PORT OF LONDON (RECOMMITTED) BILL.

HC Deb 12 November 1908 vol 196 cc644-712

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.

Postponed proceeding on the Question, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill"—resumed.

* MR. MORTON

said the hon. Member for Gloucester had told them that no one who had investigated the problem could come to any other conclusion than that it would be impossible to create a new port authority which should not be a dock authority or owner of the docks. He was not proposing to criticise the Committee or their conduct, but the Committee upstairs and their Chairman decided distinctly, in the first place, that the principle of purchase should not be considered at all, and they afterwards decided that the question of the amount of purchase would not be gone into either. They said that they were not arbitrators and they left it entirely to the Board of Trade. They wanted an independent inquiry, and he did not know whether it was too late to get it now. They ought to have had a complete, full, and independent inquiry before some Committee of the House of Commons, and until they got that, and had an opportunity of arguing the matter they would not be satisfied. He wanted to say, in conclusion, that the Board of Trade proposed to give five or six millions more for the docks than they were considered to be worth to the public previous to the Report of the Royal Commission. Some of the shares that they were now going to give 75 for, were quoted then at 19, and previous to that they were quoted at a still lower figure, and probably if they had been put on the market it would have been found that they were not worth anything at all. So far as the public was concerned, it was proposed to give a much larger price for the docks than would have been given previous to that unfortunate Report which had been made so much use of to increase the price of the stock of these companies. He hoped they would get Mr. Cruttwell's Report which he had asked for. Unless the Board of Trade produced it they would not be satisfied that the Board of Trade had got a good case, and they would be entitled to say that their own experts had condemned them. His hon. friend the Member for one of the Hackney divisions, who was a Member of the Committee, had suggested that there was only one corporation which was against the purchase of the docks. All he knew was that the Corporation of the City of London petitioned against purchase of the docks as being wrong and improper, and he could mention other corporations and companies which petitioned in the same sense. It was an unfortunate fact that some people who ought to know better at the present moment had the mad idea of buying everything with other people's money, and paying for it in paper, forgetting that that paper must be honoured by the people of London. When they were told that no money was going to pass, that was only deceiving the public. He had shown that they did not want the docks at all. He had shown that all over the world the development now was, and in the future would be, deep-water jetties and quays. In all up-to-date ports in this and other countries they insisted on these. He found a clause in the Report of the British Consul-General at Antwerp which was important. That official said that it was an undoubted fact that as regarded the saving of time and facility of manœuvring large vessels the verdict was greatly in favour of river quays. That proved that in the one port where they had got docks the traders were all in favour of quays. He would not take up the time of the Committee by reading it, but he just mentioned that he had a long list of the names of between thirty and forty individuals and firms and owners of ships, including Sir Thomas Sutherland, of the P. and O. Line, Sir Alfred Jones, the Allan Line, etc., who were all in favour, so far as the Thames was concerned of jetties and deep-water wharves or quays. He contended that if they were going to spend £23,000,000 on these useless docks, they would have no money left to develop the port as it ought to be developed by means of deep-water jetties and wharves. On the contrary, it would be the duty of the new authority to discourage the competition so far as they could of the wharves and jetties for the purpose of making as good a balance-sheet as they could for the docks. That was bound to happen, and they would find that the new authority would oppose the construction of quays in the interest of the docks. Another point which he wished to make was that the Board of Trade, with their insane idea of the purchase of these docks, used their influence to oppose the construction of deep-water jetties at Long Reach, and the company only got their scheme through by reducing it to a very large extent. The Board of Trade said that the syndicate or company which was going to build the jetties ought to go to Parliament, but the Board of Trade knew that if the syndicate went to Parliament an immense expense would have been incurred to meet the opposition of the dock companies. Fortunately, the Thames Conservancy over-ruled that, and the syndicate had at last got leave to go on constructing deep-water jetties; and near Gravesend, and lower down the river at Thames Haven and other places, every accommodation necessary for the Port of London would be provided in the cheapest and best possible manner, and in a way which would not make the Port of London a dear port. He should like to impress on the present Liberal Government, which had boasted so much of its free trade principles, and which had been put into power on account of them, that they should not support those trusts, companies and speculators which would tax the food of the people of the country for their own selfish ends.

SIR H. KEARLEY

I thought my hon. friend was acquainted with the statement made by the Joint Committee that every investigation made for them should be treated as confidential. I put it to my hon. friend, what sort of position he would feel himself in if he were an owner of property which was going to be investigated, with a view to possible purchase, and found that a report of the investigation which was to be treated as confidential was afterwards disclosed? The dock companies themselves had not the Reports. They were got for the information of the Board of Trade, and it would be a gross breach of trust on the part of the Government if they were to reveal their contents.

* MR. MORTON

said that all he could say in answer to the hon. Gentleman was that the Board of Trade had no business to make a secret bargain with these dock companies at all; and as they were dealing with public money they ought to have this Report. They thought they came to a right conclusion as to why it was that the Report was kept back.

MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)

pointed out that Government departments like the Board of Trade ought not to have any secret documents in a matter of this kind, and he ventured to submit that the House had a right to have all the information which they had collected presented to them when they were asked to sanction a purchase involving a sum of something over twenty-two millions sterling. They had had nothing from the Secretary to the Board of Trade that justified the House in accepting the statement that these statements were denied to the House because the Reports were confidential. Dealing with the larger question involved in the third clause of the Bill, he could not help thinking that they were asked to consent to this arrangement in the spirit of conceding a triumph to the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than that of approving of a good bargain. He thought those who had taken part in the debate must have recognised that the Government seemed to realise that they were asking the House to approve of an improvident bargain. The President of the Board of Trade assured the House that the margin over market value could not be more than one or two millions sterling. He ventured to submit that the margin of the large sum which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned was a quite safe sum, and that from his point of view there was not a less margin than that. He quite agreed with all that had been said about the docks they were now asked to purchase being antiquated and not abreast of the times, and that the new authority in taking over the business of the most important port in the world, was doing so on terms which would permanently tie their hands, that they were not provided under this Bill with the money necessary to bring the port up to date, and that in consequence the great port of London would be permanently handicapped. He had no desire to trespass upon the time of the Committee, and he did not wish to support any resolution which would result in the destruction of the Bill. At the same time, he thought he was entitled as a private Member to say that he considered the bargain which they were asked to ratify was an improvident one, and one not best calculated to advance the future prosperity of the Port of London, and that it was a bargain which the House was entitled to consider at greater length, and with greater information from the Government.

SIR WILLIAM BULL (Hammersmith)

said he should like to say a few words as a Member of the Joint Committee. He had listened with great interest to the criticisms which had been made upon the Bill, but if the Committee would forgive him for saying so, the Members who had taken part in the debate very largely had started exactly where the Committee started their labours. All these figures and arguments that were now adduced were present in the minds of the Committee, and they being business men, they naturally occurred to their minds. Not a single critic of the bargain had ever been able to suggest anything to put in its place.

MR. MORTON

We say, do not purchase at all.

* SIR WILLIAM BULL

said the only alternative was that the Bill should be dropped entirely, the purchase abandoned, and the whole matter abandoned for ten or fifteen years. Nobody pretended that that state of things could go on. They made a brave attempt on their side of the House to settle the difficulty, but they did not succeed. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was more successful. He went to the docks companies and said in effect—"We have a large majority behind us. I believe we shall be able to carry a Dock Bill if you like to take the terms I offer. You will have a chance of getting your money back and it will be a fair exchange." The dock companies thought the matter over very carefully and terms were arranged. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took, no doubt, a great deal of responsibility on himself in suggesting this novel way, but on the other hand the alternative was arbitration. Look at what they had had in regard to arbitration, not only in the case of the Water Board, but in a similar dock, viz., that of Singapore. The people there expected to get something like £11,000,000, and they got £22,000,000. It was astounding to both vendors and purchasers. A few months ago the tenant was going out of a large house in a West End Square, and wanted £400 for the fixtures. The new tenant said he would only give £200, but the arbitrator gave £605. There were other arguments against arbitration, not only the uncertainty, but the certainty, for it was a curious thing that wherever the public bought public works of this kind they had to pay through the nose. Then there would probably have been a tremendous delay—three or four years—before the arbitration was finished, and in addition there was the expense. Therefore, he thought the Government were very wise in driving as hard a bargain as they could, and buying these docks outright. Hon. Members told them that they need not have troubled about the docks. How could any responsible Government have allowed that to take place? They would literally have starved the docks to death. They came to the conclusion that it was absolutely impossible to leave the docks out when forming a Port authority. They all came to the conclusion that it was impossible to come to any other decision than that the docks would have to be purchased. And suppose-they were not, there would be the question immediately of buying another dock. After all the Port authority would have the best docks in the river. Hon. Members talked about these docks being effete. The London Docks and the St. Catherine's I Docks were all in full use, and the short sea traders were using them. It was true that there were only 13½ feet of water over the Thames Tunnel at the time of low tide, but the vessels got up and the docks were built for these ships of a certain size, while the larger docks were down the river, and they had Tilbury for the largest ships of all. An hon. Member had said they would be able to buy land down the river and make docks, but he did not consider the tremendous cost and the tremendous time it would take. Then he had talked about building docks suitable for the largest ships. That was exactly what the London Docks had been doing, but the ships got larger and larger. They had to have larger and deeper docks. He came to the Committee with his mind entirely against the Government, but he listened very carefully and he came to the conclusion that the docks had to be purchased, and that the scheme of the Government was the best one under the circumstances if they were to deal with the docks in the present decade. If the matter went on for ten or fifteen years some other solution would have to come about, but under present circumstances he thought the Government had done well.

MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster)

said it was just because they did not want to go on for ten or fifteen years that many persons there approved of the Government taking this course. The docks had always been the whole impediment, and they had been standing in the way of the solution or endeavour to reform too long. Who was there objected to it? So far as he knew, the shipowners were not objecting. He did not understand why the London County Council was alleging the slightest objection to what was going to be done. He did not understand that the Corporation of London had passed any vote against it.

* MR. MORTON

May I read the Resolution?

* THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not think these interruptions are at all necessary.

* MR. MORTON

We had better get the facts now than argue it upon false premises. I can read the Resolution.

MR. BARNARD

said that, at any rate, he had not heard either of the Members of the City rise in their places and object. The Chamber of Commerce

had not said a word against it, and the chairman had spoken in favour of it. As to arbitration, the question there was one of maintainable income. It was necessary to ascertain what was the income that was earned, and how much outlay was necessary to maintain it, to protect it, and to render it possible for it to continue to be earned. Several speakers had alluded to the Water Board, of which he had the privilege of being chairman. They purchased their undertaking through arbitration at a cost of £230,000, the expense of that arbitration, and for four years the Water Board that had paid under that arbitration £47,000,000, or something like it, for the properties they secured, had traded without a deficiency upon the decision arrived at. The accountant who was their adviser in the matter of the Water Board, who looked the whole case up for them, was the accountant who had been advising the Government on this question, and he thought under these circumstances, as the Water Board had been able to trade in the way it had for the last four years, that was sufficient to enable any impartial man to form the opinion that the Government had taken a wise and statesmanlike step. There had seldom been so great an undertaking as the Water Board and these docks, and he heartily applauded the proposals of the Government. He thought it was the best, and he believed it would be the cheapest course, and the sooner the work was got on with the better.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 19. (Division List No. 376.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Beck, A. Cecil	Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Bell, Richard	Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire
Agnew, George William	Bellairs, Carlyon	Bryce, J. Annan
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Bertram, Julius	Bull, Sir William James
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Balcarres, Lord	Bowerman, C. W.	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Brace, William	Byles, William Pollard
Barker, Sir John	Branch, James	Cameron, Robert
Barnard, E. B.	Brigg, John	Canston, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight
Barnes, G. N.	Bright, J. A.	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)
Beauchamp, E.	Brodie, H. C.	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Brooke, Stopford	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Clough, William	Laidlaw, Robert	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Clynes, J. R.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Lehmann, R. C.	Seaverns, J. H.
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Seely, Colonel
Cowan, W. H.	Lewis, John Herbert	Shackleton, David James
Cox, Harold	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Crooks, William	Lyell, Charles Henry	Sherwell, Arthur James
Crosfield, A. H.	Lynch, H. B.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Curran, Peter Francis	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Duckworth, Sir James	Maclean, Donald	Soares, Ernest J.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Spicer, Sir Albert
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall	M'Crae, Sir George	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Esslemont, George Birnie	M'Micking, Major G.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Mallet, Charles E.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Fell, Arthur	Markham, Arthur Basil	Summerbell, T.
Fenwick, Charles	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Sutherland, J. E.
Findlay, Alexander	Marnham, F. J.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Massie, J.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Gill, A. H.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Molteno, Percy Alport	Tillett, Louis John
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Morse, L. L.	Verney, F. W.
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n
Gulland, John W.	Myer, Horatio	Wardle, George J.
Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton	Napier, T. B.	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Nicholls, George	Waterlow, D. S.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Nolan, Joseph	Watt, Henry A.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Nuttall, Harry	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.
Haworth, Arthur A.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Whitehead, Rowland
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Parker, James (Halifax)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Partington, Oswald	Wiles, Thomas
Higham, John Sharp	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Wilkie, Alexander
Hills, J. W.	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Holt, Richard Durning	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Hooper, A. G.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Horniman, Emslie John	Ridsdale, E. A.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Houston, Robert Paterson	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Hudson, Walter	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Robinson, S.
Kearley, Sir Hudson E.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Kekewich, Sir George	Roe, Sir Thomas
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Rogers, F. E. Newman
NOES.
Baldwin, Stanley	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Stanier, Beville
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	O'Grady, J.	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Radford, G. H.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Gardner, Ernest	Renwick, George
Jenkins, J.	Rowlands, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Steadman and Mr. Morton.
Jowett, F. W.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Snowden, P.

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

Clause 12:

MR. RENWICK

said he rose for the purpose of moving Amendments the object of which was to exclude goods carried coastwise from the operation of the Bill. There were many and weighty reasons why coastwise goods should be excluded, and he would endeavour as concisely as possible to put those views before the Committee. In the first place, it was somewhat incongruous to describe, as it was described in the Bill, "the export and import of coastwise carried goods." The Customs did not recognise the export and import of goods coastwise. The meaning of export was the sending of goods to other countries, and the meaning of import was the bringing of goods from other countries to this. It had not been the custom of the Customs hitherto to tax goods carried coastwise, yet that was what this clause of the Bill meant to do. It meant that goods carried coastwise were to be taxed. The clause did not say what amount of tax was to be paid on those goods. That was left in a vague way to a Provisional Order to be made hereafter. That was a very serious thing for these goods, because the Committee ought to recognise that goods carried coastwise meant that they were carried in competition with the railways. Low rates were accepted for goods so carried. He had in his own experience known goods carried nearly 700 miles coastwise for about 1s. a ton. If goods were carried that distance at those rates there was no room for any tax upon them. He might be told that it was very easy to collect the tax from the owner of the goods, but it was an absolute impossibility to do so in this case, because owing to the competition of the railways an exceptionally low rate was charged, and the goods were sent in very small parcels, upwards of 1,000 different parcels being sometimes carried in one ship. He did not know any possible machinery by which the dues on those goods could be collected from their owners. If goods were imported from across the sea they had to be reported to the Custom House, and they had to be passed. The manifest had to be handed to the Custom House and the Customs took good care that the dues were, collected. When a coastwise ship came into port the Customs did not know what was in that ship. No one knew what was in it but the captain. That showed the difficulty of collecting dues on these goods. If a tax was placed upon goods carried coastwise, what did it mean? It meant that in these times of the combination of railway companies they were going to put them under a disadvantage and play into the hands of the railway companies. If ever there was a time to keep our great waterways open, now was the time, and no tax should be placed upon goods carried by sea which was not put upon goods carried by rail. If goods were sent by rail from Manchester no tax was placed upon them, but if they were sent by water, dues were to be charged upon them. He could understand that the railway companies would be pleased to see these dues placed on goods carried coastwise, but he quite conceived, if the representatives of the great ports were alive to the importance of the matter, that they would support the Amendment he had moved. What the owners of coastwise steamers feared was that, owing to the development of the port—not because of the development of the river, but of the docks—a large amount of money would be wanted, and that the goods they carried would be taxed to find a large proportion of that revenue. It might be news to hon. Members to know that in many cases these steamers did not discharge in the river at all but in the docks. They paid no dock dues, but by arrangement they paid a lump sum for the use of the wharves and warehouses in those docks. They paid no dues and there was no machinery for for the collection of taxes upon the goods they carried. He contended that, if the Committee passed this clause, they would be doing a great injustice to the ship-owner who carried his goods coastwise. Owing to the competition of the railway companies, the rates were cut down to the lowest possible point. The coasting ships supplied an alternative route to traders largely to their benefit, yet the proposal of the Bill was to put a tax upon those goods. Supposing the tax was 1s. a ton and 1s. a ton was the rate at which the steamers carried the goods, they were going to put a tax of 100 per cent. on those goods. That was an outrageous proposal. If they were not going to put 1s. a ton tax on the goods, what were they going to propose? Would they propose a limit, because unless a limit were imposed, it would be impossible to contract? There was nothing whatever in the Bill as to what the rate was to be, and he contended that no port could develop its trade if they were going to put even a 20 per cent. tax on the goods carried. He hoped the Committee would hestitate before they allowed any tax to be placed upon goods carried coastwise; but, if they decided that it was necessary to tax the goods, then they ought to have a definite proposal as to what the maximum amount of that tax would be.

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 3, to leave out the words 'or coastwise.'"—(Mr. Renwick.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

I hope when we get to a later stage of this Bill very shortly to give my hon. friend some reassurance as to the limit of the dues to be placed upon coastwise goods. I agree it is a necessary part of our case that if the dues, as is intended, are to be insignificant, they must be extended over the whole trade. I think it would be a great pity for us to pick and choose and exempt particular categories of trade altogether from the operation of the exceedingly moderate and almost insignificant dues which will ultimately be levied. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think that I wish to dispose of the important matter he has raised in a cursory fashion. As a matter of fact, the whole of this subject will be open to be discussed further upon the Provisional Order. I trust, therefore, we may leave the question till the time when the Provisional Order which will be solely concerned with these matters is discussed, and that for the present my hon. friend will be content with the assurance that before the debate proceeds much further I will move an Amendment imposing some top limit upon dues which may be placed upon coastwise and other goods so as to remove that question altogether from the area of anxiety and discussion.

SIR C. CORY (Cornwall, St. Ives)

said he was requested by his constituents, most of the traders of whom received their goods coastwise, to support the Amendment. They felt that it was a great hardship that coast steamers should pay dues on the goods they carried in competetition with railway companies. It might ruin many of the coast lines and also make the cost of the carriage on goods dearer. It was some consolation to hear that the President of the Board of Trade would impose a "top" limit, but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way not to levy the dues at all. Otherwise, he certainly thought he ought to levy them on goods carried by railway as well.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 7, after the word 'such,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 10, after the first word 'the' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

MR. HOLT (Northumberland, Hexham) moved to leave out paragraph (a), in order to call the attention of the Committee and the Board of Trade to its phrasing. It seemed to him to contain a rather cast-iron description. If they read the wording of the clause they would find that the Port authority were absolutely precluded from charging different port rates in respect of the use of different parts of their premises. It seemed to him rather unreasonable that they should be prevented from charging a different scale of rates for different docks. It might be an advantage to coax trade in an unpopular dock by giving a small concession in rates, and he thought if the Board of Trade gave the Port authority a certain amount of liberty to differentiate in the rates between the different docks it would be an advantage. He would like some assurance on that point, and if the right hon. Gentleman was able to give him an assurance he would be pleased to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 15, to leave out Paragraph (a)."—(Mr. Holt.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'different' in line 16, stand part of the clause."

MR. CHURCHILL

The object of this proviso is to prevent the Port authority from imposing adverse discrimination between, we will say, the trade in the docks and the trade in the river with regard to the levying of dues on goods. I agree with the hon. Gentleman it is not necessary to insist in every respect upon that arbitrary rule. Although no adverse discrimination could be permitted you might give the Port authority power, if they like, to coax a certain part of the trade without prejudice to other ports, by a beneficial adjustment. My hon. friend only put his Amendment on the Paper to-day, and I must consider a little the way in which this can best be given effect to on Report. The wharfingers would be anxious with regard to any alterations of this character, but, if it can be done without prejudice to other interests, I should be glad to incorporate his suggestion in the Bill and give the Port authority an opportunity of giving some advantage which would perhaps involve some slight departure from strict uniformity.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 16, after the word 'different' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 31, after the word 'maximum,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 37, after the word 'maximum,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

*MR. DICKINSON (St. Pancras, N.) moved to add at the end of sub-section (2) the following words: "Provided that if at any time it is necessary to raise by means of such rates a larger sum than two hundred thousand pounds in any year, the Port authority shall not be entitled to raise such larger sum except in such manner and from such sources as Parliament shall determine, and it shall be the duty of the Port authority to apply to Parliament for the necessary powers accordingly." He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington in the action he had taken in regard to the rejection of Clause 3, but the right hon. Gentleman had referred to some observations which he made on the Second Reading in which he commented somewhat adversely on the terms of the arrangement that had been made by the Government. Nothing that had since transpired had affected his opinion at all that the financial prospects of the new Port authority were not so brilliant as was represented by the Government. He based his observations, not upon the average of the six years, but upon the last year, and he thought under the peculiar circumstances of this transaction the figures relating to more recent years were really a better guide than those which extended over the six years. When they dealt with the matter from that point of view it was evident that it was very doubtful indeed whether the Port authority, when they came into their work, and especially when they had begun to borrow money for the purpose, would be by any means in so comfortable a position as had been suggested, especially by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Taking these figures it was perfectly clear, inasmuch as the last year showed profits of something like £27,000 below the average on which this agreement had been based, that it was more likely that there would be a loss upon the transaction than a gain. But especially was that so when they regarded particular circumstances of the year 1907. In that year the trade of the country had gone up to almost extraordinary proportions, and the import and export trade in London was far larger than it had ever been before; £333,000,000 worth of trade came in and went out of the port as against £314,000,000 in the previous year, and the question was whether that improvement would continue in the next year. He was interested but rather astonished to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that he expected the gains of the dock companies for the present year would turn out as satisfactory as they were expected and would show profits which would be up to the mark of the figures on which this agreement was based. The Board of Trade figures of the last ten months tended to show quite a contrary result. There had been a falling off of over 10 per cent. of the trade of the country, and if this were to happen with regard to the docks and if that were to be reflected in the profits of the dock companies it would show a very considerable falling off below the amount which it was expected would accrue. He only mentioned these figures because they justified the apprehension which was very largely felt outside, and felt by many who represented London constituencies, that after all there might be a very considerable demand at no very distant period upon the new resources from which the Port authority would have to draw its funds. Under this section these resources would be the new dues upon goods. The Port authority would continue to receive the income which had been received by the Thames Conservancy, the dock companies, and others, and in addition would have a certain new revenue which they would raise in the last resort from the dues imposed under this section. He thought this apprehension was not only justifiable under the circumstances, but it was one against which they ought to be very careful to guard themselves. Many of them had felt all through the controversy that it was a very risky experiment to put any dues upon goods in the Port of London at all. So far was that the case that when the former London County Council was dealing with the matter it volunteered not only to give its guarantee so as to ensure a very large saving in the cost of raising new capital, but also offered to contribute as a free gift £2,000,000 for the deepening of the river. They were anxious to avoid the risk of putting on the trade of London anything in the shape of dues upon goods, because no one could foresee what the effect would be. It might be very serious. Trade could be very easily driven away from the port, and there were many trades in London of which they were informed that a very slight increase in the cost of raw material and other things might bring about a removal of the trade. London had to experience very keen competition indeed from two sources. There was, first of all, the competition of other English ports, and, secondly, the competition from foreign ports. With regard to other English ports it had been very noticeable that during the last twenty years the trade of ports which supplied London, such as Southampton, Harwich and Dover, had gone up at a very much larger rate than the trade in London itself. In twenty years the trade of London had increased by 23 per cent. In Harwich, which was every day growing more important for the supply of material and food and other things for London, it had gone up by 70 per cent., and in Southampton it had gone up no less than 100 per cent. There was no doubt that the sea-borne traffic in London did incur very keen competition by the rail-borne traffic from Southampton, Harwich and Dover. The goods brought from these towns would not pay any of these new dues upon goods leviable in the Port of London, and, therefore, it was quite within the bounds of possibility that the already dangerous competition London had to meet from these ports would be accentuated by the imposition of this new taxation. Then the competition from foreign ports was also very keen. That was due chiefly to the fact that foreign ports had been subsidised by their Governments or their municipalities so that they were able to provide accommodation without putting an undue burden upon the traders who used them. That was the reason why the former London County Council had been willing to bring the financial resources of the rates of London to help the port in the same way as Antwerp was helped by the Municipality and by the State. It might be that the increased amount of money which would be required to be raised from dues on goods was so great that it would be better for the people of London to put the balance upon the rates of London rather than to increase the dues on goods and thereby possibly endanger the trade. It was far more important to Londoners that the trade of the port should be maintained, even at the cost of contributing either in the shape of rates or taxes or in some other way. This was the reason why he submitted the Amendment. It proposed that there should be a limit placed upon the Amendment which could be raised in the shape of dues on goods, and if that limit was exceeded the Amendment proposed that Parliament should be again asked by the port authority to consider, not merely whether they would increase the maximum rates of charge on goods, but whether they could not find other sources from which the money could be obtained for carrying on the port. The Bill provided that the Port authority, with the consent of the Board of Trade, should at any time be able to approach Parliament by means of Provisional Order for the purpose of altering its rates, but that, in his opinion, was not exactly what they wanted. What they wanted was that Parliament should reconsider the whole question if ever the necessities of the case arose. He had suggested that the limit should be £200,000 a year. That figure was arrived at by reason of the evidence given by the representatives of the Board of Trade to the effect that if this agreement was carried out, and if the new Port authority had to borrow £4,200,000, it might require to raise from dues on goods a sum not exceeding £180,000. Under the Amendment as proposed there would be an obligation on the Port authority to obtain new powers if the limit was exceeded, and Parliament would have the option of deciding where the money should come from. He felt certain that if this was agreed to it would set at rest a great deal of very legitimate and justifiable apprehension in the trading community in London, and he had some hope from what the President said that this Amendment, or one in some slightly altered form, might be acceptable to the Government.

Amendment proposed— In page 17, line 3, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that if at any time it is necessary to raise by means of such rates a larger sum than two hundred thousand pounds in any year, the port authority shall not be entitled to raise such larger sum except in such manner and from such sources as Parliament shall determine, and it shall be the duty of the port authority to apply to Parliament for the necessary powers accordingly.'"—(Mr. Dickinson.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

There is no risk whatever, in my opinion, of the dues imposed on goods in pursuance of this Act creating any appreciable burden upon the trade and prosperity of the Port of London. At the same time, I think the Amenment of my hon. friend raises a point of substance, and I am anxious on behalf of the Government to give it all possible consideration. I recognise that outside this House some apprehension may have been created in the minds of consumers and traders by the mere repetition of the phrase "dues on goods" from the feeling that they might rise to an almost unlimited extent, and there is no sort of accurate appreciation of the insignificant scale of dues contemplated by the Bill. The Committee will be surprised to learn that the maximum dues contemplated to carry out the machinery of the Port of London Bill are not 10 per cent.—they are not 1 per cent.—they are at the very outside less than one-tenth per cent. of the value of the whole volume of trade of the Port. As the matter of fact, the percentage is less than one farthing in the £ or 2s. in the £100 to meet the requirements of the whole Port of London and to raise the amount necessary to carry out this Bill. Therefore I do not think any serious apprehension need be felt. It is quite true that the dues need not necessarily be imposed over the whole area. There would be power to vary and modify dues so as to make them adapted to each class of trade, and that is a discretion which, in my opinion, does not make it worse, but better, because it is to their interest to cater for trade and custom and modify their dues within the exact limits necessary to secure the prosperity of the port upon which their own success absolutely depends. I do not like the actual wording of the Amendment of my hon. friend, because I think £200,000 is a limit which might unduly impair the security for the great financial operation which is the centrepiece of the Bill. We must remember that the financial operation is a bargain settled by agreement, and the security for the execution of it is in part the power of levying dues on goods. The Board of Trade take power to screw up the dues on goods to the level when the financial obligations of the bargain shall have been satisfactorily discharged. Therefore I think £200,000 would be too narrow a limit, although I should very much doubt whether it would ever be reached in practice. I have considered how I could allay the apprehension of my hon. friend and others, and I think I can insert into the Bill a provision that the dues on goods should never exceed a thousandth part by value of the trade of the Port of London without recourse being had to Parliament. It is a very simple calculation, and if my hon. friend will withdraw his Amendment I shall be glad to move to add at the same point where he proposes to insert his Amendment, the following words—"If in each of two successive years the aggregate amount received from port rates on goods exceeds one-thousandth part of the aggregate value of the goods imported into and exported from the Port of London in that year, it shall be the duty of the Port authority to take the necessary steps to prevent a continuance of the excess, including, if necessary, an application to Parliament to provide them with further means to meet their financial obligations." In choosing the expression "one-thousandth part" I have endeavoured to select a phrase which will most easily and most popularly allay apprehension to the outside public who are not able to study the details of this Bill.

* MR. SEAVERNS (Lambeth, Brixton)

said he was glad to hear the statement of the President of the Board of Trade on this important point. He regretted somewhat the exact form in which the official Amendment had been put down, because it would appear that excessive expenditure beyond the proposed limit might continue for two years before any steps were taken to remedy the misfortune. Nevertheless, he believed that in proposing this Amendment to the Committee the hon. Gentleman had dealt with what had been hitherto probably the most serious blot upon the whole Bill. The object of the Bill was to provide a certain amount of money for the improvement of the Port of London, to improve the channel and the dock accommodation for the benefit of all the interests which were congregated in that port. The principle of the Bill was to secure from the payers of dues on goods almost the entire amount which was necessary for these improvements. The shipowners contributed a small portion of the necessary additional revenue by a method of levelling up tonnage dues in one dock to the level of the dues which exist now in the other two docks, and the owners of barges contributed an insignificant sum in the form of the registration fees on barges. But apart from these sources of revenue the entire revenue was derived from the payers of dues. This was a very serious matter in the event of any possible mismanagement or incompetence on the part of the Port authority, and in the event of the financial arrangement between the Government and the dock companies proving less advantageous than the Government expected. He was bound to say that he thought it rather characteristic of the House that this matter, the interest of the traders of the Port of London, was the very last interest which received the consideration of the House. The interests of the shipowners had been as they always were in all matters of legislation most carefully and sympathetically considered; the interests of the wharfingers were considered as well as those of the riverside manufacturers. Even the owners of dock stock and the future owners of port stock had receiven the most generous and sympathetic consideration from the Government, but it was quite in accordance with the usual practice that the very last interest which came before the House for generous consideration was that of the traders of the Port of London. He was surprised that the Committee upon the Bill did not appear to recognise the necessity of doing something to safeguard that great interest, and he was indebted to the hon. Member for St. Pancras for having placed this Amendment on the Paper. He was glad that the Government had accepted the principle of the Amendment.

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

said the President of the Board of Trade proposed that the maximum limit should be one-thousandth part of the aggregate trade of the port. That would work out at about an annual sum of £300,000.

MR. CHURCHILL

Rather more.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said he understood that the Board of Trade had estimated that the utmost amount which would be required to be raised in the form of these dues was £180,000. If that was their estimate, why should they fix a maximum limit so very considerably over the amount required. It seemed to him that this maximum was much too high.

MR. CHURCHILL

I have to keep in mind two things. I want to give an assurance to the general traders and consumers of the Metropolis of the very minute, not to say microscopic, character of the dues to be levied on goods. I also want to give an adequate security that the interest on the port stock will be properly defrayed, and I have to choose some point which leaves a considerable margin far more than we actually need, or which we are likely to need, so as not to impair the security of the port stock. I have tried to find the most convenient phrase which gives the maximum of assurance in one direction with a minimum sense of security in the other direction.

MR. BONAR LAW

said this was a point of importance, and he had always felt that some provision of this kind was absolutely necessary. The Bill was originally framed on the assumption that it would be self-supporting, and the most that would be required was a sum of £180,000. One reason why it was extremely essential that there should be some limit on the amount of revenue to be raised upon goods was that it was a kind of revenue that might easily be transferred from the dock interest to the river interest. The possible effect of any deficiency in the revenue as compared with the estimate might be that the Port authority in its anxiety to make London a cheap port for ships as regarded docks would insist upon heavy dues on goods, thus putting the burden on the trade of London. He agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that it would hardly do to put a fixed limit of £200,000 into the Bill, because a certain amount of elasticity was essential in the interest of the port. Once they had made the bargain, whether it was right or wrong, about the port stock, it was in the interests of the port that it should be regarded as a good security, and they could not achieve that unless they had some margin to fall back upon. The advantage of the proposal which the Government had made was that it gave a security that the dues were not going to be of an excessive amount without an appeal to Parliament. He had not had any correspondence on the subject since this Amendment was proposed, and he did not know whether it would satisfy the traders as a whole; but speaking for himself, and judging the proposal on its merits, he thought it was as far as the Government ought to go, and he trusted it would be accepted. There must be some rough and ready method which he had in his mind as to the way in which it should be arrived at. There ought to be some method by which people would be able to understand how it was arrived at. All that he suggested was that it would be an advantage to have in the Bill itself a clear understanding as to the method by which this calculation was to be made.

MR. HOLT

pointed out that the possibility of raising this revenue was the real security on which the Port authority could borrow, and the larger the power they had of raising revenue the cheaper would be the rate at which they could borrow.

MR. LOUGH

asked whether the one-thousandth part applied to each item of goods as it came along, or would there be any power reserved to levy more than one-thousandth in any class of goods.

MR. CHURCHILL

There would be greater security if we could say that a one-thousandth part is to be uniform over the whole area; but I cannot say that, because I think it would be in the interest of the different classes of goods that they should be treated from the point of view of helping them as much as possible, and of putting the burdens where they can best be borne. I think there ought to be that power of adjustment. If I took the one-thousandth part as the maximum, I could not degrade it and make it only an average. If it were to be an average, the minimum I think necessary would be infringed upon. Therefore, I cannot guarantee that in any particular case it will not be more than one-thousandth. But there is the tremendous assurance that the security should not be more than one-thousandth part and that the Port authority will put it in the most ungalling manner on the innumerable classes of goods that come into the port.

MR. RENWICK

I wish to get an answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dulwich. Does this one thousandth part include coastwise goods?

MR. CHURCHILL

No.

MR. DICKINSON

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 17, line 2, at the end, to insert the words 'If in each of two successive years the aggregate amount received from the rates on goods exceeds one-thousandth part of the aggregate value of the goods imported into, and exported from, the Port of London in that year, it will be the duty of the Port authority to take the necessary steps to prevent the continuation of the excess, including, if necessary, an application to Parliament to provide any further means necessary to meet its financial obligations.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

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

MR. LOUGH

said it was no use to traders in one class of goods to tell them that traders in another class were treated with fairness and liberality, and if his right hon. friend was going to claim that the Port Authority had the right to levy as much as it pleased on one particular class of goods and let others go scot free, he was laying down a proposition that created great difficulty. He could not see why the word "average" should not, be used, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say that on no class of goods should a certain margin be exceeded. As it was the Port authority might—though, of course, they would not—levy the whole sum upon a few classes of goods.

MR. MYER

With reference to the last part of the Amendment, does the right hon. Gentleman mean that to form a guarantee to the holders of the stock?

MR. CHURCHILL

explained that the point fixed being reached, the Port authority would reduce the charges or would have to come to Parliament to ask for funds from some other source, and their whole affairs would come under the scrutiny of Parliament. Confidence must be placed in the authority that it would do the best in the interest of the undertaking.

MR. B. S. STRAUS (Tower Hamlets, Mile End)

asked whether the Amendment now proposed would interfere with the trans-shipment trade. He was sure that the President of the Board of Trade would not in the least desire to interfere with that trade.

MR. CHURCHILL

My hon. friend will see that it could not possibly interfere with it.

MR. STRAUS

said the Amendment as worded would not exclude goods which only came into the port for trans-shipment. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that the subsection would not include such goods.

MR. CHURCHILL

said that goods brought in for trans-shipment were already exempted by the machinery of the Bill, and that exemption would not be affected by the Amendment.

MR. BONAR LAW

thought it must be clearly stated in the subsection whether coastwise goods were to be excluded or not.

MR. CHURCHILL

agreed to amend his Amendment by adding after "goods" the words "to and from parts beyond the sea."

Amendment to proposed Amendment proposed— In line 3, after the word 'goods,' to insert the words 'to and from parts beyond the sea.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments proposed— In page 16, line 7, after the word 'such,' to insert the word 'port.' In page 16, line 10, after the first word 'the,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendments agreed to.

AN HON. MEMBER

said he was asked by his constituents to move to omit subsection (4).

Amendment proposed— In page 17, subsection 4 to be omitted.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to 'them' in line 42, stand part of the clause.

SIR H. KEARLEY

The object of the subsection is to prevent evasions of the payment of port dues which may be practised under certain conditions. For example, it is quite possible for a cargo of coal to come to the Medway and get exemption from the Port of London dues; and that the ship should then turn round in the Medway and come up to London without paying the dues.

AN HON. MEMBER

said that the ports down the river were outside the London area and ought to be exempted from the payment of port dues. Why should not coasting vessels going to the Medway take goods to any other ports without paying dues? It seemed to him very desirable to encourage the coasting trade, because it gave employment to seamen who were a very valuable asset to the Navy.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments proposed— In page 17, line 5, after the second word 'of,' to insert the word 'port.' In page 17, line 11, after the word 'any,' to insert the word 'port.' In page 17, line 42, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. HOLT

said that the formidable subsection which stood on the Paper in his name and which he now proposed was copied verbatim, except for the necessary alteration, from the clause in the Mersey Dock Act, under which the dues on coastwise cargoes were collected. The object was to enable the Port authority to enter into an arrangement with the owners or masters of coasting vessels to compound for their dues instead of collecting them on each separate ship as she came into port. The whole coasting trade of Liverpool was carried on under this clause. The Member for Newcastle had spoken of the difficulties in the collection of dues on coasting vessels; and he agreed with him, unless some power was given to the Port authority to enter into an arrangement such as was suggested in the Amendment. He understood that the Board of Trade had not had yet time to consider the Amendment; and if he had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that it would be considered, he would be very glad to withdraw it in the meantime. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 18, line 5, at the end, to add the words '(5) The Port authority on the one hand and any owner or master of or agent for any vessel in the coastwise or short sea trade to or from the Port of London, or any person or person interested in goods, merchandise, or cargo carried by any such vessel on the other hand, may from time to time enter into and carry into effect, vary, and rescind agreements or arrangements with respect to the mode of calculation or payment, or the time of payment, of rates payable to the port authority in respect of all or any goods, merchanise, articles, or things forming the cargo, or part of the cargo, of any such vessel. Provided always, that in case the Port authority shall at any time make any such agreement the owner or master of or agent for any vessel engaged in like manner, or any person interested in goods, merchanise, or cargo carried by any such vessel, shall be entitled, the circumstances being the same, to require the Port Authority to enter into a like agreement or arrangement with him or them upon the same terms, to the intent that no agreement shall be made by the port authority under this provision partially or in favour of any particular person, vessel, or cargo.'"—(Mr. Holt.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

said that this was an Amendment which looked formidable, but was either rather innocent or very wicked. It proposed to give power to traders to compound for their dues by paying in advance to the Port Authority a certain sum, and then at the end of the year, if the account was overdrawn by so much, the difference was made good, or if it was underdrawn, the difference was carried to the credit of the trader. He believed that a discretionary power which would enable the Port Authority to enter into such an arrangement might be very useful. But, if the compounding was to be made by traders on a large scale, and no repayment of the balance was to be made at the end of the year, it might be made the ground of an undue preferential advantage being given, which was a great cause of anxiety in any port, but still more in the port of London, where the river and the docks were to some extent antagonistic. He understood from his hon. friend that what he wished to do was to take an innocent and not a wicked course. His own impression was that the Port Authority could already under the Bill do what was desired, but if they could not, some words could be adopted later so as to give effect to the very useful and innocent procedure suggested.

MR. HOLT

said that after that declaration by the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. LOUGH

wished to osk the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the trans-shipment of goods imported into the Port of London for trans-shipment and not charged dues. He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman how much he meant by "trans-shipment." He was sure that the Secretary to the Board of Trade knew what a mighty trade the Port of London did on a very narrow basis in transshipment—in importing goods from foreign parts, and especially from British Colonies, which were almost immediately exported to other parts of the world. If those goods had to pay both import dues when they came in and export dues when they went out, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman, however small he made the charge, he would strike a great blow at this trade of trans-shipment and transfer it to some cheaper port. In the Amendment he aimed at goods being exempted from dues if trans-shipped within three months after their arrival at the Port of London. But he was not wedded to three months; one month would do, or any definition of trans shipment which would cover distribution from the Port of London, especially of Colonial goods, and not interfere with the great trade done under that head. Although merchants and brokers might be interested to a large extent in this business, yet there was a greater British interest involved in it; he meant the great shipping interest. Take the case of tea importation. The tea came almost entirely from India and Ceylon. A very large amount of it was brought to London in order to be sent on to the United States, Canada, and Russia. He recognised that in subsection (b) of the clause an endeavour had been made on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to avoid the difficulties on this question of dues on goods which arose from the definition of trans-shipment being too narrow. That was the only question he had to raise, and he would be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could assure them that some liberal interpretation would be put upon the word "trans-shipment" so that this great and important industry would not be injured.

SIR H. KEARLEY

There are certain cases about which there are no difficulties; they are purely trans-shipment cases. Goods are brought to a port on an optional bill of lading which gives the owner of them the opportunity of making up his mind before the ship arrives whether he will trans-ship them on arrival to Newfoundland or elsewhere where there is a particular merchant who happens to want the goods. That is what we mean by a trans-shipment case in the ordinary sense, and that is capable of definition. That is pure transshipment, but what my right hon. friend wants is something more extensive, and he wants us to declare it on the face of the Bill. We cannot meet him in that particular. My right hon. friend wants the exemption to apply to goods which have been moved to any quay, wharf, jetty, or warehouse, and are exported in the same condition in which they have been imported within three months after their arrival in the Port of London. He wants that to be declared to be trans-shipment. Let me take as an illustration. A merchant in London has practically no Colonial or American connection for certain goods, but three months after he has obtained a consignment he receives a casual export order and he sends the goods. My hon. friend says that is trans-shipment, but I do not think it is. I do not judge the case at all as to whether that particular parcel of goods should get a rebate, because it would have paid the duties in coming in three months ago. Probably it should be recoverable, but the only persons who are capable of deciding that are those upon whom will be cast the responsibility of drawing up the Schedule, which it is provided that the Port Authority shall submit to the Board of Trade. No doubt the clause gives an authorisation that it shall be settled, but as far as we are able at the moment to see, it would be highly dangerous for us to endeavour to extend it beyond the words of the Bill.

MR. LOUGH

What words?

SIR H. KEARLEY

If my hon. friend refers to the proviso in Clause 12 (b) he will see that it applies to cases of goods sent here for trans-shipment only. That is a tight definition which the Port authority may draw, but the words "or which remain on board the ship in which they were imported for conveyance therein to another port" leave it more elastic and open. I hope my right hon. friend is satisfied with that explanation which I gave before the Committee upstairs and will not press us for a definition. I do not think it is possible to do it. I should like to see someone do it, and I should like to see my right hon. friend draw up a definition.

MR. LOUGH

said his hon. friend had shown a sympathetic disposition. He admitted that he had raised a good point, and told him that some effort would be made by the people who drew up the Schedule to meet it. Therefore, he would not press the matter any further.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

MR. LOUGH

said that here again he did not want to trouble the right hon. Gentleman, but he would like a little explanation and he hoped he would give it to him in the same sympathetic spirit as he extended to him a moment ago. He did not know what the latter part of this clause was about, but as far as he could make out generally from the clause it appeared that one of these small dock companies, which the right hon. Gentleman had brought under Clause 3, might have purchased a house and not been able to pay for it and given a sort of security. If they did not pay the interest the person from whom they bought it might, under the mortgage, resume possession. The object of the clause was to reserve the right of such seller against the Port authority. He thought it a pity that a clause of this sort should be thought necessary. Surely the credit of the Port authority would be much better than that of the small authority which they had bought up, and would it not be better if the clause ended at the point where his Amendment came in and to leave the moneys secured on the Port fund. His object was to ask for some explanation. This seemed to him to be one of those unnecessary and humiliating restrictions which the Board of Trade had imposed upon the Port authority. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, line 11, to leave out from beginning of line to end of subsection."—(Mr. Lough.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

So far from being a humiliating restriction proposed by the Board of Trade on the Port, authority this is a definite liberty granted by the Board of Trade to the Port authority. The Port authority will be in possession of the property of several people who are now in business, and will take over their assets and their liabilities, and this clause will give the new authority a definite power to pay off those liabilities by coming to some arrangement with some of their small outstanding creditors, or mortgage holders, to issue port stock privately instead of having to go to the open market and pay them off in the ordinary way. I am advised that that will produce economy. It is merely a permissive authority to the Port authority to discharge its liabilities.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

MR. FELL moved to add to the purpose for which the Port authority may borrow money that of "constructing a lock or locks across the river bed." This, he said, was in pursuance of a power obtained under Clause 2 of the Bill upon which the right hon. Gentleman agreed that under the powers given to the Port authority for construction they should have power to construct locks. As a sequence to that it was necessary that they should have power to borrow money to construct a lock or locks. It might be that the words of the Bill were sufficiently wide to cover this, but as he thought that was doubtful he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 20, line 1, at end, to insert the words 'constructing a lock or locks across the river bed.'"—(Mr. Fell.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

When the hon. Gentleman moved earlier in the Bill to insert the words "lock or locks," I agreed that the words might be an improvement to the Bill. But whereas the words moved then was an improvement these words if inserted here would be a restriction. We are not here dealing with specific works. What we are dealing with now are general works, and if we were to insert the word "locks" here I am informed that, owing to the intricacies of the law, it would be held to be a presumption against other works not stated in the Bill. It would not add to the freedom of the Port authority to construct locks, but would spoil the drafting of the Bill and would have the definite effect of narrowing its scope.

MR. FELL

said the last, thing that he wished to do was to restrict the power of the Port authority, and it was with the object of making the matter clear that he moved this Amendment. He had seen so many unfortunate things happen owing to the omission of words from Acts of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman told him that the effect of this Amendment would be to restrict the powers of the Port authority he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

MR. LOUGH moved to leave out paragraph (a), which, he said, meant that if any holder of port stock of any kind of the value of not less than £500,000 in respect to the interest on which the Port authority had made default for a period of not less than three months would be able to get a receiver appointed against the Port authority. That was a very humiliating restriction. Surely the Port authority should have better credit than to have a Receiver appointed against them if a trifling incident occurred and the interest could not be paid for three months. That was the sort of thing that might happen any day in a great body like this, working a very great business. He really thought that the people who had a claim for interest against the Port authority ought to be satisfied without this. He believed this particular clause was put in at the request of the dock company. It was not drawn by the Board of Trade, but the greedy dock companies who were not satisfied with the high price they had got for the docks. Not content with the dues on goods, imposed by the right hon. Gentleman on their behalf, they wanted the right to put a receiver in if the interest was overdue. No Member present got his interest up to date and he did not see why the dock companies should. This was a paragraph that should be struck out. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 21, line 38, to leave out paragraph (a)."—(Mr. Lough.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

No one could possibly quarrel with my right hon. friend because he is in opposition to our measure, because he expresses himself so pleasantly that his opposition is almost more satisfactory than his support. I must say in this case I think my right hon. friend has convinced the Committee that very little answer from me is necessary on this point. We have to consider the possibility of these great financial operations, involving £22,000,000, and we are trying to prop up the security in every way we can. The more the port stock is propped up the cheaper it will be for the authority to borrow for any undertaking in the future. When we are told by my right hon. friend it would not be a serious thing for a great authority like this to be three months in arrear with its legal obligations to its stockholders, I must say I think my right hon. friend takes an unduly lax view of the punctilious regard for financial obligations which always characterises the business men of this country.

SIR F. BANBURY

had no desire to intervene in a domestic quarrel, but he reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Islington had compared the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a fraudulent mine promoter earlier in the afternoon, a comparison, much as he disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, he himself would not have dared to make. He was glad the President of the Board of Trade did not think there was much in that. The right hon. Member for Islington had evidently not read this clause when he stated that a receiver was to be appointed if the interest was in arrear for two or three days, because the clause said three months, which was a very different thing. Inasmuch as the Port authority would consist in a great degree of the people who used the docks and to whose interest it would be to obtain as small charges as possible for goods entering the docks, this was the least that could be done if the Government desired to keep up the security of the Port authority, which it was essential to do if fresh money was to be borrowed for other matters. Under these circumstances, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.

* MR. MORTON

did not see that this clause was necessary in any way. Directly the Port authority had bought the docks, it did not matter whether the price of port stock went up or down. This was a condition made by the dock companies, and that was why it was put into the Bill. Whatever might be the market value of this stock they would be perfectly secure. It would not affect the Port authority at all. Nor did he think it would affect the borrowing of fresh capital. He did not see how this was to prop up the port stock very much. He thought it was a sign of weakness on the part of the Government. They were right to allow it to go in, because they had no faith in their own scheme, and therefore had taken power to put the broker in by-and-bye, and get money from anybody and anyone to pay for the dec's.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUGH moved to leave out subsection (5). This was a very important Amendment, although he did not propose to press it if he got a satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman. The Committee were in a very remarkable position so far as this Bill was concerned. The Opposition took no intelligent interest in it whatsoever. But this matter was of great interest, and he hoped the Committee would tolerate those on the Ministerial side of the House who took an interest in it. This was a most important clause. He did not quite understand what it meant himself. If it meant that the Port authority should not be allowed to borrow any money in excess of £5,000,000 apart from that coming from the docks, it was an undue restriction. According to the Report of the Royal Commission, £4,500,000 or £5,000,000 would be required for the docks alone. Those who had listened to his remarks earlier in the evening would remember that he attached great importance to the deepening of the river. Was the whole of the expenditure of the new Port authority to be confined to buying the docks, in the first place, and in the second putting those wretched places in order? Surely a further £2,000,000 or £4,000,000 should be allowed for deepening the river for those ships that would come up. This was a great restriction if it meant that no money was to be left for that purpose, and that the whole of it must be absorbed in buying and repairing the docks. He did not think this section was a fair one. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 22, line 18, to leave out subsection 5."—(Mr. Lough.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

I am in agreement with my right hon. friend in considering the £5,000,000 an exceedingly moderate amount to borrow, having regard to the large works this authority will undertake in buying and improving the docks. But my right hon. friend will agree with me that there must, at least, be some restriction. I also think it must be remembered that before we added to the limitation of the amount that might be raised on loan it was very necessary to have a recurring check on new borrowings without having recourse to Parliament. But if it is the feeling that a little more latitude may be given in this respect—if the right hon. Gentleman expresses the general opinion of the Committee in this matter—I shall be very glad to leave it to the Committee. But I will not take upon myself the responsibility for extension. We have fixed £5,000,000, I am content with that. If the Committee likes to give more latitude and presses this Amendment to a division, I shall certainly not oppose it.

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

said the right hon. Gentleman in this matter had lost sight of the fact that the Thames Conservancy had put forward a Bill to double their dues on ships to enable them to deepen the river. Under this Bill the power of the Thames Conservancy was extended. Therefore he thought there was no necessity here for an increased fund.

MR. HOLT

urged the Government before they accepted the Amendment to consider what the effect on the Port authority would be: £5,000,000 was a very good sum to raise on the security of the Port authority. They should start with great confidence in them, and everyone would be sure that the Board of Trade would find the best possible means to manage them. But this was an absolutely untried institution. It had no record behind it, and it seemed to him that if they gave unlimited borrowing power to an authority which had not been tried and had no record behind it they would have much less credit and be able to borrow money on less favourable terms than if they had a borrowing power of a more restricted character.

MR. CHURCHILL

I think thy Committee has expressed its opinion, and if my right hon. friend presses this Amendment to a division, he will not obtain much support. I myself do not object and I showed some inclination to follow his lead, but I am afraid we should be a very small party. That being so, I strongly recommend my right hon. friend not to tempt fortune in the division lobby.

* MR. MORTON

hoped the Committee would not agree to any such extension. It would be a very good thing if the Port authority had to come to Parliament when they wanted to borrow more money. It would give the House an opportunity of considering whether they were going on all right or not. The Committee must not forget that the repayment of these loans would be a tax on the food of the people; therefore Parliament should have every opportunity of considering the matter before they went beyond the £5,000,000 limit. So far as the dredging of the river was concerned, it was possible that if the double tonnage dues were continued, there would be sufficient funds to carry out the whole of the work that could be carried out on the river at present. £400,000 was being spent now to give 30 feet at low water up to Gravesend, and if the double dues were continued there would be enough money to do all the dredging it was possible to do.

MR. LOUGH

was glad to be able to respond to the appeal the right hon. Gentleman had made in such a sympathetic spirit. In reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, he might say he would not object to a £7,000,000 limit. He did not wish to do away with all restrictions, but he saw his friends who opposed this proposal wanted additional cost thrown on the authority. Under the circumstances he would relieve his right hon. friend from the humiliation of going into the lobby.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19, 20, and 21 agreed to.

Clause 22:

MR. LOUGH moved to omit subsection (2). He did not know whether on this Amendment he would receive any support or not, but these little Amendments which did not keep the Committee very long proved at all events that he had read and studied the Bill. This clause was to provide that the Board of Trade should have an estimate of the receipts and expenditure of the Port authority during the financial year "whether on account of property, dues, loans, or otherwise." He agreed with that, and there was nothing in his Amendment which went against it. But under subsection (2) the Board of Trade might demand that there should not only be an estimate every year, but every half year or even a shorter period. That was rather an unnecessary restriction, and it would throw unnecessary cost on the Port authority. Every object would be secured if an estimate was given every year. The subsection (2) said— If the Board of Trade are satisfied that the receipts of the port authority on revenue account in any year are likely to be insufficient to meet the charges payable out of revenue in that year, or that the receipts of the port authority on revenue account in the last preceding year were insufficient to pay the charges payable out of revenue in that year, they may make an order," etc. How could the Board of Trade be satisfied? It simply meant that any gossip might go down to the Board of Trade and say: "Have you got your eye on the Port authority?" Was the Board of Trade to be at the mercy of any gossip? If the right hon. Gentleman could make a sympathetic answer or this point, he would not impede the progress of the Bill; but this was a most restrictive section, and he did not know on what it rested. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 25, line 3, to leave out subsection (2)."—(Mr. Lough).

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

MR. CHURCHILL

I agree with my right hon. friend that this particular provision comes into the category of restrictive clauses, but I do not think it does much harm. I do not think the Board of Trade would act upon it, and if they were to act upon it on such very insufficient grounds as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, my faith in the House of Commons is such that I believe they would not fail to see that these conditions should not be used in any unnecessary or vexatious manner. But it does seem to me clear, having regard to the great responsibility with which the Board of Trade is charged in this Port of London Bill, that we should not be compelled to sit still and fold our hands, but that we should have power if necessary to move the Port authority to discharge ordinary obligations. It is part of the general financial structure of the Bill on which the bargain rests, and I certainly do not feel able at this stage to put it away or withdraw it, because it might derange the whole fabric of our financial arrangements. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not dwell too much on the very cautious and elaborately circumspect character of the provision, but will recognise that it will be worked in a perfectly satisfactory and businesslike spirit.

* MR. RADFORD (Islington, E.)

said that, having regard to the extraordinary purchase proposals which were referred to in the earlier part of the Bill, it was not to be wondered at that the right hon. Gentleman should have provided that in certain contingencies the whole concern should be handed over to the receiver in the interests of the share holders. He was not surprised that in order to make both ends meet the Board of Trade were taking power to compel the Port authority to increase its dues should that contingency arise. In his opinion the contingency of the Port authority's being unable to meet its expenditure and finding itself in the hands of the receiver was by no means a remote one. Having regard to the whole structure of the Bill, he did not think the speeches that had been made from the Treasury bench in regard to these and other matters would allay the grave anxiety felt by business men in London in regard to the whole of the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for Limehouse told them he was going to support the purchase clause, and he congratulated the Government upon getting his support, because he placed the estimated deficiency at from £100,000 to £200,000 per annum. That being the case, he condoled with the Government on having charge of a measure of this sort which was to set up an authority not unlikely in their own opinion to come into the hands of the Receiver and which was not likely to pay the interest on its stock. In these circumstances the future of the Port of London was a matter of the gravest apprehension, because if dock dues had to be increased, London at once would become a dearer port, and the whole object of this Bill, which was to make the Port of London cheaper and more convenient for shipping, would have failed, and the end would be worse than the beginning. If this clause indicated the real apprehension of the Government, he hoped it was not too late to reconsider the whole business and consider whether it would not be better to drift on as they were doing rather than set up a concern which was expected to gravitate towards bankruptcy.

* MR. MORTON

said the Port authority under this Bill would be placed in such a humiliating position that they could neither move nor turn without the consent of the Board of Trade. It had been proved by experience that they got the best boards and less liability to corruption when they made them as independent as possible. He supposed this sub-clause was put in to make the dock companies' stock secure against all comers. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman had been ordered to put this provision in by the dock companies, and therefore it was no use objecting.

MR. LOUGH

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23:

MR. LOUGH

said the object of the Amendment he wished to move wag to secure that the receipts for goods discharged or taken on board ship in the river should be kept separate from those receipts for goods discharged or taken on board in the docks. He had some reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 25, line 28, at the end to insert the words 'Provided also that all receipts in respect of goods discharged or taken on board in the river shall be shown separately from the receipts from vessels which enter docks.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

The Government are willing to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:

* MR. SEAVERNS

said his Amendment dealt with a dull and an uninteresting point, but it was nevertheless a matter of the greatest possible interest to the payers of dues in the Port of London, because a right of appeal to the Board of Trade in the case of oppressive action or of reasonable complaint as to the mode in which the Port authority's business was done was given in regard to the charges levied. This right of appeal was rendered far more necessary by the provisions of the Bill, because hitherto the traders of the Port of London had in some instances been able to put one dock company in competition with another whereas in the future they would be in the position of being obliged to deal with an amalgamation of the dock companies. This Amendment had been drafted by the London section of the Timber Trade Federation of the United Kingdom, the Section being a very large contributor to the revenue of the new Port authority. Something like 50 per cent. of their imports were delivered in the docks and payed large charges for landing, warehousing, and storing. The same reason which had led this federation to press for this Amendment applied with equal force to many other trades in London, including the flour and coal trades. The Amendment he had put on the Paper provided that there might be a complaint to the Board of Trade not only when the Port authority was acting in a manner which was unfair and oppressive, but also when there was reason to complain of the mode in which they carried on their dock or warehousing business, or of the charges made in respect thereof, whether levied directly or indirectly, or whether under the maximum or not. Many of the charges levied by the dock companies were not statutory charges at all. He had an account from the Surrey Commercial Dock Company covering charges amounting to £176, and out of that only £129 represented statutory charges, the remaining portion representing charges which might be perfectly legitimate so far as the dock company was concerned, but for which there was no provision in the statute and which he thought were accurately described as indirect charges. With regard to the timber trade, there was one form of indirect charge which was very oppressive to that trade, and it was that the dock companies were in the habit of charging rent upon the timber from the time the bulk was broken, and this placed upon the importer of timber a heavy additional charge which was not statutory and which was not itemised in the accounts. Those were the reasons why it was thought necessary to press for the addition of the words "directly or indirectly." The suggestion that the charges might be complained against, whether under the maximum or not, was due to a fact which was well known to everyone who had daily connection with the trade of the port, viz., that for many years past there had been constant, invariable, and very annoying friction between the importers of goods and the dock authorities, and it was desired by making the wording of this Amendment very clear and explicit that it should be laid down beyond all doubt or question that importers should have a right of complaint where the charges were within the maximum or above the maximum. If this liberty was not accorded it might very well be that the maximum charges of to-day would be stereotyped, and the last state of the importers would be far worse than the first. He would like to point out that the wording adopted in this Amendment had a very strong precedent in Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, of 1894. He was sure the President of the Board of Trade was fully acquainted with that section, which expressly provided for exactly such cases as were intended to be covered by the Amendment, and it employed the words "directly or indirectly" in the same sense. He felt that the Amendment merely put in clear and explicit terms what he believed was the desire and intention of the Government in this matter. It was a very important point in the minds of many traders in the Port of London, and he pressed the Government most earnestly to adopt it.

Amendment proposed— In page 28, line 4, after the word 'business,' to insert the words 'or of the charges made in respect thereof, whether levied directly or indirectly, and whether under the maximum or not.'"—(Mr. Seaverns.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

I am inclined to think that the essential part of this Amendment is already provided for in the clause which enables complaints to be made to the Board of Trade in the event of the mode in which the Port authority carry on their dock or warehousing business being unfairly oppressive. They are very general words, and it is very probable that they include what the hon. Member for Brixton desires. I shall be very glad to meet my hon. friend if I can.

* MR. SEAVERNS

We are advised that the words of the clause do not cover my point.

MR. CHURCHILL

I am desirous of meeting my hon. friend, but I am afraid his words are too wide in their meaning, and I cannot accept his actual words. The hon. Member for South Islington has given notice of an Amendment after the word "business" to insert "including charges made in respect of such business." I think those words meet the point of the hon. Member for Brixton, and in some respects they go further than his Amendment.

* MR. SEAVERNS

appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to add the words "directly or indirectly." He had already explained to the Committee why he asked for those words to be inserted, and the entire object of his Amendment was to allow this right of appeal.

MR. CHURCHILL

I could not possibly accept those words, because they are far too wide.

MR. SEAVERNS

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 28, line 4, after the word 'business,' to insert the words 'including charges made in respect of such business.'"—(Mr. Wiles.)

MR. CHURCHILL

The next Amendment I have to move deals with complaints which may be made against the Port authority in cases where there is any increase in charges as compared with the charges existing at the passing of the Act or in regard to the way the authority carries on its warehousing business. We have had representations from various trading associations that some of the existing charges press unduly upon them, and we have endeavoured to meet the views of those organisations and associations. I have every reason to believe that the Amendment will largely meet their views. The lowering of charges to one particular trade very often prejudices other interests. For example, the wharfingers might think their business was being affected seriously or undercut if this lowering of the charges were to take place, and the result of the lowering of the rates under this section might lead to a lot of aggrieved parties asking for an opportunity of being heard.

Amendment proposed— In page 28, line 14, to leave out from the word 'complaint' to the word 'to,' in line 15, and to insert the words 'is made on behalf of a trade or a section of a trade by the London Chamber of Commerce or any other representative association interested in the trade of the Port of London or relates.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

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

MR. WILES

What does "representative association" mean?

* SIR A. SPICER

Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment standing in the name of the Member for Islington instead of his own? It is the one which meets with the approval of many of the trades, and I would beg him to accept it.

MR. LOUGH

I think the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is a good one, but I would suggest that it should be so altered that complaints might be made to the Board of Trade "by any person" as well as on behalf of a trade. Why should a person who is aggrieved and who wishes to appeal to the Board of Trade have to go to a Chamber of Commerce or any other association unless he likes to do so? Why should he not have the right of appealing individually. He might be establishing a new business or have some interest in regard to which he did not wish to court publicity, and I do not see why the individual should not be as completely protected as an association. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should introduce into his own Amendment after the word "made" the words "by any person." I think that would be a great improvement.

MR. SEAVERNS

May I say I hope the Government will maintain their own Amendment instead of that in the name of the hon. Member for Islington? I think it would be difficult and awkward to require a body or an institution to go first to the Board of Trade and secure a certificate. I think that would lead to absurdity of procedure.

* MR. MORTON

Who is to decide what is meant by "any other representative association interested in the trade of the Port of London?" I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to kindly explain that.

MR. LOUGH

I want to move to amend the Amendment by inserting after the word "made" the words "by any person or."

MR. CHURCHILL

I cannot accept the word "person," I think we must be very careful in this matter. I think the complaint ought to come from a recognised responsible trade, a trade association, or the London Chamber of Commerce.

Question put, and negatived.

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

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

hoped the Board of Trade would not be too ready to accept the words suggested by his hon. friend the Member for Islington. It seemed to him that the Board of Trade should issue a certificate authorising certain bodies to make complaints under proper conditions. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would consider the form of words which should be inserted without committing himself to-night to the form on the Paper. He did not say what the form of words should be. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could bring up an Amendment on the Report Stage which would meet the case. There was no precedent in any Statute so far as he was aware for what was now proposed to be done. [Cries of "Yes."]

MR. CHURCHILL

said he was informed that these words were not infrequently inserted. Of course, he agreed that the charges ought not to be very great. There was very little difference between the two Amendments, but he was advised that it would not be objectionable to introduce those few words in the Bill.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— After the words 'Port of London' to insert the words 'which obtains a certificate from the Board of Trade that it is a proper body to make such complaint.'"—(Mr. Wiles.)

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments proposed— In page 28, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'as compared with the charges existing at the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Wiles.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 28, line 18, after the word 'fit,' to insert the words 'after giving any persons appearing to the Board of Trade to be interested an opportunity of being heard.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27:

*MR. CARR-GOMM moved to insert, after the word "labour," the words "and that no such offices, waiting-rooms, or employment registers, shall be established and maintained inside the area of the dock premises." He did so in order to raise a very important point as to the access to these offices, waiting-rooms, or employment registers. He asked the Government to make it clear to the Committee that there was nothing in this clause which would prevent any officials of the trade unions, should it be necessary for them to exercise the right of visiting these places. The Government had said that the employing of labour by means of registers was under their consideration. It seemed to him that under this Bill, the establishment of those offices and registers, by subsection (2), giving the Port authority power to make bye-laws with respect to admission to them, would be putting the control of them very largely in the hands of the employers, and that that would be very prejudicial to the success of the movement. After all, no fewer than 25,000 labourers in the Port of London would be influenced by this subsection, and if this subsection were passed as it stood, it would be very dangerous indeed. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 28, line 33, after the word 'labour' to insert the words 'and that no such offices, waiting-rooms, or employment registers shall be established and maintained inside the area of the dock premises.'"—(Mr. Carr-Gomm.)

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

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

said he was not quite in love with the clause, because he thought that the waiting-rooms should be outside the door to enable the members of the trade unions and other associations to get in touch with the men. Nothing was more pitiable than to see these men standing outside the gates. It would be a very serious matter if these officials were shut out absolutely from contact with the men seeking employment.

THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,) Tower Hamlets, Poplar

said that the object of the clause was most valuable, since one of the greatest evils in connection with the docks was casual labour. He would remind the Committee that since this Amendment was put down, it had been decided to admit another labour member on the Port authority, and it should be left to the dock authority to regulate this matter of the register offices and waiting-rooms. He quite agreed with the statement that one of the worst features of the employment of casual labour was the men kept standing outside, and he thought it would be best to give power to the Port authority to deal with that.

MR. CARR-GOMM

said that after that explanation he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 38 agreed to.

Clause 39:

MR. CHURCHILL

said the Amendment which stood in his name was really only machinery in consequence of departmental agreement.

Amendment propased— In page 32, line 14, at the end, to insert the words '(2) Sections fourteen and fifteen of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847 (which relate to the construction and maintenance of works for the accommodation of the officers of Customs), shall apply to the Port authority in respect of any new docks constructed by them in pursuance of the powers conferred by this Act as if they were incorporated in this Act, and shall also, as from the appointed day, apply to the Port authority in respect of all docks transferred to the Port authority by this Act which were constructed in pursuance of any special Act with which those sections are not incorporated: (a) As if those sections had been so incorporated; and (b) as if any watch-houses, boat-houses, huts, or weighing materials provided before the appointed day at those docks by any predecessors of the Port authority for the accommodation of those officers had been provided in pursuance of the obligation imposed by those sections. Provided that nothing in this provision shall prejudice of affect any right, or authority, or liability of the Commissioners of Customs, or the Commissioners of Works, under any agreement relating to any such watch-house, boat-house, hut, or weighing materials made before the passing of this Act between the Commissioners of Customs, or the Commissioners of Works, and any predecessors of the Port authority.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.

Clause 42:

MR. CHURCHILL

said the following Amendments were made in consequence of representations made to the Board of Trade by the Office of Works and Admiralty. It secured them against damage caused by dredging. It was felt that they should be in the same position as the London County Council.

Amendments proposed— In page 33, line 1, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'any property of any Government Department or.' In page 33, line 4, after the word 'of' to insert the words 'the department or'."—(Mr. Churchill.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. E. H. LAMB (Rochester) moved to insert, the words "Essex, Kent" after the word "or," in order to provide as in the case of Middlesex and Surrey that in regard to any works of dredging or deepening carried out within fifty yards of a bridge belonging to the Essex or Kent County Council the work should be done under the supervision of and to the reasonable satisfaction of the county council engineer.

Amendment proposed— In page 33, line 8, after the word 'or' to insert the words 'Essex, Kent.'"—(Mr. E. H. Lamb.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

I am very glad indeed to meet the wishes of my hon. friend, and I in some respects recognise the urgency of his claim on behalf of Kent.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 43 to 46 agreed to.

Clause 47:

MR. CHURCHILL moved after the word "tonnage" to insert the word "port," which he said was consequential.

Amendment proposed— In page 35, line 35, after the word 'tonnage,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.

Clause 50:

Amendment proposed— In page 36, line 27, to leave out the word 'and,' and to insert the words 'but there shall be no adjustment of or concerning capital expenditure incurred prior to the appointed day below the city stone at Staines Bridge, nor with respect to the offices of the Conservancy, on the Victoria Embankment, in the County of London, or the superannuation or compensation of officers or servants transferred to the Port authority, and the Conservancy and their property shall be free and discharged from all liability in respect thereof.'"—(Mr. Barnard.)

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

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields

The clause which the hon. Member proposes to amend is the ordinary adjustment one. With regard to the first question as to the city stone at Staines Bridge, that appears to be superfluous, as all expenses incurred in that part of the river are charged on the lower navigation fund, and all the debts are transferred to the Port authority, so there is no adjustment. Then in regard to the other part, these servants may be transferred, and some adjustment may be necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD R. CECIL

asked what was the meaning of the final two lines in this section to the effect that the provisions as to borrowing and the application of capital sums should not apply to the Watermen's Company.

MR. CHURCHILL

This Bill, I am afraid, makes great inroads into the powers of the Watermen's Company. It takes away a great deal of their power, and gives it to the Port authority. It certainly must be regarded as a Bill which reduces very substantially the powers of the Watermen's Company, and for that reason it is not desirable that borrowing powers given to the Port authority under the Bill should be extended to the Watermen's Company.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 60 agreed to.

MR. BONAR LAW

Before we take the new clauses, might I venture to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to go home after a very fair day's work. All the time I have been in the House I have never seen—and I am perfectly sure the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me—a Bill which has gone through, not only with so little attempt at obstruction, but with every effort to help its progress on the part of the Opposition. It is not too much to say we have refrained from making speeches on questions in which we are interested. We have now been sitting up on three nights, and the Prime Minister himself said we should not be kept late to-night. I think, therefore, we may reasonably appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to go home now. I beg formally to move to report progress.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)

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

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to press his Motion at this stage and only moves in order to elicit the intentions of the Government with regard to the further progress of the Bill. I trust he will allow us to proceed up to a certain point. I can quite see the reasonableness of his appeal that we should not sit very late, and the Government certainly do not complain of the attitude of the Opposition. I am not sure that most of the time has not been occupied by hon. Gentlemen who mostly support the Government. I am sure the criticisms which have emanated from the Opposition have been quite fair and relevant, and that they have not been made with any idea of obstruction; but still I think it is important that we should make further progress with the Bill. This will not be the last opportunity for criticising the Bill in detail, because there will be a Report stage and there will then be opportunity for further reference to any matter which may not have been fully ventilated. I think my right hon. friend has met the Opposition in one important particular. He has shown every disposition to afford opportunity both to criticise the Bill and to discuss important provisions at a reasonable period of the day. We have had a very lengthy debate to-day on what, after all, is one of the most important provisions of the Bill, and I do not think there is anything very important left. I trust the hon. Member opposite will allow us to proceed with the discussion, and then we will see later how to proceed. There is no disposition on the part of the Government to keep the House late, but I hope at present they will allow us to go on up to a certain point.

SIR F. BANBURY

asked the right hon. Gentleman to say to what stage. He pointed out that on the new clause there was an Amendment standing in the name of an hon. friend, who, under the impression that the Motion for adjournment would last longer, had left the House and not returned. It was an important Amendment which ought to be discussed, but it was not unreasonable of his hon. friend to go away under the circumstances. They had sat till after twelve o'clock, and if the right hon. Gentleman would allow them to go home they would not take advantage in any way to delay the Bill.

MR. BONAR LAW

I have no desire, and my hon. friends have no desire, to prevent the Government getting their Bill through if we thought it could be done in a proper manner. My suggestion is that the right hon. Gentleman should allow us to finish now at the end of the existing clauses. We would not object to the subsequent clauses being taken at the same time as he proposes to take the Report stage.

LORD R. CECIL

said it was a fact that the hon. Member for Bury was absent and that he had Amendments down to the new clause in the interest of the London County Council, of which body he was a member. It was only right he should be able to put their views before the House, and he thought it would be desirable if the Government could see their way to allow them to rise now and to proceed with the discussion of this new clause on another occasion. It was a question of considerable importance. He did not think it a very good plan to begin a controversial matter after twelve o'clock at night and it would not be a good example to the Opposition if, when they were reasonable as on this occasion, they were not treated with more conisderation.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I am very loth not to respond to an appeal from an Opposition which has been so very fairly and reasonably conducted, but I would again earnestly impress upon the Opposition the desirability of proceeding with this clause.

MR. BONAR LAW

May I make another suggestion? There seems to be very few Amendments down on the Schedules. Would it be agreeable to the Government to take the Schedules now and leave the new clause till afterwards?

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

Do I understand the hon. Member that the Bill should be taken without the new clause, seeing it is regarded, I will not say as controversial, but as one which should receive discussion under better opportunities? That is a reasonable proposal that we should go on to the schedule. As far as we are concerned we are prepared to withdraw the new clause and move it on Report, so that it will come first for discussion. It will be the first matter for discussion on Report stage.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BONAR LAW

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will move the new clause in the Committee Stage?

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

No. What will be done will be this, that this new clause will be withdrawn at the present moment. Then it will be put down on the Report stage and the same procedure will be gone through as in Committee.

MR. BONAR LAW

asked whether they did not miss the opportunity for discussion?

SIR F. BANBURY

said he knew that was quite correct because he was caught that way himself the other day. If they took the new clauses on the Report stage the new clauses were always taken first; they were then read a second time. He was under the delusion that after that they went through the Committee stage, but he was called to order by Mr. Speaker for having that delusion, and it was pointed out to him that the House could not be in Committee with the Speaker in the Chair. Therefore, they got the disadvantage of Report stage of only being able to speak once. They lost all their chance of speaking more than once. The right hon. Gentleman knew that was a very valuable asset and was going to say nothing at all. If that were conceded it was nothing at all because they had discussion on the Report stage under any circumstances, and the only result of the right hon. Gentleman's action was to abandon discussion now to get what they always had under any circumstances on Report stage.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I am still willing to meet the hon. Baronet, and after all, there is a good deal of substance in what he says now—as is generally the case. I think the Government might meet the Opposition by moving to recommit these new clauses after Second Reading and then putting the House into Committee.

MR. BONAR LAW

assented to this.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

There will be a Committee stage on those clauses after the Report stage.

* THE CHAIRMAN

Then I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not move his new clauses.

MR. CHURCHILL

No, Sir.

* MR. MORTON

intimated that he wished to move a clause to the effect that notwithstanding previous Acts any rates, dues, tolls, fees or other charges leviable under the present Act should be chargeable to and payable by the Crown upon the same conditions as they are chargeable and payable by other bodies or persons. The hon. Member said he knew he could move the clause on Report stage, but he wanted to know why his Motion should be treated differently from that of the Opposition. He did not call that at all fair, as not giving him an opportunity of being able to deal with it in the same spirit as the Opposition. But, of course, if the Government chose to treat him unfairly in that way, and to deal differently with one hon. Member and another, he could not help it.

MR. BONAR LAW

suggested that the hon. Member should ask the Government to treat his clause in the same way as their own, provided the clause got a Second Reading.

MR. CHURCHILL

I shall be very glad indeed to do that and treat the hon. Member in exactly the same manner as we treat the new clauses which I have to move. Whether we can adopt his new clause or not is another matter.

* THE CHAIRMAN

Does any other Member who has given notice of a new clause desire to move?

* MR. MORTON

said he had another new clause and he suggested that it be treated in the same way.

Schedule I:

*MR. MORTON moved an Amendment so as to take away from the authority the power to appoint persons from outside to the working committees. The Schedule provided that the Port authority might appoint such working committees either of a general or special nature, and consisting of such number of persons and either wholly or partly of members of the Port authority as they thought fit. By that proviso the Port authority might pack all the committees with certain parties from outside on the understanding that they would vote as they were told. The only protection was in the words— provided that a majority of the members of every committee shall be members of the Port authority. But that would not prevent a mere clique in the committee getting a majority if they could put enough strangers on. He would like to know why strangers of this sort, representing nobody at all but themselves, should be put upon the committees at all. He did not desire, if the bargain was made, to delay the Committee, and therefore with a view of trying to find what this meant he would move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 49, line 18, to leave out the words 'persons, and either wholly or partly of.'"—(Mr. Morton.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

I do not think the Committee will refuse to allow the Port authority power of co-optation.

MR. MORTON

said it was never allowed anyone else.

MR. CHURCHILL

I think if the hon. Member, with his long experience, casts his mind wider and farther back he will be able to recall cases where power is given.

* MR. MORTON

said he did not quite understand. It was all very well to say there were precedents. He did not know if there were, but if so, they were very bad. What he would like to say was that they in the City of London would have a good deal to do with this Port of London business. They had always objected to that sort of representation in every case. No representative body of any consequence nowadays was allowed this sort of members. The county councils and the municipal bodies were allowed to appoint aldermen, but surely they did not want to repeat that. Everybody knew that having those nominated members called aldermen had been a sham and a fraud throughout the whole time of its existence and had very often enabled certain parties to pack the bodies just as they liked by getting these extra men in. He hoped that the Government would agree to the Amendment and consent to make this little alteration so that they might have the assurance that this Port of London authority would be as representative as the rest of the Bill had made it. This proposal at the end altered the constitution altogether by putting on strangers, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would concede this little improvement. He was sure it was an improvement.

MR. CHURCHILL

The Royal Commission recommended that the authority should have the power of appointing certain members from outside. There may be some committees of a highly expert and technical character, and it is desirable that there should be a member attached to such a committee who would not be of such a representative character as a member of the Port authority, but who would be of great value in guiding the committee on technical matters.

SIR WILLIAM BULL

instanced Trinity House and the Thames Conservancy as having similar powers.

* MR. MORTON

said the Thames Conservancy had no such powers. They were all elected by somebody outside. He thought that the fact that the Royal Commission recommended this was of no consequence at all. It was of much more importance that they as a Liberal Party had always recognised that the members of all these institutions should be representative, representing the people. That was the whole policy and foundation of the Liberal Party, but by this proviso to the Schedule, the committee might be so packed that they would never get at the opinion of the properly representative members at all. The Royal Commission did not affect him. Royal Commissions were generally wrong, and did not do much good, and he should stick to this Amendment as far as he could.

Amendment negatived.

*MR. MORTON moved an Amendment to make all the meetings of the Port authority open to the public unless otherwise determined by the majority of the members present and voting on that question. He said that such a proposal as this, where adopted, had been found useful. Sometimes those so-called public bodies excluded the public and the Press. What he desired was that there should be always at these meetings at least some representatives of the Press, so that the public might know what went on. With regard to the Thames Conservancy, when he joined it some years ago the doors were shut and the Press excluded, but very shortly after the Conservators were induced to allow the Press to be present, and it had very much improved the body. He copied the words of his Amendment from the Standing Orders of the Court of Common Council, where it had been in force for hundreds of years. It had always been found to work well. It made the normal conditions of the meetings open to the public, but gave the body absolute power at once to close them if they had any business which it was thought necessary to transact with closed doors. The old custom in the House of Commons was that any person might get the House cleared of strangers by calling out "I spy strangers," but of late years the custom had been exactly what he recommended, namely, that somebody must move to exclude the public, and the majority of those present settled the question by vote. All over the country it had been found not only absolutely right and proper, but an improvement on the procedure that the Press and public should be allowed to be present. There was the recent experience of the London County Council, who knew something about what ought to be done in these matters. When they commenced the education business they closed the doors of the education committee. They were strongly recommended, however, considering the nature of the business the committee had to do, and how separate it was from the other business of the Council, to open their doors. They in this House even opened the doors of the Committees, so that there was nothing extraordinary in the proposal. A great many of the large municipalities in the country opened the doors at their committee meetings to the public. He would not detain the House though he could give a long list of institutions which allowed the Press and the public to be present. The best men on the London County Council and outside were all in favour of the meetings of the schools committee being open to the public. They had been open for a good while now, and no harm had been done. Surely, then, they might ask that a public body like the Port authority whose principal business would be to look after the docks and holders of stock, should sit with open doors. It would have to deal with one of the greatest businesses in any part of the world, and if the meetings of any public body ought to be open to the public and the Press, it should be those of the Port of London authority, who were concerned with so many interests, and about whose proceedings the public had a right to know.

Amendment proposed— In page 50, line 11, 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

I cannot accept the Amendment. An identical Amendment was moved before the Joint Committee on behalf of the Corporation of London, and was objected to by the Committee. It is believed that an Amendment of this kind is entirely without precedent in any similar case. It certainly does not exist in the case of the Mersey, the Tyne, or the Clyde. There is a danger which we have noticed that when the Press are present there is a tendency on the part of some members to make long speeches, and it is thought that the proceedings of the Port authority are likely to be more expeditiously conducted if the meetings are held in private.

* MR. MORTON

said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman that when, between the years 1892and 1895, they were considering the Local Government Bill of that time, the House of Commons, which was apparently more Liberal and democratic than the present, inserted a similar clause at his request with regard to the meetings of the parish councils. He was sorry that the present House of Commons did not appear to be either so democratic or so wedded to the old Liberal institutions and procedure as were their predecessors. He would have thought that a Liberal Government would have gladly accepted a proposal of this sort.

Amendment negatived.

MR. HOLT moved an. Amendment to omit paragraph (3) of the proviso of Part II. of the Schedule, all words after the second "authority." He said it seemed that this method of voting on a matter in which members were personally interested arising in the ordinary course of the Port authority's business, might prove in practice to work considerable injustice, and be impossible to carry out. He did not know exactly what the meaning of the clause was, but he should like to put it this way: after all, the members of this Port authority would be sent there by electors with their eyes open. They would not be sent there with the idea that they had no financial interest, but expressly because they had a large financial interest themselves in the Port. Suppose there was a warehouse committee, and a discussion arose as to the way in which grain had been stored in the warehouses, was it to be contended that the representative of the grain trade was to be debarred from voting simply because it happened that he had a certain amount of his own produce stored there? The real question surely was whether the interest of the individual member was merely incidental, whether he was voting in the interest of his trade, as a whole, and in the interests of the people who sent him there. His vote ought not to be disallowed merely because he himself had an interest in the particular matter which was being voted on. On the other hand, if it were a matter which affected merely himself, of course, he ought not to vote. They might be quite certain that a body constituted as this body would be by leading merchants of London, men of honour and position, could settle such matters for themselves. It would be very soon found out whether a man had got on the authority to vote to put sixpence in his pocket, or to vote in the interests of the trade he was sent there to represent. He would suggest to the Government that they should make this clause fairly free and easy, and not bind it down by hard and fast regulations, but leave it to the discretion of the body themselves.

Amendment proposed— In page 50, line 42, to leave out from the word 'authority' to end of paragraph."—(Mr. Holt.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

I shall be quite willing to accept this Amendment.

* MR. MORTON

said he would like some explanation with regard to this. It was a most dangerous thing to allow any member of an authority to vote where he might be directly or indirectly concerned. In the City of London they insisted on this matter so strongly that in the protection of their rules of procedure they went right up to the House of Lords to enforce them. They were not allowed to be interested directly or indirectly in any way in a contract. It was very little to say they should not vote on matters with which they were themselves concerned, and he trusted the Government would not give way on the point.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DICKINSON moved an Amendment to provide that the members of the Port Authority should go out of office on 1st April, 1913, instead of 1st June, 1912. His reason was this: There were to be four members on the Port Authority to represent the London County Council, and they would—with the exception of course, of the members who represented the City—be the only members who represented the people of London. Under the provisions contained in the Bill there would be this curious condition of affairs: The London County Council was elected for three years, and the representatives on the new Port Authority were also to hold office for three years. Inasmuch, however, as the statutory dates for the election of the London County Council were in 1910 and 1913 the members appointed to represent the Council on the new authority would be appointed at the very end of the tenure of office of the Council. The result would be that practically during two and a half years of the tenure of office of the Council that body would be represented on the Port Authority by members who had been nominated by the previous Council. Such a state of things, he thought, would be very undesirable, and he was seeking by his proposal to prevent it. A further suggestion he had to make was that the London County Council's new representatives should be elected in 1910, but he would first move the insertion of April, 1913, in place of June, 1912.

Amendment proposed— In page 51, line 29, to leave out the word 'twelve,' and insert the word 'ten.'"—(Mr. Dickinson.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

I am quite willing to accept that Amendment.

* SIR A. SPICER

said he should like to point out to the Committee that there was a good deal of discussion in the Joint Committee with regard to giving an extra year, and the members of that Committee thought it would be a great mistake to make the extension, as they considered the period named in the Bill quite long enough in the case of a nominated body. The date in the Bill was originally 1913, and the Joint Committee deliberately reduced it by one year, because they thought the time sufficiently long for the term of office of the first nominated body.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DICKINSON moved to insert after the word the Committee had just agreed to, "and in the case of members appointed by the London County Council 1910." That meant, he said, that the first election of members of the County Council would take place in 1910, immediately after the formation of the new County Council.

Amendment proposed— In page 51, line 29, after the word last inserted, to insert the words 'and in the case of members appointed by the London County Council 1910.'"—(Mr. Dickinson.)

MR. HOLT

, on Part IV. of the Schedule (Provisions as to Election of Elected Members), moved to leave out subsection (1) (a) Any one who read the Bill, he observed, would find that the latter part of subsection (1) was more or less a contradiction of subsection (1) (a) Subsection (1) provided that— Subject to the provisions of this Act, elections of elected members shall be held at such times and in such manner, and in accordance with such regulations, as the Board of Trade may by order direct; and those regulations may contain all things necessary, preliminary, or incidental, to the election. Provided that, in proscribing the manner in which elections are to be conducted and votes are to be recorded, the Board of Trade shall have regard to the desirability of elections being so conducted and votes being so recorded, whether by allowing the voter to record a vote for a number of candidates in order of preference, or otherwise, as to secure that so far as possible the several interests concerned shall be adequately represented on the Port authority. He supposed "adequately represented" meant represented in proportion to financial liability, and that surely ought to be the basis of representation of the different interests on the Port authority. But subsection (1) (a) told them the regulations might provide that, subject to duly qualified candidates presenting themselves, certain interests—those who paid dues on ships and those who paid dues on goods—should be equally represented. On referring to the proceedings of the Joint Committee, he found that this was put in because it had been observed that the custom had grown up in Liverpool of dividing the representation equally between the payers of dues on ships and the payers of dues on goods. He would point out, however, by way of explanation, that the reason the custom grew up in Liverpool was because these parties were paying an equal amount of money. There was no reason why they should be equal other than that they were contributing an equal amount. He considered that to lay down that the two parties ought to be equally represented without binding them to bear an equal share of the burden was not a fair thing to do. If they wanted to induce people to bear their fair share of the burden of the expense of the port in a cheerful spirit it was just as well to let them understand that they would not get representation on the Port authority unless they were willing to bear that share. Therefore he thought subsection (1) should be allowed to stand by itself without qualification.

Amendment proposed— In page 52, to leave out lines 33 to 37, inclusive.'"—(Mr. Holt.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. The clause is an agreed clause. It was inserted after a good deal of discussion, and is regarded as a most valuable clause. The object is to enable the Board of Trade to exercise a moderating influence and as far as possible to preserve a just balance of representation on the Port authority. I hope my hon. friend, whose views are very valuable and important, will not consider that every deviation from the excellent precedent provided in Liverpool is necessarily to be expunged from the Bill.

MR. HOLT

was willing to respond at once to his right hon. friend's appeal. The right hon. Gentleman had met them all very fairly, but at the same time the provision of this clause ought to be carefully borne in mind, and people who paid dues on goods should remember that if they were to have half the representation they should not make too much fuss if they asked to pay half the bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 54, line 32, after the word 'craft' to insert the words 'or other person.'"—(Mr. Holt.)

*MR. SEAVERNS moved to omit from Part IV. of the Schedule subsection (17), which reads: "For the purposes of the first election under this Act 'dues' shall include dues of such classes and in respect of such services only as may be prescribed." He desired to call the attention of the Committee to the last subsection in Part IV. of the Schedule, because, though it was a comparatively innocent looking little paragraph, i raised a question of considerable importance. The effect of the paragraph, as the Committee would see, was to leave in the hands of the Board of Trade the privilege of adjusting the franchise so as to give the Board complete control of the first election to the Port authority. He thought that was a very dangerous and a very unwise power to place in the hands of any Government Department. The power of the Government Departments was continually on the increase. He believed it was generally exercised wisely, but the increase of power ought to be viewed rather jealously by the House of Commons. This Amendment was looked upon as one of very great importance, because, as he understood, before the Joint Committee a representative of the Board of Trade said he was very doubtful whether the payers of landing, storing, and delivering charges on goods in docks would receive voting powers in respect of those charges. Considerable controversy arose on this point, and eventually the Committee cut down the privilege proposed to be asked for by the Board of Trade by limiting it to the first election. He submitted that the privilege should not be enjoyed by the Board of Trade even in the case of the first election, and he hoped the Government would see their way to withdraw this objectionable paragraph.

Amendment proposed— In page 55, line 28, to leave out subsection (17)."—(Mr. Seaverns.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

This subsection was divided upon by the Joint Committee after prolonged discussion to decide what payments should be treated as dues and qualify for votes at the first election. The Board of Trade must be trusted—they have already been given so much power, that if they are untrustworthy the Bill must be absolutely a failure—to prescribe the payers of dues in order that injustice may not be done to particular classes.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 369.]

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at four minutes before One o'clock.