SECOND READING. (Hansard, 23 July 1885)

§ 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.

§ 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 CLINTON
said, 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-TEMPLE
observed 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 ABINGDON
wished 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.