure they had was £873,000 and the figure of the last year was more than £100,000 less, amounting only to £700,000 odd. Therefore the hon. Baronet was inviting them to buy a growing concern on a declining income, and the figure of £809,000 was made up on the average or mean income of six years. Even that mean income did not amount to anything like £809,000, but was supplemented by bringing to its credit certain sums which were expected to arise through economy of management in the hands of a public authority. From what they knew about public authorities he was bound to say that he thought the saving assumed to be effected was not altogether certain. They had learnt in regard to many public authorities, where through concentration of management there ought on all reasonable grounds to have been a saving, that there had in fact been no saving at all. Therefore he was very much afraid that what they were proposing to purchase, as a net maintainable income of some £809,000 would turn out to be an income very much smaller. Having arrived at what was called a net maintainable income they were proposing to authorise the acquisition of it at something like thirty years purchase. He shared the apprehension that was felt in that House and in the City of London and elsewhere with regard to this matter, and he would be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would say something to allay that anxiety.

*MR. MORTON had great pleasure in seconding the proposal. He did not intend going into the whole question that night, although he did not forget that the question his hon. friend had raised had never yet really been discussed. There was no Second Reading discussion, and it was not discussed at the Joint Committee, where it ought to have been discussed, that being the only place where people representing the various authorities concerned could have been heard by counsel and otherwise. That was a reason why they should discuss it now if they had time of opportunity. Personally, he had always been opposed to the purchase of these docks. He could understand paying an extraordinary price to purchase docks in cases where they wanted to get command of the port. Liverpool, Glasgow, and various other places had complete control and command of the port, and if by purchasing docks at extraordinary and inflated prices they could get command of the port, he could understand there was something but not much to be said for it. But in this case they were not going to do anything of the sort. The docks at the present moment did about 40 per cent. of the business, and 80 per cent. of the business they did do was never landed in the docks at all. It was put into lighters over the shipside and might just as well and more economically be dealt with in the river at a wharf or jetty or in the river. Private enterprise had built up the business in the port and had made it successful and useful to the people of London, whereas the docks had been of but little use either to their shareholders or anybody else. It was the private wharves and jetties that had built up the business. Therefore, they were not going to get command of the Port in any shape or form unless they proposed to go further and pay £100,000,000 to buy up the jetties and wharves. He did not suppose that was likely to be done. He knew, although they were not told so, that those concerned in the dock interests—and if the new body was going to make the docks a paying concern it would have the same thing to face—wanted to kill the barge business. For many years they had been trying to destroy the barge business. That business was unique in the Port of London, and was not found anywhere else, except, perhaps, to a very limited extent from Rotterdam tip the Rhine. They had been trying all along to kill that part of the business, and, he supposed, drive it to the railways for the benefit of the docks. He could understand it was possible that traders and other business men might prefer to use the railway, but, as a matter of fact, they preferred very much to use these barges. Evidently it paid them better and suited their trade, but it was proposed to kill that if possible so that the barges should not compete with the docks. Everybody who had studied the question knew that development in connection with all ports now was in the direction of jetties or wharves. That was going on all over the world. Wherever trade was done people found it more convenient and useful, as well as more economical, to use deep water jetties and wharves rather than to go into the docks at all. There had been much mystery about the agreements. He was told that they would not show the agreements with the dock companies, and for some reason that he could not understand the Board of Trade had refused to produce the most vital information, namely, Mr. Crutwell's Report on these docks. Unless there was something in the Report against the Board of Trade one would have thought they would have been only too glad to bring it forward; but they would not show it to anybody, although clearly the Joint Committee and the House of Commons were entitled to see it. When the matter was before the House on the Second Reading they were actually promised that they should have all this information before the Joint Committee so that they could judge, but that had not been done in this case, and he again asked the Board of Trade, as he asked them a week ago, for their own credit and for the credit of the engineer who made the Report, that it should be produced, so that they could ascertain really what the professional gentleman thought about the matter. Now it was proposed to give the dock companies something like £23,000,000, and, as his hon. friend had said, it was not shown how the payment of the interest would be able to be met, and no provision was made for expenditure so as to put the docks in decent repair. Everyone knew that since the Royal Commission's Report in 1901 or 1902, the companies, thinking that they were going to force someone to buy the docks some day, had only done what repairs were absolutely necessary to keep them together, and experts knew that a great deal would have to be done to the docks to put them even in decent repair. He believed that the docks were not wanted at all. There were no docks in New York or in Glasgow.

AN HON. MEMBER

Nor in Sutherlandshire.

* MR. MORTON

said he did not know that his hon. friend knew where Sutherlandshire was, or he would be aware that there were no docks there, because they used wharves and deep-water jetties. There were no docks in Glasgow, and that was one of the places they used to compare with London. There were no docks in New York, Hamburg, Rotterdam, or Bremen. Some hon. Gentlemen objected to his statement as to Bremen the other night, but he believed they found out he was right in his geography. Our own Consul-General had in a quite independent and impartial Report, which the Board of Trade could not get away from, stated that the shipping interest preferred wharves and jetties to docks on all occasions, and that they were much better suited for trade than docks. The big ships of the White Star Line did not go to docks at Southampton, but to wharves. There were places, of course, where it was perhaps absolutely necessary to have docks. The Bristol Channel was one of those places. There the tide rose some forty feet, and it was somewhat difficult, no doubt, to get on without docks; but even in the Bristol Channel they did without docks when they could. Even at Newport, Monmouthshire, it was recognised that it was more economical to have deep-water wharves and jetties, and consequently last year, or the year before last, 500,000 tons of Spanish ore or something of that sort was brought into that port and unloaded at the wharves for the sake of economy. Therefore, whenever they could do without docks, they did so, both on the ground of economy and time-saving. Personally he was afraid a great mistake had been made, and he was not speaking solely as representing himself. He was exceedingly sorry that his hon. friend had said that in this matter he was solely representing himself. That was absolutely untrue. But if he did, he had a right to take notice of everything concerning the whole of the United Kingdom, including the Metropolitan Water Board—the greatest scandal that ever existed, although his hon. friend was not responsible for it, nor was that Board.

* MR. SPEAKER

That has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, to which the hon. Member must confine himself.

* MR. MORTON

said he was sorry to go beyond what was right in the matter, but he could not help—

* MR. SPEAKER

again interrupted the hon. Member to point out that he must confine himself to the Amendment.

* MR. MORTON

, on a point of order, asked whether he could not reply to the statement of the hon. Member that he only represented himself on this subject.

* MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has replied to that as far as it is necessary. Will the hon. Member kindly apply himself to the Amendment before the House?

* MR. MORTON

said he must in that case, take another opportunity of replying to the incorrect statement, but he should like, as it was a personal matter—

* MR. SPEAKER (interrupting)

I have twice asked the hon. Member to address himself to the Amendment before the House, and I must now ask him to discontinue his speech.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 31, to leave out Clause 3."—(Mr. Radford.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. BONAR LAW

said he did not rise for the purpose of entering into the merits of the Amendment, but he would like to point out to the House that this was a question of business, and not of politics. The points which had been raised had been already decided by the House, and 99 per cent. of the arguments just heard were addressed to the House at an earlier stage. He ventured therefore to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the other side not to obstruct a useful Bill at that period of the evening.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he was very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the observation he had just made, and he really thought the House might safely allow the clause to stand part of the Bill. The matter of the terms of purchase would have been discussed in the very small hours of the morning had he not arranged, in order that this, the essential part of the Bill, should be discussed at a time when it could be properly considered, that the position of the clause in the Bill should be altered. At the end of four or five hours discussion the purchase terms, for good or for evil, were confirmed by the House, and by representatives |of all parties by 180 votes to 19. Under those circumstances, although it was not an argument he often used, or which he thought ought to be used often, the expression chose jugee might really be applied to the purchase part of the Bill. It was the kernel of the Bill, and the whole of their labours for many months would be thrown away if they rejected this clause. Therefore he would strongly urge the House to accept the clause in the form in which it was left after the elaborate discussion the other day.

Amendment negatived.

LORD R. CECIL moved to leave out Clause 6. He said he could not allow this clause to remain in the Bill without some words of protest. He still maintained his objection to this new departure from the ordinary law, although the new subsection (4) had to some extent diminished the objection. Such a novel departure, he thought, however, ought to have been made by general legislation and not inserted in a special Bill of this kind. There was another point in connection with the clause which he thought had escaped the attention of the Committee, and as to which he desired to ask the Government whether they thought it was a desirable provision to insert. Under the Bill very considerable powers had been conferred on the very important authority which it constituted, and it was proposed in effect by this clause, unless he had misread it, that none of those powers were to be exercised without the approval of the Board of Trade. The clause said that where the Port Authority proposed to construct, equip, maintain, or manage any works, and the works proposed to be constructed were such that they could not be constructed without statutory authority, or were 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 hereinafter mentioned, a Board of Trade Order must be issued. That seemed to him to limit very greatly the powers of the Port Authority. Without this provision they would be able to construct anything except those works which they could not construct without statutory authority. The Board of Trade under this clause would be able to say that works, however small they might be, could not be constructed except by an Order, and therefore whatever the powers of the Port Authority might be they were suspended until the Board of Trade had issued these Orders. It meant that every work before construction must be submitted to the Board of Trade for their approval to see whether they required an Order or not. He confessed that that seemed to him to be a very undue extension of the powers of the Board of Trade and a very undue diminution of the powers of the Port Authority. The whole of the clause seemed to him to be a very novel departure from the general principles they had proceeded upon with very great success in dealing with harbour authorities, and he hoped that even at the last moment the Government would still see their way not to insist on the clause, which was not part of the general scheme, and might be rejected without any injury to the Bill. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 28, to leave out Clause 6."—(Lord R. Cecil)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. BOWLES

said he regarded the Bill as an extremely valuable and useful, piece of legislation. Holding, as he did that view, he earnestly joined in the appeal which had been made to the Government to consider whether they felt it was necessary to put into the Bill what would really be a blot upon any measure. There was no need to labour the arguments against the clause. They were advanced very fully the other day, and were well-known to the Government. The clause was an afterthought. It was not an essential part of the scheme. Its effect was really to depose in respect of all the useful works which it was the object of the Bill should be carried out both the Port Authority and the Houses of Parliament in favour of the Board of Trade. The clause was unnecessary, mischievous, and a grave departure which might be pushed much further than many Members of the House supposed. In view of the fact that in some respects the clause was bad and dangerous, unless the President of the Board of Trade really set great store by it, or was able to give some reason why it was valuable to him, or likely to be valuable to the Port Authority, he might well consider whether he could not leave it out of the Bill.

MR. CHURCHILL

said that he was somewhat disappointed with the noble Lord, because he thought that when this question was last discussed he was able to make a concession as a result of which there was to all intents and purposes a complete agreement between both sides of the House on the subject. At any rate the moment that concession was announced all the Amendments in the names of those who usually acted with the noble Lord were withdrawn. He was therefore disappointed that this Amendment had been placed by the noble Lord on the Paper at all. Of course, he did not make any suggestion of bad faith. Still he thought that when a very substantial concession had had the effect of allaying recent apprehensions and bringing the House together on a particular proposition, it was very much better to let that bargain stand and let it be the last word.

LORD R. CECIL

There was no bargain of any kind.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he was not making any charge. He was not only disappointed in the noble Lord on the ground of practice, but also in regard to his logic, because, after all, the whole object of the clause was to extend the facilities of the Port Authority. It was to enable the Port Authority to carry out certain minor works and to make certain small purchases of land which would otherwise require statutory authority, without the need of going through all the elaborate and costly business of private Bill procedure, for which it substituted a cheaper, easier, more convenient, and more practicable procedure. The noble Lord hitherto had opposed the clause on the ground that it was conferring altogether extravagant powers to the detriment of Parliament on the Port Authority. The whole advantage of the clause was for the Port Authority, which, in a matter which did not require statutory authority to enable them to act, would act without such authority. As the noble Lord knew, any corporation in the country which went outside its powers brought itself naturally within the jurisdiction of the Courts, and there was no reason, therefore, to apprehend that the Port Authority would endeavour to exceed its rights. The whole object of the clause was to extend the liberties of the Port Authority, with proper safeguards in the interests of the public, yet the noble Lord now came forward, and said is would limit the liberties of the Port Authority. He said that the authority would be restricted by the clause to such works as the Board of Trade were graciously pleased to allow it to construct. The noble Lord would not have ventured to bring that argument forward in any Court for a moment, because he would know perfectly well that the wording of the clause in no way bore the construction he had put upon it. But how did the noble Lord propose to extend the functions of the Port Authority? By the simple process of moving the rejection of the clause introduced for no other purpose than to give the Port Authority greater facilities to buy land and construct works. Whether from the point of view of Parliamentary practice or that of the smooth presentation of logical argument, the noble Lord had on this occasion fallen below his usual high level.

Amendment negatived.

MR. JOYNSON-HICKS (Manchester, N.W.) moved an Amendment giving the inhabitants on the banks of the Thames the right of an appeal to the Local Government Board if the Thames Conservancy failed properly to regulate the flow of water over or through the weirs before or during flood-time. The effect of the Amendment, he explained, was practically to give the Local Government Board an extension of powers under the Bill. The Thames Conservancy were reconstituted under the provisions of the measure and certain appeals were allowed from the Conservators to the Local Government Board if the former failed to exercise the powers conferred on them. He wished to insert the words he had moved to enable an appeal to lie from the Thames Conservancy to the Local Government Board if they did not properly look after the flow of water over the weirs in times of flood. As most Members of the House knew, considerable difficulty had from time to time arisen through floods. In the course of the winter great damage was done to gardens, to property, and to health through floods. Very often that damage was occasioned to poor people who had no remedy. There was a very strong feeling in all quarters that the Thames Conservancy, to put it no higher, did not do all they might in regard to causing a cessation of floods. There would be no difficulty two or three days before the flood came down in gradually opening the weirs, starting at Kew and going higher up the Thames. If that were done, less damage would be caused when the flood came down. He did not wish to cast any aspersions on the Thames Conservancy, but there were so many appeals provided for under the Bill in case the Conservators did not do their duty in certain respects, that he hoped the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in the temporary absence of his right hon. colleague, would see his way to grant this concession which would be very much appreciated by users of the Thames, both for business and for pleasure.

MR. MORRELL seconded the Amendment, which he described as very slight, but very important. He thought when the Government accepted an Amendment which was moved in Committee, that this point would have been covered and an appeal would have been allowed to the Local Government Board in the case of floods. But he was advised that was not the case, and that however much the Thames Conservancy might be in default in regard to occasional floods the inhabitants on the riverside who suffered had no right of appeal to the Local Government Board under the clause as amended. He was sure the evil which had been described by the hon. Gentleman opposite was well known, and it was admitted that year after year enormous damage was done in the Thames Valley by floods. There was great damage to property, great damage to health, and in some cases even loss of life was occasioned. As the hon. Gentleman had shown there was good reason for thinking that these floods were preventable. By the exercise of a little more thought and by a more systematic use of the weirs they might largely be avoided. He would read a sentence or two by a gentleman who had studied this question very much and was in a position to speak on it. This gentleman said that at the present time there was no definite system, no definite regulations, and no step were taken to lower the level of the river before a flood was expected. The matter was left largely to the discretion of the lock-keepers. All that was asked for by the Amendment was that where it could be shown that the Conservators had neglected to do their duty the inhabitants should have a right of appeal to the Local Government Board. They were told, he knew, that the Thames Conservators were not a flood authority. That was perfectly true in some senses, because they could not be called upon to construct expensive works to get rid of floods, but they were the only authority which controlled the weirs and sluices provided to deal with the difficulty. Therefore it was only reasonable if they failed to control them in a proper way and by commonsense methods that there should be some right of appeal to the Local Government Board. The Thames Conservancy were a nominative body and if these people suffered they had no direct remedy for their grievances. The Conservators held their meetings in private and it was very difficult to get information. If there was ground for an appeal to the Local Government Board on any subject, there was surely reason for asking for an appeal on this subject of floods, which might cause so much damage to life and health. He trusted that his hon. friend would see his way to accept this very small, but very important Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 3, at the beginning, to insert the words 'properly to regulate the flow of water over or through the weirs before or during flood-time or."—(Mr. Joynson-Hicks.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY, Devonport)

said he spoke, feelingly, in regard to that Amendment, for no one knew better than he, the serious condition of things in the Thames Valley. There had been complaints that the Thames Conservancy had not taken the necessary precautions to prevent flooding over adjoining lands when the river was high or in flood. The Amendment looked to be one which the Government ought to accept, but it was not really so simple as it appeared to the hon. Member for North-West Manchester. If they were to accept the Amendment it would be practically saying that the Thames Conservancy was a bad authority, while at the same time it would impose on that authority the responsibility for the expenditure of money for which it had not any statutory authority. The suggestion which he was prepared to make was that the consideration of the matter might be left to a public inquiry into the whole of the administration of the upper river. The President of the Board of Trade had not committed himself definitely to that inquiry, but he recognised that it was a very necessary thing. The Board had spent some time considering the matter, and still had it under consideration. They were fully alive to the necessity for conferring on this authority further powers if those powers were found necessary after investigation. Before they could impose on a new Board this duty they should have an inquiry. After that inquiry had been held a simpler way of proceeding could be arranged than that in the Amendment. The Board would prefer to go to work in its own way, and he thought if the matter was left to it something beneficial would be effected.

* MR. MORTON

said he would not have intervened in this matter, though he was quite aware that something ought to be done to regulate the floods, if it had not been for the extraordinary statement which had been made that the Thames Conservancy held its meetings in secret. That was not true. About four years ago the Board at his (Mr. Morton's) request had opened its meetings to the Press, and reports of the proceedings had since been given by The Times and other newspapers, and all the meetings of the Board were open to all the papers.

MR. JOYNSON-HICKS

said he was quite sure, after the statement they had just listened to, that something satisfactory would be done. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment that lower Port rates might be charged in respect of goods to be discharged from a vessel in a dock of the Port Authority, or to be landed on the premises of or warehoused with the Port Authority, by reason only that the goods are to be so discharged, landed, or warehoused. He said the principles of the Bill gave equality of treatment between the docks and the river. The intention in enjoining equality was to veto adverse discrimination, but he did not think that it was necessary to veto beneficial discrete discrimination by the Port Authority if they thought fit in favour of the river. For his own part, as representing the Board of Trade, he would prefer to continue the equality, but a pledge had been given upstairs that when the Provisional Orders fixing the rates were framed, it should, in the river interests, be possible to sue for beneficial discrimination. While he did not commit himself or the Board or Trade to the view of agreeing to that discrimination, it would be carrying out the pledge that was given to the Committee if a question could be raised on the Provisional Order. They had heard a great deal about giving the river interests a fair chance, and that Amendment, in so far as it was obligatory, would be operative in the direction of giving that fair chance. It would enable the river interests to put forward a claim which would afterwards be dealt with on its merits.

Amendment proposed— In page 18, line 22, to leave out from the word 'charge,' to the end of line 27, and insert the words 'lower port rates in respect of goods to be discharged from a vessel in a dock of the Port Authority, or to be landed on the premises of or warehoused with the Port Authority, by reason only that the goods are to be so discharged, landed, or warehoused."—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. RENWICK moved to insert the words "dues on goods imported coastwise or exported coastwise shall in no case exceed one-fourth of the rate or dues charged on goods exported to or imported from places beyond the seas." The question was of very great importance. He had put it forward on the Committee stage and had quite expected that the President of the Board of Trade would have recognised its importance by proposing an Amendment on this stage to deal with it. The object of the Amendment was to provide that where coastwise goods were imported or exported they should not be charged more than one-quarter of the dues on goods carried over sea. It was customary to have a provision of that sort; there was nothing in the Bill dealing with the point. The same amount of dues might be charged under the Bill on goods coastwise as on goods oversea. As he read the Bill there could be no other intepretation of it. The effect of the Bill was that the rate for goods should not exceed one-thousandth part of the value whether coastwise or oversea.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he was making an Amendment later which would make the point clear. At present there was nothing in the Bill which made it necessary for any dues to be raised on goods coastwise. The hon. Gentleman, by his Amendment, would make it necessary to raise one-quarter of the dues imposed by the Bill on oversea goods. He submitted that the best point to raise the matter would be when the House was considering the Provisional Order fixing the rate.

* MR. RENWICK

said that Clause 13 distinctly stated that, subject to the provision in this section, all goods might be liable to such dues as the Port Authoity might fix. There were no exceptions provided by the Bill. There was power to charge the same dues on goods coastwise as on goods oversea. He knew exactly how it worked. On articles like tea or Manchester goods which averaged about £100 a ton in value the one-thousandth part would be 2s. a ton, whether the goods were carried coastwise or overseas. That value would have to be paid. On the railways value did not enter into the question. The same rate was charged for a ton of wool worth £100 as for a ton of cement worth 25s. Under the provisions of the Bill the railways would get all the trade in regard to wool. It was most important for the merchants throughout the country, for it stood to reason that if they were charged 2s. dues on goods carried by steamers and no dues on goods carried by the railway they would send the goods by rail. He could give instances of goods which could be sent by rail hundreds of miles for 1s. a ton. How in a case like that could merchants afford to pay dues of 2s. a ton? If the right hon. Gentleman was accurate in stating that they did not intend to charge dues on goods coastwise he had had an opportunity since the Committee stage of putting an Amendment down to that effect. It was unjust and quite contrary to the usage in other ports to charge goods coastwise at the same rate as goods overseas. He would be quite ready to consider any proposal the right hon. Gentleman liked to make to meet the point he had raised.

Amendment proposed— In page 18, line 34, after the word 'only,' to insert the words 'dues on goods imported coastwise or exported coastwise shall in no case exceed one-fourth of the rate or dues charged on goods exported to or imported from places beyond the seas.'"—(Mr. Renwick.)

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

* SIR C. J. CORY

said he trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would accept the Amendment. He thought there was no doubt that by that clause it would be possible to charge the same dues on goods coastwise as on goods oversea. The Amendment was very reasonable. Apparently by Clause 13, subsection (b), if goods came in from foreign ports, and they were transferred to a coasting ship, they would have to pay dues, but if they went on in the ship that brought them into London apparently they would be exempt from dues. He saw no reason for differentiating in this way, and hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would accept the Amendment.

MR. CHURCHILL

reminded the House that the hon. Member had said he would be very glad to have any contribution he could make. His contribution was very briefly this, that the best time for the House to settle the Port rates on different classes of goods was when the Provisional Order fixing the maximum Port rates came before the House. He thought there would be very great disadvantages in giving out their intentions as to particular classes of goods at the present stage. He personally agreed with all that had been said about the importance of the coastwise trade, and it was a point to be borne in mind in fixing the maximum. Port rates by the Provisional Order. Where they had the Provisional Order before them they would be able to take a logical and scientific view of what exemptions should be made in the public interest and what rebates? should or should not be allowed. He submitted that that was the proper time for discussion, and the most useful method of arriving at a conclusion. Meanwhile, the clause as it now stood imposed no complusion upon the Port Authority to put any rates whatever upon the coastwise trade, and it would have entire discretion to levy no rates at all or a small fraction of the rates which were levied on the foreign goods imported or exported overseas as the authority might think right and proper. Therefore, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would agree with him that the best time for meeting what was a very practical and real point would be when the Provisional Order came before the House.

MR. BONAR LAW

said he could not support the Amendment, but he thought the object his hon. friend wanted to secure was simply to make sure that so far as the influence of the Board of Trade extended they would see that lower dues were placed on coastwise goods than on foreign. The Board of Trade had always shown in connection with the discussions in Committee that that was their intention, and he thought that if the President of the Board of Trade would say that when the Provisional Order was made he would have that point clearly in view that would satisfy his hon. friend.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he had said there was no obligation to place any due on goods that were carried coastwise.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked whether the President of the Board of Trade would give them any assurance that when the time came for the Provisional Order they would have an opportunity of discussing it. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to point to any part of the proceedings during the present year when the House had had a Provisional Order before it, and had been given a full opportunity of discussing it. Everybody who watched the proceedings of the House knew that a debate on a Provisional Order was a very rare occurrence, and under the gag and the guillotine it became more and more impossible and a mere sham and pretence. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment, which raised a matter of real practical importance, to a division, so that they might be able to record their protest against a system which had never been carried out, and which the Government knew perfectly well had never been carried out.

MR. CHURCHILL

pointed out that in connection with the Provisional Order the Board of Trade would be in a judicial capacity and therefore he was not in a position to give any undertaking. As to the time when the Provisional Order could be discussed, it went before a Select Committee with counsel present and with every facility for adequate and proper discussion. To suggest that it was a question of a promise made and not carried out was most unjustified.

MR. JOYNSON-HICKS

said a point of principle was involved. It was as to whether there was to be laid down by Parliament definite discrimination between the charges the Port Authority could make between coastwise trade and overseas trade. He suggested that the Board of Trade should settle it. Whether it was one-fourth, or one-fifth, or some other fraction, there should be a definite embodiment in the Bill that the Port Authority should make a discrimination between coastwise trade—the English trade—and overseas trade. Otherwise, it would be perfectly possible for the Port Authority to charge such rates to the coastwise trade as to throw the whole of the trade back into the hands of the railway companies, and really prevent the traders having a very useful source of competition with railway rates. The President of the Board of Trade had suggested there was nothing in the provisions of the Bill to prevent discrimination or to prevent the Port Authority charging a lower rate for coastwise goods than for overseas goods. But in one place in the Bill it was distinctly laid down that the Port rates charged by the Port Authority should at all times be charged equally to all persons in respect of the same descriptions of goods. He admitted that there were added the words "in like circumstances." What did "like circumstances" mean? Did it only mean that the goods must come in the same ship from the same port? If not then those words made it perfectly clear that the same rates must be charged for carrying the same goods. He submitted that the words "in like circumstances" were not sufficient to give the Port Authority the power to discriminate as between coastwise trade and overseas trade. It was important that Parliament should establish the principle rather than leave it to the Board of Trade, and he hoped his hon. friend would go to a division unless the President of the Board of Trade was able to make some suggestion that would obviate that very real difficulty.

MR. HOLT (Northumberland, Hexham)

hoped the Government would stand to the position they had taken up in the matter. He did not want to enter into any argument and he quite admitted that coastwise dues were nearly always less than overseas dues, but he would remind the House that it was a very dangerous thing for them to lay that down in a hard and fast form which could not be got over. London had a very large distributing trade, not only as other ports in England, had to coastwise ports, but a very large distributing trade to the near Continental ports. If it was stipulated in an Act of Parliament that they were pledged to charge goods going to a near Continental port four times as much as goods going to Liverpool or Aberdeen, then they would find they had done a great deal of harm to their distributing trade to the near Channel ports. It would be a great mistake if anything were put into the Bill that would make it impossible for the Port Authority to charge possibly equal rates and very low rates on the same class of goods going all over the world. It would handicap them very seriously indeed in trying to establish a good schedule of rates. If they would follow the advice of the President of the Board of Trade and let the matter remain open until the Provisional Order came on they would then have before them the great advantage of the views of certain gentlemen who were appointed by the Port Authority and who could give the results of a very much more detailed examination of the matter of drawing up a Schedule than could any Member of that House.

SIR H. KEARLEY

said he could supplement the very cogent remarks of the hon. Member who had last spoken by putting a case—the example of Liverpool. Liverpool had the exact powers that would be given to the Port Authority in this Bill. What did Liverpool do? It exercised its powers as it chose, but it made no charges on coastwise goods at all. The mere fact of inserting in the Bill that powers should reside in the Port Authority to make charges on coastwise goods did not necessarily involve that the Port Authority should make an excessive charge. They would finally assume a judicial capacity with regard to the Schedule drawn up by the Port Authority. What would happen? The Port Authority would hold an inquiry, and that would give traders an opportunity of going there and making good their claim to exemption. The hon. Member for Newcastle would have an opportunity through his firm, or through people interested in his trade, of going to the Port Authority and laying down that a charge of a certain amount would be excessive and injurious to the trade. That inquiry would be held, and he had not the slightest doubt that everybody who was really and reasonably interested in having small dues imposed upon their goods would have the fullest possible opportunity of making good their case. The Port Authority was not going to set out with a view to ruining trade, but were going to see that trade was not driven away from the Port. After the investigations they would go to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order, and they again would have it in their power to continue these inquiries, and must continue to do so. If a view were put forward that a certain due was onerous the Board of Trade would take action, and if the Board of Trade were finally satisfied with the Schedule, it would then come to the House for confirmation, when anybody, on objection, could ensure that a Select Committee would be set up still further to consider the matter. With all those safeguards, and in view of the circumstances he had mentioned in connection with Liverpool and all ports where they had the power to levy dues on coastwise goods, he thought the House could leave the matter where it stood. It would be wrong to commit themselves seeing they had to stand in a judicial capacity.

MR. BOWLES

asked if they were to understand that the Government was in favour of the object of the Amendment. That object was a perfectly simple one. It was to insure that coastwise trade should not be dealt with in the matter of dues at so high a rate as the ordinary oversea trade. He understood that the Government agreed. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought it very important and it had always been his view and that of the Board of Trade that such differentiation should be made. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said he could not say anything, but gave the House clearly to understand that they need not be under any apprehension that the object of his hon. friend would not be carried out. But was that so? The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, had said it was so, but had added that they could not give any assurance about it because it would be very improper for them to prejudge the matter, as they would have to act in a judicial capacity. That was all very well, but the right hon. Gentleman was acting now, not in the judicial spirit, but in the legislative capacity, and he could not get rid of his responsibility in the matter of legislation. When an important point of genuine substance was raised, and the Government had nothing to say except that they agreed with it, and that the House need be under no misapprehension as the object they had in view would be carried out, it was not sufficient. He submitted that so far from this not being the proper place, it was the only place in which to do the thing effectively. There was no other chance, if the House desired to deal with this matter, of being sure of obtaining absolute security except by agreeing to an Amendment of this kind. He could not, however, support the Amend-

ment in the form in which it was proposed by the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this matter must be considered on a Provisional Order. He (Mr. Bowles) was an inexperienced Member of the House, but he was informed—and certainly his small experience bore out the information—that the opportunities of the House upon a Provisional Order were perfectly delusive. He was informed that it was impossible to amend the terms of a Provisional Order. The right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying that in all these circumstances it was not altogether fair to the House to oppose an Amendment of substance on two grounds neither of which appeared to hold water. If the Government and the House at that moment meant to ensure that coastwise trade should be treated differentially, and upon a lower rate than other trade, then that was the only opportunity the House would have of ensuring that object, and he thought they ought to be grateful to the mover of the Amendment for having reminded them of it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 11; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 440.)

Nicholls, George	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.	Verney, F. W.
Norman, Sir Henry	Seddon, J.	White,J.Dundas(Dumbart'nsh.
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Seely, Colonel	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Pollard, Dr.	Soares, Ernest J.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Spicer, Sir Albert	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Radford, G. H.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Ridsdale, E. A.	Straus, E. A. (Abingdon)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
Robinson, S.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips

MR. LOUGH moved to omit subsection (3) of Clause 13, with the object of ascertaining whether it really carried out the intention of the Government. The subsection stated that if in each of two successive years the aggregate amount received from port rates on goods from and to ports beyond the seas, exceeded one-thousandth part of the aggregate value of the goods imported into and exported from the Port of London in those years, it should be the duty of the Port Authority to take the necessary steps to prevent the continuance of the excess, including, if necessary, an application to Parliament to provide them with further means of meeting their financial obligations. It was a complicated subsection, and he moved its omission to ascertain from the President of the Board of Trade whether it carried out his promise to the House. The provision was not of the simple character that London Members generally, he believed, thought it would be. It seemed to suggest that it would be very difficult to impose the restriction.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, line 10, to leave out subsection (3) of Clause13."—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the second word 'from' in page 19, line 12, stand part of the Bill."

MR. CHURCHILL

said the House would remember that this limit was inserted to meet a general desire. If in each of two successive years the total amount of Port rates on foreign trade exceeded a thousandth part of the total value of the goods, one of two things would happen: either the Port Authority must reduce the excess, or it must ask Parliament to say what was to be done in the circumstances. Parliament would then concentrate on the subject all that attention which had marked this discussion, and he trusted it would be guided on such an occasion by the illumination and skill of his right hon. friend.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said the speech to which they had just listened from the right hon. Gentleman was delivered, he presumed, in order that the House should be led to think that when the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington was of interest to the trade of the Port it would come before Parliament and would be adequately discussed. Unless he was mistaken the provisions of the Bill and the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade went to show that the only way in which Parliament would have a voice in the matter hereafter was when it came before the House in the form of a Provisional Order. The right hon. Gentleman did not indicate how Parliament would have a right of interference and decision in the matter.

MR. CHURCHILL

By Bill.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked if the House was to understand that the Board of Trade or the Government Department concerned would have to introduce a Bill dealing with this point. It was a question of the highest importance, and it would certainly conduce to the shortening of their proceedings if the President of the Board of Trade could tell the House exactly in what form this matter would come before Parliament, so that it could be discussed and Parliament could have proper control over it.

SIR H. KEARLEY

When application is made to Parliament it would be by Bill.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

What sort of Bill?

SIR H. KEARLEY

The ordinary kind of Bill.

MR. RENWICK

wished the President of the Board of Trade to tell the House how it was intended to arrive at the thousandth part of the value of these goods. He could see how it could be done in regard to goods from oversea, because they would be entered at the Customs House and the value would be declared. But no value was declared in the case of goods sent by rail or coastwise in a steamer. Therefore, in those cases he could not imagine what method would be followed.

MR. CHURCHILL

said it was arranged when they last discussed this matter that the value would be calculated on the value of the foreign trade entering the Port of London in one year. That did not include land or coastwise trade coming in. It simply took the Customs returns and calculated the one-thousandth part.

MR. RENWICK

remarked that nothing the right hon. Gentleman had said enlightened him as to how he was going to arrive at the value of these particular goods. No declaration was made of the value of the goods and no entry was made in the Customs House. How was it to be done? Some means would have to be adopted of settling the dues to be put on these goods. It could not be done under the present arrangements in the Bill.

MR. BOWLES

thought that as the clause stood it would include not only goods from and to places beyond the seas, but also goods going coastwise.

SIR H. KEARLEY

said there was an Amendment on the Paper to deal with that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he would now move an Amendment which would meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Norwood. When the Bill was going through the Committee stage the form which this safeguard was to take was agreed upon generally by the Committee, but in the rapid despatch of business—not too rapid he might say—the words were put in the wrong place. In the course of reading out the Amendment from the Chair the words "from and to ports beyond the seas" were inserted after the word "goods," in line 12, whereas they ought to have gone in after the word "London" in line 14. The effect was curious. The intention was that the thousandth part should apply to oversea trade only, and it was only practicable that it should do, because there was no record of the coast trade. But if they left the clause as it now stood, the consequence of the words being inserted in the wrong place would be that it would be open to the Port Authority to raise to a thousandth part of the foreign trade only, and then to levy dues to any amount on the coastwise trade. That was the exact opposite of what was intended. As the clause would read when amended the words "from and to parts beyond the seas" would be inserted after the word "London" instead of where they now stood after the word "goods."

Amendment proposed— In page 19, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'from and to parts beyond the seas.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. RENWICK

thought the admission made by the right hon. Gentleman was a very extraordinary one. His own opinion was that, notwithstanding the Amendment, they were in as great muddle as ever as to how they were to arrive at any value of coastwise goods, and levy any dues upon them in accordance with this clause. He made one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, that, if he did wish to differentiate between goods conveyed coastwise and goods brought from or sent to parts beyond the seas, he should hand in an Amendment which would make clear to all those connected with the coasting trade the precise way in which he proposed they should be treated. He did not think the House quite recognised the importance of the coasting trade.

* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL, Lanarkshire, Mid)

Order, order. That question, I understood, was decided, and the present Amendment is simply to transpose words which somehow had been put in the wrong place.

MR. RENWICK

said the principle might have been settled, but he still maintained that the clause represented the matter in a most uncertain way. It was not at all clear and he repeated his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to insert an Amendment to make it clear.

* SIR C. J. CORY

observed that, as the right hon. Gentleman truly said, the effect of the clause before the Amendment was proposed to limit the dues on foreign goods and leave the amount unlimited in regard to coastwise goods. The purpose of the clause now seemed to him to be that the same dues would be payable on all goods whether coastwise or foreign-wise.

MR. CHURCHILL

was sure he could explain to his hon. friend that the position was otherwise. It had been agreed that the moment the Port Authority should have to secure new powers in Parliament or reduce their expenditure should be the moment when the dues on goods should be one-thousandth part of the oversea trade of the Port of London in one year.

* SIR C. J. CORY

pointed out that it was said they must have a Provisional Order as to what the dues on coastwise goods would be. He asked why that was necessary, seeing that in subsection (b) of Clause 13 they laid down the terms of a Provisional Order on certain goods, and why could the Government not lay down that the terms in the Provisional Order should provide that the dues on coastwise goods should not exceed one-fourth of the dues charged on oversea goods?

MR. CHURCHILL

was sorry to interrupt his hon. friend, but he really was discussing a point that was not raised by the clause under discussion. This clause did not deal with the rates on goods either coastwise or foreign-borne, from the point of view of the imposition of such rates. It only provided means for the imposition of a top limit, and in order to find a convenient measure the rough and ready method had been adopted of calculating one-thousandth part of the oversea trade. The clause merely used the aggregate value of a particular class of trade coming into the Port as a convenient method of restricting the discretion of the Port Authority.

* SIR C. J. CORY

The aggregate value of all goods—coastwise and foreign?

MR. CHURCHILL

No, no.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed— In page 19, line 14, after the word "London' to insert the words 'from and to other parts beyond the seas. In page 19, line 15, to leave out the words 'those years' and to insert the words 'the year.'"—(Mr. Churchill.) In page 19, line 35, after the word 'owner' to insert the words 'or consignee.'"—(Sir H. Kearley.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment providing that a Provisional Order "may authorise the making of special arrangements respecting the time and method of payment of Port rates on goods by any persons, who at frequent intervals, become liable to pay those rates, whether on their own account or on account of any other persons." He said this Amendment was designed to carry out a promise given to the hon. Member for Hexham on the Committee stage. It was desired to give the Port Authority power to enter into certain arrangements with firms who had a good deal of business to transact under which running accounts could be kept for the year to be adjusted at the end of the year. The Amendment only gave power to the Port Authority which was already in the hands of all other Port authorities in the Kingdom.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, line 37, at end, to insert the words 'and such Provisional Order may authorise the making of special arrangements respecting the time and method of payment of Port rates on goods by any persons who at frequent intervals become liable to pay those rates, whether on their own account or on account of any other persons.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL moved a drafting Amendment referring to the method of collection of Port rates. The Bill said that the method would be regulated by provisions in the Bill itself, but as a matter of fact, it would be regulated by a Provisional Order under the Bill.

Amendment proposed— In page 20, line 19, after the word 'by' to insert the word 'under.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment, making it clear that the power to levy dues, and exemptions in regard to certain docks of the East Indian Company still continued.

Amendment proposed— In page 20, line 27, to leave out the words 'apply not only,' and to insert the words 'continue to apply.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 20, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words 'of that company transferred to the Port Authority by this Act but also,' and insert the words 'and shall also apply.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment "providing that nothing in the section shall be construed extending any limit on the immunities conferred by Section 13 in regard to any harbours or docks." It was a purely drafting Amendment which they had been asked to insert in order to make it clear that certain exemptions should not be taken away.

MR. BOWLES

said they had had no notice of the Amendment which was not on the Paper. Evidently it involved matters of considerable perplexity and difficulty and could hardly be described as a drafting Amendment.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said the President of the Board of Trade talked about rights and exemptions as though they were small matters, but rights and exemptions dealing with the India Docks surely involved a large sum of money. Would the right hon. Gentleman say how large a sum was concerned and what property was involved? Again and again they had found that what had been described as small affairs had turned out to be very large, and the House must be very careful what it was doing otherwise an amending Bill might be necessary to set the matter right.

Amendment agreed to.

* MR. MORTON

said that he had four Amendments on the Paper which he had been requested to move by the Corporation of London and the Thames Conservancy, and he might say in passing that all the clauses and Amendments that he had moved had been prepared by one or both of those bodies and moved by him (Mr. Morton) at their request. The four Amendments had one object, namely, to insist that the interest of 3 and 4 per cent. on the Port Stock should be paid and paid only out of the net earnings of the docks. That was an ordinary business proposal which Parliament generally insisted on in every enterprise that got Parliamentary sanction. They ought not to pay dividends out of capital, and they ought not to pay the interest on Port Stock out of a tax to be put on the food of the people and it was wrong and wicked to tax the business of the jetties, quays and wharves, which had been built up by the enterprise and efforts of the traders and others, to make up the loss incurred by the purchase of the docks at an unfair price. Those who said that the docks could be made to pay ought in common honesty to at once agree to these Amendments, but was there anyone who thought the docks would pay, he (Mr. Morton) thought not, and he fully believed that there must be a big deficit on the working of the docks. But at this late hour of the night, when even the Government had no chance of getting the closure, and when all young people should be going home to bed, he did not propose to move his Amendment, perhaps knowing that he had but little chance of carrying them.

MR. CHURCHILL moved the first of two Amendments, the object of which, he said, was to provide that the regulations of the Board of Trade regarding stock should be by an Order having statutory effect.

Amendments proposed— In page 23, line 41, after the word 'by,' to insert the words 'an Order of.' In page 24, line 2, after the second word 'time,' to insert the words 'by order.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment to Clause 24 to give to the Board of Trade the duty of discriminating so far as possible between the river and the dock interests. It was, he said, an Amendment he had promised.

Amendment proposed— In page 27, line 7, to insert the words 'In prescribing the form of accounts the Board of Trade shall have regard to the desirability of showing separately so far as practicable such items of receipt and expenditure on capital and revenue accounts as are wholly or mainly attributable to the dock undertakings of the Port authority.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment to Clause 26, dealing with charitable subscriptions. Under the Bill, he said, the Port Authority was allowed to subscribe to certain charitable objects to which the old dock companies used to subscribe. The words, "with the consent of the Board of Trade" were inserted by a printer's error. It would be putting an unnecessary labour on the Board of Trade to require their consent in every particular case in which a constribution, for instance, was made to a hospital, to which dock accident cases might be taken.

Amendment proposed— In page 30, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words 'with the consent of the Board of Trade."—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed— In page 34, line 21, after the word 'secretary,' to insert the words 'or assistant secretary.' In page 34, line 25, after the word 'secretary,' to insert the words 'or assistant secretary.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved an Amendment to extend the right to parties who were represented on the Port Authority of being heard against any Order of the Board of Trade. He thought it was probable that the word "Order" had been left out of the clause through inadvertence.

MR. RENWICK

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 34, line 37, after the word 'Bill,' to insert the word 'Order.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'order' be there inserted."

MR. CHURCHILL

said the Amendment was not necessary, and would make bad drafting. There would be regulations in the case of Orders.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked whether it was to be understood from what had fallen from the President of the Board of Trade that it lay in the discretion of the Board of Trade as to whether any parties should be heard against any Order.

MR. JOYNSON-HICKS

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking that he would provide in the regulations for the right of parties to be heard.

MR. CHURCHILL

said the ordinary procedure would be fully adhered to.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 30, line 12, after the second word 'of,' to insert the words 'or under the control of.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment to Clause 52 to provide that the financial periods of the dock companies should run on all fours. The Amendment, he said, was rendered necessary by the fact that the financial year of the Surrey Commercial Dock Company differed by three months from that of other dock companies.

Amendment proposed— In page 42, line 26, after the word 'eight,' to insert the words 'or, in the case of the Surrey Commercial Dock Company, for the last nine months of that year.'"—(Mr. Chucrchill.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed— In page 42, line 28, after the word 'year,' to insert the words 'or those nine months.' In page 42, line 28, after the word 'year's,' to insert the words 'or nine months.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendments agreed to.

*MR. RADFORD moved the omission of Clause 58, which provided for compensation to directors of the dock companies. The proposal, he said, was quite unusual, and almost unprecedented. What happened nowadays when a company was taken over by a public authority was that the compensation payable to the company was ascertained, and the directors who lost their posts brought their claims against the company, who discharged the claims. He knew no reason why that course, which was the normal and proper one, should not be pursued in this case. It could not be said that a fund of some £23,000,000 was inadequate to pay the directors the sum of £127,600, or something more than £3,500 apiece, and the only precedent that could be suggested for the course proposed was the case of the Metropolitan Water Board. But that was really not a precedent but a danger signal, and when it was proposed in that case it was opposed, he believed, by every Liberal Member in the House. He would be very sorry if that grew into a precedent. It had been suggested that the right hon. Gentleman might have proposed the clause because he was unwilling to swell the number of unemployed without providing remuneration for them, but if that were his motive, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman it was quite unnecessary, because he had looked into the occupations of the thirty-six directors concerned, and he found that nearly all of them, in addition to their own business, were directors of numerous other companies. Among them they held seventy-three directorships in other companies. He submitted that the clause was quite unnecessary, wasteful and profligate, and contrary to public policy. When directors were negotiating for the transfer of an undertaking to a public body they should look to the shareholders for any remuneration. He made no personal charge against the gentlemen concerned in this case, but he did say it was undesirable that their interest should conflict with their duty. He felt strongly about this matter, and if there were two Members in the House of a like mind with himself he should go to a division.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 45, line, 23, to leave out Clause 58."—(Mr. Radford.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. CHURCHILL

said the only issue involved was that between purchase by arbitration and purchase by agreement. The principle of purchase by agreement had been accepted with almost unanimity by the House. Of course, there were advantages from purchase by agreement and also advantages from purchase by arbitration. If they were to purchase by agreement this was an integral and essential part of the agreement, and he had no power to vary it without breaking the foundation on which the whole of this complicated bargain rested. The proposal was an essential part of the arrangement, and he had found it, after severe examination from many points of view, to be important in the public interests and generally acceptable.

MR. JOYNSON-HICKS

was glad to have an expression on the part of the Government that anyone who held an office—and he supposed it would apply to a licence also—and who had an expectation of renewal, or, as in this particular case, an expectation of re-election, was entitled to compensation when that office was taken away from him. Under those circumstances he had the utmost pleasure in supporting the Government against the Amendment.

MR. H. C. LEA (St. Pancras, E.)

said he had very much pleasure in supporting the Amendment. It seemed to him that the duty of these directors ended with getting the best possible terms for their shareholders in accordance with the various articles of association, and it was a monstrous thing on the part of the Government to hand over £120,000 odd to be divided among these men merely to bribe them into concluding a bargain, and a bargain for which the London Members thought too high a price was being paid.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he must enter ft protest against the use of the word "bribe" applied to an honourable condition. As having any part in the Bill he could not submit to that being said without making a protest.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments proposed— In page 48, line 24, after the word 'company,' to insert the words 'such of.' In page 48, line 28, after the word 'three,' to insert the words 'as determine the rights of those officers in the event of the undertaking of the company being purchased in pursuance of any statutory power (except in the case of the two first-mentioned agreements the provisions of Clause 6 of those agreements.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 48, line 29, after the word 'section,' to insert the words 'both as to the conditions of employment (if the Port Authority elect to employ them) and compensation, and as respects the said provisions of those agreements the Port Authority shall, except as aforesaid, be subject to the exclusion of the company, to all the duties, liabilities, and obligations of the company under those agreements in like manner as if they were the company.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

*MR. MORTON moved an addition to the first Schedule, to provide that all the meetings of the Port Authority should be open to the public, unless otherwise determined by the majority of the members present and voting on the question. The hon. Member said he was unable the other evening to induce the President of the Board of Trade to accept the proposal, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was now in a better state of mind, and would agree to it. He thought it was a very desirable proposal. There was nothing in the Motion which would prevent the Port Authority closing their doors if they thought proper. If it was desirable to close the doors they could at once do so. They had a Standing Order of that sort in the Common Council, and it worked exceedingly well. The same practice obtained in that House. Under the old procedure any Member could say: "I spy strangers," and the doors closed at once, but that had been altered. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give way on the Amendment. He must have understood, from a hon. Member (Mr. Morrell) who had raised the question in another way, the necessity of the doors, under normal conditions, being open, at least to the Press and to the public, as far as there was room.

MR. CLAUDE HAY seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 53, line 6, at end, to insert the words 'All the meetings of the Port Authority shall be open to the public unless otherwise determined by the majority of the members present and voting on that question.'"—(Mr. Morton.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

said the Port Authority was primarily a business body interested in a vast commercial concern and entrusted by Parliament with a grave and heavy responsibility. He did not think it would be to the advantage of the authority in any way if the proposal were accepted. His hon. friend must himself be aware of the disadvantages that sometimes followed on the sort of thing suggested in the Amendment.

* MR. MORTON

No, never.

MR. CHURCHILL

said that sometimes there was a very shocking tendency on the part of Members to make longer speeches than they would otherwise do.

* MR. MORTON

Our experience both at the Court of Common Council and the Thames Conservancy is the reverse of that.

MR. CHURCHILL

said that sometimes Members are found to make speeches not so much with a view to urging their point as with a view to attracting attention, perhaps not always of a very desirable character, out of doors. On reflection he did not feel it was desirable to alter the view he originally took of the proposal.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHURCHILL submitted Amendments with a view to making 1st June the uniform day for the periodical retirement of elected and appointed members of the Port Authority.

Amendments proposed— In page 54, line 26, to leave out the word 'June,' and to insert the word 'April.' In page 54, line 33, to leave out the word 'June,' and to insert the word 'April.' In page 54, line 33, to leave out the word 'twelve,' and to insert the word 'thirteen.' In page 54, line 34, to leave out the word 'June,' and to insert the word 'April.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 58, line 30, to leave out the word 'prescribed,' and to insert the words 'set forth in a Provisional Order to be made by the Board of Trade.'"—[Mr. Walter Guinnesss.)

MR. CHURCHILL accepted the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL

, in moving that the Bill be now read a third time, said he did not wish to take up the time of the House at such a late hour, but he would like to express, on behalf of the Board of Trade and of the Government, the substantial obligation they felt themselves under to all parties for their co-operation.

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

* MR. MORTON

said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Third Reading that night. There had been a good many Amendments moved, and some carried, and they ought to have them printed and discuss the Third Reading at a reasonable hour of the day. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had the power to press the Third Reading, but it would be wrong to use that power in that way. It would absolutely prevent all of them who wished to do so having an opportunity of speaking against the Bill on the Third Reading in a way that they had not had up to the present moment. The Bill might be better described as a Bill to unload the Dock shares on to the public for the benefit of Trusts companies, speculators, and adventurers. All business men except those interested in the Dock shares were opposed to the purchase of the Docks. It was ten times worse than the purchase of the water companies undertakings.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

also appealed to the Government not to press the Third Reading that night. The right hon. Gentleman would, he was sure, be the first to acknowledge that throughout the discussion very important alterations had been made in the Bill. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would bear him out when he said that a discussion often led to the Government giving an undertaking to meet any point hat might arise by entrusting a Minister in another place with Amendments that would carry out pledges given by the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman would defer the Third Reading until Friday, he might rest assured that it would not take more than a few minutes, and yet might serve a useful purpose. The desire that there should be this further opportunity for discussion in accordance with the practice of the House was widely held.

MR. JOYNSON-HICKS

was sorry that he could not join in the appeal of his hon. friend. They had had a very pleasant evening, and on behalf of the few Members who had taken part in the discussion he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy with which he had met them. He also congratulated him on the result.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time and passed.