(NO. 218.) THIRD READING. (Hansard, 6 August 1885)

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, if the measure passed in its present shape, it would ruin some of the most beautiful residences on the beautiful Thames. Although he had promised not to interfere any further with the progress of the Bill, he had just received such a piteous letter from an old friend, that he felt bound to lay it before their Lordships, and take their opinion upon the Bill. The gentleman to whom he referred, and who signed himself "Your Afflicted Old Friend," begged him to implore the House not to pass the Bill, which, by permitting the mooring of house-boats for so long a period as 48 hours in one spot, would absolutely ruin his "pretty waterside place," and destroy all the pleasure to be derived from his lawn which fronted the river. If a river was navigable, people had the incidental rights which attached to that navigation; and he quite agreed that, if a vessel sprang a leak, or wanted to hoist a sail, those on board would have a right to remain anywhere in the river while they were doing what was necessary for them to enjoy the right of navigation which the law gave them; but that was all the right they had. It was said that, if they moored opposite a gentleman's house or pleasure ground, the riparian proprietor had no remedy. He maintained, on the contrary, that the riparian proprietor had two remedies. He might unmoor the vessel and turn it adrift, just the same as anyone had a right to turn a carriage out of his garden; or he might bring an action at Common Law for damages against the owner. Consequently, there was no necessity for the Bill. The Bill would legalize the mooring of these boats for a period of 48 hours, and he very much deprecated the rights of riparian owners being thus sacrificed. It would give a right which no gentleman or decent person would exercise. In conclusion, he asked their Lordships not to allow the Bill to pass, as, in his judgment, it was absolutely indefensible.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, the appeal made by so great an authority as the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell) was so striking an appeal, that it produced in his mind considerable doubt as to whether the Bill ought to be proceeded with. He had not voted against the Bill, because he 1262 had hitherto believed that a large majority of the riparian proprietors wished it to pass in its present form; but he confessed that what the noble and learned Lord had said, and what he had recently heard, led him to doubt very much whether that was the case. The noble and learned Lord had earnestly appealed to their Lordships upon the legality of the measure, and he (the Marquess of Salisbury) would suggest whether it would not be better to leave the structure of the Bill as it now appeared, and to insert a Proviso to the effect that nothing in the Bill should be so construed as to deprive the riparian owners of any legal rights which they might now possess. That might be done by the omission of certain words. Whether in that form, or any other, the Bill was passed eventually, the language of the noble and learned Lord made him think it would be far better to pause for a day or two before finally disposing of the measure, in order that his arguments might be fully considered.

§ LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE
said, that, however sound the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) might be as a matter of law on a certain state of facts, the facts on which he founded that view were certainly wrong. In the Select Committee upon this subject the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne), when in the other House, knowing the real facts, came to an entirely different conclusion from that arrived at by the noble and learned Lord in ignorance of those facts. To pass a law that boats should not remain at all opposite to the residences of riparian owners would be to deprive Londoners of one of their most agreeable sources of recreation, without securing to the riparian owners any corresponding benefit. He thought their Lordships ought to pay some attention to the recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee of which Lord Ashbourne and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach were active Members. Those recommendations were embodied in the present Bill. There was so great a difficulty in taking advantage of the existing law, that he had not heard of any riparian owner who had attempted to put it in force. The riparian owners had sent representatives who had laid their case before the Committee. If the law were effec- 1263 tive in the direction suggested by the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Bramwell), it would cause serious inconvenience to hundreds and thousands of persons who now spent a week or a month on the river in a house boat. Indeed, he had heard the Bill objected to on the ground that it interfered too much with the rights of the public. The main purpose of the Bill was the regulation of the traffic, and, in order to carry out the object, it proposed to increase the powers now possessed by the Thames Conservancy. Another object of the Bill was to prevent shooting on the river. At this time of the year crowds of people went upon the river with guns and pistols for the purpose of destroying the wild fowl, and frequently the young swans. Such a practice was most dangerous. The other provisions of the measure were intended to enable the police and the magistrates to act with promptitude and with efficiency. Thus, every boat would be required to have a number or badge marked upon it, by which it could be identified and, in case of necessity, stopped at the locks. He trusted that the noble and learned Lord would not intervene at that moment for the purpose of preventing the passing of a measure which had been framed for the mutual interests of the public and of the riparian owners.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)
said, he would point out that the Bill created new rights, and deprived riparian owners of rights they undoubtedly already possessed. He fully concurred in the view expressed by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) as to the legal aspect of the question. He had originally been assured that all the riparian owners were in favour of the Bill; but now he understood that there were many against it. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Mount-Temple) had spoken somewhat lightly of the legal opinion of the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Bramwell); but all he (the Lord Chancellor) could say was that there was no lawyer in this country who would not assume that opinion to be accurate until the contrary was shown. Therefore, the opinion of the noble and learned Lord was not to be cast aside in the manner the noble Lord proposed. The noble Lord who had moved the third 1264 reading of the Bill appeared to altogether mistake the question at issue. Their Lordships were dealing, not with the hundreds and thousands of people who amused themselves on the river, but with the comparatively limited number of persons who thought fit to loiter opposite the houses of riparian owners for, perhaps, three months at a time. Nobody could pretend that this was done in the exercise of the ordinary rights of navigation on the river. In these circumstances, he begged to move that the debate be adjourned until Monday next, in order to give those noble Lords who were opposed to the measure an opportunity of attending and stating their objections to it.