Lords Sitting of 23 July 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading— Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices)*(199); School Boards*(200); Exchequer

1595
and Treasury Bills*; Greenwich Hospital*(201); Summary Jurisdiction (Term of Imprisonment)*(202).
Second Heading—River Thames (No. 2) (171); Turnpike Acts Continuance*(174); Public Health (Ships, &c.)*(186); Artillery and Rifle Ranges*(193).
Committee—Submarine Telegraph Cables (104–203).
Report—Shannon Navigation*(172); Land Purchase (Ireland) (184–204–205).
Third Reading—Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment*(192); Metropolis Management Acts Amendment*(162), and passed.

WORCESTER EXTENSION BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  On Motion "That the Bill do pass?"
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BEAUCHAMP)said, he rose to move the omission of Clause 22, as amended in Committee, relating to the assessment of railways. He took this course, not as a Member of the Government, but as Lord Lieutenant of the county of Worcester; but he believed the Home Office and the Local Government Board approved his opposition to the clause. It really did not receive the consideration of the Committee of the House. The Bill was one for the extension of the boundaries of the borough of Worcester. The Great Western Railway opposed the Bill before the Commons' Committee, but on clauses only. The Company gave notice that they would offer the same opposition in this House; but they opposed the Preamble, and the promoters being unprepared, offered this clause. The facts were that since 1832 the boundaries of the population of Worcester had been greatly increased. In consequence of this, it had been agreed to add to the civic area about 2,000 acres, and a population thereon of about 8,000. Within this area there was some property belonging to the Railway Company, and this property would, according to the general law, be rated in the city; but by this clause it would be still rated as if it were in the county. There was no justification whatever for such an exemption. There was no reason why the Great Western Railway Company should be exempt from the operation of the ordinary laws, and should be placed in a more favourable position in Worcester than any railway in any other borough in the Kingdom. All the promoters asked was that mat-
  1596
  ters should be left to the operation of the general law. The interests at stake were so large that he must ask their Lordships to overlook the error of judgment committed by the promoters, and, in justice to the ratepayers of Worcester, to omit the 22nd clause.
  Moved, to leave out Clause 22 (of the Bill as amended in Committee) "Assessment of Railways, &c."—(The Earl Beau-champ.)
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that, having been Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill had been referred, he desired to make a few observations. He was sorry that ho could not agree to the Motion which had been made by his noble Friend. This Session there had been more attacks on the decisions of Select Committees than he ever remembered to have been made in any previous year; and those attacks must have a depressing effect upon noble Lords who endeavoured to do their duty as Members of Committees. The object of the Bill was to include within the boundaries of the City of Worcester about 2,000 acres, with a population of about 8,000. There would thus be about four persons to an acre, and, considering that much of the land was agricultural, the Committee was quite right in determining on a differential rating. When the promoters had called witnesses and concluded their case, the counsel for the opponents rose and asked whether he had any case to meet. The Committee intimated that they saw no reason at that stage of the case to stop the Bill. Shortly afterwards the counsel on both sides came to an arrangement which was embodied in this clause. Everything that had been done in the matter had been done with the assent of the promoters, and, the clause having been accepted by them, all further opposition to the measure had been withdrawn. He did not think that the promoters of the Bill had any cause of complaint, and, while wishing to avoid the use of strong language, he could not help saying that their action in assenting to the introduction of the clause before the Committee, and then taking the first opportunity to get rid of it, was hardly straightforward. If their Lordships decided to reject the clause on the ground that it was against public policy, he hoped that they would recommit the

  1597
  Bill, in order that those who opposed it might have an opportunity of being heard.
  THE EARL OF ABERBEENsaid, he agreed with the suggestion of the noble Earl who had just sat down that if the clause were rejected the Bill should be re-committed. In his opinion, there was no ground for supposing that the Great Western Railway Company attempted to take the promoters at any disadvantage.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Earl BROWN-LOW)said, he believed there was no exact precedent for the principle laid down in the clause; and, therefore, he should support the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)said, he thought the Committee had not acted with judgment in accepting the proposal for an arrangement. However, the only question before the House was whether they would support the decision of the Committee or would reject the clause, because to re-commit the Bill would be to throw it over for the present Session. For his own part, he was opposed to the rejection of the clause.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 35: Majority 17.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 171.)
(The Lord Mount Temple.)
RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 171.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to improve by regulation the use and enjoyment which the inhabitants of London derived from the Thames. The traffic on this navigable highway was no longer for business, but for pleasure. The Conservancy had not sufficient authority for preventing disorderly, ill-behaved people emerging from the boats into lawns and pleasure grounds, to the annoyance of riparian residents. Power would be given to the Conservators to prevent such abuses. Provisions were made to prevent landowners from claiming rights which did not belong to them—of shutting pleasure boats out of inlets and nar-
  1598
  row passages between islands and banks of the river. The Bill would regulate the use of the river to the advantage of all parties; but it did not deprive the public or the riparian owners of their lawful rights.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Viscount BURY)said, he had great sympathy with a good many of the provisions of the Bill, which he thought would do a great many things that were very desirable, just, and right. But the noble Lord would see that the Bill in one or two instances made legal that which ho wished to prevent. For instance, the 4th clause gave the right to anchor and moor for a reasonable time. The whole point of that clause turned upon the construction to be placed upon the words "reasonable time." Then, again, the 6th clause provided that no house boat should anchor, moor, or remain stationary opposite any gardens, house, or pleasure grounds for more than seven days without the sanction of the occupier of the house or grounds. That clause gave a distinct permission to moor and anchor these boats for a certain time. Anybody who knew the River Thames also knew that house boats were very largo floating palaces, and attracted people down to stay with those who owned them. He supposed that throughout the length of the river they numbered 1,000; and he thought that if the owners of these boats were to be empowered to anchor for seven days immediately opposite a man's pleasure grounds without any licence from the occupier a grievous injustice would be fixed by the Bill. If the noble Lord would strike out seven days and insert 24 hours that objection would fall to the ground. But he considered that the Bill ought to contain a further provision. In his opinion, if the owner of any one of these boats wished to anchor opposite a man's lawn or house he should be compelled, in the first place, to obtain permission from the Conservancy so to anchor, and the riparian proprietors should have a voice in the matter. If a man desired to keep a boat stationed at a particular spot for more than 24 hours the riparian ought to have some means of approaching the Conservancy, and of making himself heard in the matter.

  1599
  At the same time, the Conservators themselves ought not to have complete jurisdiction, and the riparian owner should be able to appeal from their decision if they gave permission for a boat to be anchored opposite his house or pleasure grounds. Clause 53 gave jurisdiction to the magistrates in certain matters connected with the police; and he thought that the magistrates' court should be the tribunal to appeal to from the decision of the Conservators. If the noble Lord would undertake that these points should be attended to in Committee the Bill would do a great public service.
  LORD CLINTONsaid, that, while approving the second reading of the Bill, which was in many respects an admirable measure, he thought that in some matters of detail its provisions would require Amendment. He hoped, therefore, that sufficient time would be allowed to elapse before the Committee stage, in order that opportunity might be given to prepare Amendments.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEobserved that the objections of the noble Viscount were not, in his opinion, valid. The first duty imposed upon the Conservators was to prevent annoyance; but if they thought that under certain circumstances there was a case in which no annoyance would be caused by the mooring of a boat, then they had power to determine that the mooring did not constitute an annoyance. Under other circumstances, the Conservators might say that the boat should not be moored for more than seven days. They might fairly consider in Committee whether seven days should be the exact period. He might add that the Bill was generally approved of by the riparian owners, who were anxious to see it passed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND and GORDON)said, he would support the appeal made by the noble Lord behind him that the Committee stage should not be taken before those interested in the Bill had an opportunity of drawing up Amendments to meet the cases in which they were interested. The noble Lord had stated that the riparian owners were desirous of having these powers. That might be so in the case of some; but there were persons who were very much opposed to the Bill, and who would not care to have boats moored
  1600
  opposite their houses or grounds for a period of seven days. The power given to the Conservancy to permit the mooring of boats opposite a man's grounds, whether he liked it or not, was a very strong power. He hoped the details would be discussed in Committee.
  THE EARL OF ABINGDONwished to say, as a Member of a Committee appointed by riparian owners to consider this Bill, that he proposed in Committee to suggest certain Amendments, which he hoped would be agreed to.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly. and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CABLES BILL.—(No. 104.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CABLES BILL.—(No. 104.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of protesting against the manner in which the Convention dealing with submarine telegraph cables had been conducted. The property affected by the Convention consisted of 110,000 miles of telegraph cable, of which 98,000 miles belonged to private individuals or to private Companies. The whole of those cables had been laid down at different times by English hands, and were for the greater part maintained, kept in order, and repaired by English hands. The value of the property in submarine cables owned by private individuals or Companies was estimated at £34,000,000, and the owners of that property were, for the greater part, inhabitants of the United Kingdom. That was the nature of the property to which the Convention applied, and for the protection of which the Convention was held in March, 1884. The Convention was composed of the Representatives of 26 Powers, including the European Powers, two Asiatic Powers—namely, the Shah of Persia and the Indian Government—the United States, and some eight or ten small Governments in South America. The only feature common to all those Representatives was their complete ignorance of everything connected with sub-

  1601
  marine telegraphy. He did not believe there was one person at that Convention who had any knowledge, theoretically or practically, of the laying or maintenance of submarine cables. It was naturally to be expected that the Convention would communicate in some way with the owners of this valuable property. So far from doing so, they legislated for it in complete ignorance of the subject, and without inviting the owners or other persons capable of doing so to give them information. The result, as might be anticipated, was that the Bill carrying out the deliberations of the Convention contained clauses so objectionable that the owners of this valuable property, almost to a man, had petitioned that this Bill, designed for their protection, should not become law. They alleged that so far from the Bill being calculated to protect them it was eminently calculated to injure and, in some cases, to ruin them. The best evidence he could give that the objections to the Bill were not exaggerated was afforded by the Amendments which the noble Duke who had charge of the Bill had placed upon the Paper. In one case the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke was very considerable, and in another it entirely wiped out one of the Articles of the Convention. He ventured to think, however, that the Amendments he had placed on the Paper were preferable to those of the noble Duke; at any rate, the owners of the telegraph cables preferred them. He had risen to record this protest, because he thought it intolerable that a large and valuable property like this should be dealt with, as this had been, without any communication with those for whose benefit the Convention was ostensibly held.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Confirmation of Convention).
  On the Motion of the Marquess of TWEEDDALE, the following Amendment made:—"In page 1, line 9, after ("and"), insert ("subject to the provisions of this Act").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Punishment of violation of Article two of Convention).
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND), who had given Notice of the following Amendment:—In page 2, after subsection (3), insert as a new subsection (3a)—
  "A person shall not be deemed to have acted wilfully who in order to the repair of one submarine cable is unavoidably compelled, by reason of not being able to effect the repair otherwise, to break or injure another submarine cable; but this provision shall not apply so as to exempt such person from any liability under this Act to pay the cost of repairing and breakage or injury;"
  Also after the clause, to insert as a new clause—
  (Limitation of Article four of Convention.)
  "Article four of the Schedule to this Act shall not apply to a depth of water exceeding one hundred fathoms,"
  said, it had been adopted by him in consequence of representations made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Tweeddale) and other Gentlemen interested in the subject. It was pointed out by them that the clause affected Telegraph Companies injuriously, and rendered them liable to be punished by fines and imprisonment if in the exercise of their duty to repair their own cables they injured those of somebody else. It might very well happen that in repairing their cable a Company might unintentionally damage the cable of another. To meet this difficulty he now moved to amend the clause by providing that no person should be deemed to have acted wilfully who, in order to repair one submarine cable, should be unavoidably compelled to injure another submarine cable. The provision was not, however, to exempt the person injuring the cable of someone else from liability for the cost of repairing it.
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEsaid, that he entirely agreed with the principle of the Amendment, though it did not, in his opinion, afford sufficient protection to those for whom it was intended. Ho objected to the use of the ambiguous word "unavoidable." It would be almost impossible to say whether any particular act done by the captain of a ship in mid-Atlantic in the repair of a cable was, under the circumstances of the case, unavoidable or not. It should be sufficient that everything was done in reason to prevent injury to other cables. He would

  1603
  suggest an Amendment to the effect that punishment should not be inflicted when sufficient and reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent injury being done to another cable.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he could not help thinking that this was a very dangerous piece of legislation. It appeared to him, however, that the Amendment of the noble Duke was an improvement on the original clause, and that the Amendment of the noble Marquess was an improvement on that of the noble Duke; but he himself intended to suggest a third Amendment to the effect that this section should not extend to any case where in a bonâ fide attempt to repair a submarine cable injury had been caused to another cable or the same had been broken, but that the section should not apply so as to prevent a civil remedy.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND)said, that his Amendment was substantially the same as that proposed by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had referred to the difficulty of mending a cable in the Atlantic; but the Amendment he proposed to insert in the Bill had reference only to the 100 fathom limit, and, consequently, what the noble Marquess said was not much to the purpose. They had all the same object in view, and that was not to subject persons to what would certainly be an injury in the execution of what was their legitimate duty. There were three propositions before the Committee—his own, that of the noble Marquess, and that of the noble and learned Lord. He liked the third better than the second, and it was possible the second might be better than his own. He would suggest that that of the noble and learned Lord should be printed, and that the matter should be left open to the Report, which he hoped might be taken on Friday.
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEsaid, he did not understand the noble Duke's criticism as to the 100 fathom limit—which applied solely to Article IV. of the Convention, and not to Clause 3 now under discussion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOE (Lord HALSBURY)suggested that there were some ambiguities in the clause of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bram-well), which he might correct in putting
  1604
  it on the Paper. The words "bonâ fide" and "reasonable care" involved the question which would have to be determined by a jury.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND)said, he proposed to insert after Clause 3 a clause to meet objections which had been raised that the measure went far beyond what was reasonable. It was said that it would be very difficult indeed, if not impossible, in mid ocean to take up a cable, especially in places where they were in close proximity to each other. He therefore proposed that Article 4 of the Schedule should only apply to a depth of water not exceeding 100 fathoms, a limit which was well defined in all charts. There was no difficulty in dealing with cables within that depth; it was easy to take them up and repair them. He added to the clause a Proviso preserving any right or remedy possessed independently of the Convention or of the Act.
  Moved, to insert new clause after Clause 3—
  (Limitation of Article four of Convention.)
  "Article four of the Schedule to this Act shall not apply at a depth of water exceeding one hundred fathoms."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE, in accepting the Amendment, said, he was obliged to the noble Duke for the manner in which he had endeavoured to meet the wishes of those concerned.
  THE EARL OF CAMPRBDOWNasked whether the limitation in the Amendment was consistent with the Convention, which applied to all cables, and for which the contracting parties undertook to ask the sanction of their Legislatures?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND)said, that Parliament could not be compelled to carry out the whole Convention.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was afraid we were establishing a system of punishment for British subjects which would not be enforced by foreign nations against their own subjects engaged in these operations, which would be undertaken when we were neither at peace nor at war, but between the two.
  Amendment agreed to; Clause inserted accordingly.
  Clauses 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Masters of vessels liable to punishment).
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE, in moving the insertion of the following clause:—
  (Provisions as to a concession of right of landing cables.)
  "With respect to concessions to be hereafter granted of the right of landing submarine cables on the shores of the United Kingdom the following enactments shall have effect:

  "(1.) No such concession shall be granted unless public notice of the application for and purport of the proposed concession has been previously given by advertisement once in The London Gazette and twice in two successive weeks in two daily morning newspapers published in London.

  "(2.) Before any such concession be granted the Board of Trade shall consider any objections which may be made thereto by any company or persons affected thereby, and of which notice in writing shall be given to the Board of Trade within twenty-one days after the date of the insertion in The London Gazette of the advertisement mentioned in this section.

  "(3.) A copy or statement of the material provisions of every such concession shall be inserted in The London Gazette within fourteen days from the date thereof, and copies shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within the like period if Parliament be then sitting, and if not, then within fourteen days from the next sitting thereof,"

  said, the object of Article 3 was to secure in future that a cable should be laid in such a manner that it would not cause any injury to any other cable, and he wished to provide that in future when a concession was given before it became valid it should be treated as a provisional order—in other words, that the concession should remain for a certain number of days so that it might be examined, discussed, and, if necessary, objected to. At present, there was no machinery whatever for ascertaining the nature of the concession which might be granted by the Board of Trade or the Post Office.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND)said, he objected most strongly to this clause, which seemed to have been drawn up very much in favour of existing Companies. It would be very difficult for new Companies to become established as means might be taken during the time application was being made to endeavour to buy up the new
  1606
  Company. He also thought it would be a great hardship upon the owner of a foreshore that he should not be able to grant a concession to a Cable Company to land upon it without coming to Parliament.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, ho should support the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEsaid, he had had no communication with any of the Companies on this subject, and there was no intention to stop concessions.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the said Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 203.)

LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
(NO. 197.) REPORT.
Order of the Day for the Report of the Amendments to be received read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE), in moving that the Report of Amendments to this Bill be received, said, that it would save time if he laid before their Lordships as shortly as possible a sketch of the principal Amendments which he proposed to make. He had endeavoured, in the Amendments he now submitted to the House, to deal with the various points raised in the discussion that had taken place on the Bill. He had also availed himself of many suggestions made to him from various quarters with regard to different parts of the Bill. The first important Amendment was one which dealt with the one-fifth of the purchase-money which it was proposed to leave as a guarantee. He had already inserted various Amendments in the Bill at the Committee stage dealing with that matter, and he now proposed to introduce further safeguards for those whose money would thus be retained for the security of the State. Another important question was with reference to the power proposed to be given by the Bill to the Land Commission in certain instances to make vesting orders. The Bill proposed that these vesting orders should give an indefeasible title; but it had been pointed out in that House, and

1607
also suggested to him by various persons outside, that it would be desirable to permit other vesting orders to be made in cases where the Land Commission might find itself unable to pronounce vesting orders giving an indefeasible title. It was thought that in such cases it would be desirable that the Commission should have power to give vesting orders which should not be absolutely indefeasible. Another Amendment was with reference to a subject brought to their Lordships' attention by the noble Earl the late Viceroy of Ireland (Earl Spencer). It had relation to the possible danger from the apportionment of rent charges and the possible injustice which would accrue from the apportionment of mortgages. For instance, a person might now receive a rent charge of £1,000 a-year from two or three solvent tenants, and it might be very inconvenient for him to have substituted for those two or three solvent persons 30 or 40 others, from whom he might have considerable difficulty in collecting his money. In the same way a person might have a mortgage of £5,000 secured on the property of one person, and it might be very inconvenient for him to have to look for his interest to a multiplicity of owners. He had, therefore, struck out of the Bill the power of apportioning rent charges and mortgages. He was supported in that by the information which had been communicated to him that the Landed Estates Court had not been in the habit for years of using its power of apportioning rent charges, owing probably to the inconvenience and injustice resulting therefrom. The Landed Estates Court, he believed, had never had the power of apportioning or dividing mortgages, and, therefore, there was no precedent in that matter. Another point to which he thought their Lordships would readily give their assent was with regard to the position of members of both branches of the Legal Profession employed in the business of the Land Commission. It had been felt a grievance that persons of distinguished and honourable position in both branches of the Legal Profession should, by their employment about the business of the Commission, cease to be regarded as practising part of their profession. That grievance he proposed to remedy. He also had taken power to
1608
appoint, if thought necessary, a separate solicitor for that part of the work connected with land purchase. With that sketch of the Amendments which he had now to submit, he begged to move their adoption.
LOUD FITZGERALDagreed that the proposed Amendments would carry out the intention referred to; but he wished to give Notice that on the third reading he should raise the question of the desirability of giving power to the Land Commission to grant an indefeasible title.
Moved, "That the Report of the Amendments be received."—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
Motion agreed to; further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (Nos. 204 and 205.)

HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked Her Majesty's Government, "Whether it is their intention to adopt any measures for improving and extending harbour accommodation on the coasts of the United Kingdom, with a view to the increased protection of human life and of commerce from shipwreck? From the evidence recently laid before the public it appeared that there were but very few harbours on the Eastern Coast. When the Royal Commission reported in 1859 the loss of property by wrecks amounted to £1,500,000 annually, but it now amounted to £2,000,000. He hoped the Government would look at the question from a financial point of view. He introduced a deputation upon this subject to the late President of the Board of Trade, who spoke in a most discouraging manner, and said that he did not believe that the loss of life and property would be very much lessened by the establishment of harbours of refuge. That statement, he might say, was received with murmurs of disapprobation, followed by something like laughter, by the 30 or 40 gentlemen connected with naval affairs who were present. Such was his opinion of the importance of the subject that, whatever Government might be in Office next year, he should bring it under the notice of the House,
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND)said, there was no Member of that House, and certainly no Member of the Government, who did not admit most fully the great importance of harbour accommodation throughout the country, and everyone must deplore very much the loss of life among our sailors at sea. But, on the part of the Government, he was bound to say that they had no intention of departing from the policy of successive Governments for, he thought, 25 years past, by which they had always declined to make grants to public authorities for harbour construction except in cases of Imperial and national necessity. With regard to the subject of loans to harbour authorities, that matter was now under the consideration of the Board of Trade and of the Treasury, and he hoped that at no great distance of time some arrangement would be made. These loans were granted to assist authorities in making harbours. But the noble Lord, he took it, had an idea that the Government should undertake to construct harbours all round the coast. He was afraid he could not give his noble Friend a more distinct answer.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, that £24,000,000 had already been expended by private bodies upon harbour works, and what he wished was that the Government should give every encouragement and assistance in its power to those who would in the future undertake the construction of harbours.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.