§ Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
§ EARL STANHOPE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it affected only the Inner, or Commercial, Harbour at Dover, the control of which, it proposed to transfer to the Corporation of the town. At present, the Harbour was managed by a Board consisting of the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, two members of the Corporation, one member of the Board of Trade, two representatives of the two Railway Companies having termini at Dover, and a representative of the Admiralty. The chief business of the Board, however, was managed by a local committee of four in a hole-and-corner manner, for they eat with closed doors, and published no accounts. The Bill, which had nothing to do with the Outer Harbour, was supported by the Corporation, by the chief traders, and by the great majority of the ratepayers of Dover. The financial condition of the present Board was shown by the fact that they had to raise money at 4½ per cent; while their management of the Harbour had been so unsuccessful, that the amount of shipping using the Harbour had decreased during the last 20 years by 262 vessels. Thus, though the population of Dover in 1861 was 25,325, it rose in 1881 to 30,292; the rateable value had increased by 55,510 during the same period, and yet the shipping had decreased in number. It had been asserted that the Dover railway companies were hostile to the Bill. It would be found that they merely formally objected to the Second Heading of the Bill, in order to obtain a locus standi before the Committee. In his opinion, there could be no real ground of objection to a measure which had been introduced for the purpose of transferring the Harbour property to a well-constituted Corporation whose sole object would be to provide additional accommodation for the travelling public. It was hoped that, by better management, there would be more traffic and trade at Dover, as the new Board would be able to borrow money at a lower rate of interest than 4¼ per cent—probably, say, 657 at 3 per cent—in order to make the improvements which were necessary to develop the Harbour, increase the shipping, and generally to provide greater conveniences for cross-Channel traffic. He contended that it was an anomaly that a prosperous town like Dover should have so very little control over their own harbour. He always understood that it was one of the great principles of the Party opposite that they always encouraged local efforts and local self-government; but on this occasion the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition (Earl Granville) seemed to have forgotten their cardinal principle, as he had given Notice of opposition. He (Earl Stanhope) could only imagine that the noble Earl's opposition was due not to any desire to prevent the Second Beading of the measure, but with the view of protecting some little patronage that he might have as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. He felt assured that all objections entertained by the noble Earl could be removed when the Bill was referred to a Committee; and he therefore now begged leave to move that the Bill be read a second time.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Stanhope.)
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I rise to make the Motion of which I have given Notice—namely, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, and in doing so, it is scarcely necessary for me to deny that I have any personal motive in so doing. As Lord Warden, I am ex officio the Representative of the Crown on the Dover Harbour Board, with which this Bill deals. The other members of this representative Body are two burgesses elected by the Town Council, one Representative of the Board of Trade, one of the Admiralty, and one of each railway company having termini at Dover; the number of the Board being seven. The two Representatives of the Government on the Harbour Board and I have been placed in a great difficulty. If the Bill is, as appeared to us, contrary to the principles which, up to this time, have been adopted by successive Governments and by Parliament, and has no primâ facie recommendations, it ought to be stopped by the Government. But if a change of views recommends itself to the Government, we asked ourselves whether we 658 had any right to ask—and we certainly had no wish to see—that the money of the Corporation and of the Harbour Board should be spent in Parliamentary Committees, instead of being applied to the proper purposes. In this dilemma, I applied to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade for his advice, and he, in the straightforward and courteous way which has marked all his communications with me, gave us as his opinion that we ought to oppose the Bill. That has relieved us from great embarrassment; our course is clear. But it has not made me less anxious to secure the object without wasteful expenditure of the funds of the two public bodies at Dover. This Private Bill proposes to cancel the principal provisions of the Public Act of 1861, to dissolve the Harbour Board, and to transfer the harbour to the Dover Corporation. The Board has a considerable property, not derived from any local dues, but from former tolls on the passing trade. The revenue at present is spent in improvements on the Harbour, and in reducing the amount of dues on shipping entering the port. A Paper has been communicated to the Board of Trade, showing the great improvements which have been made by us, and the excellence of our financial position. The Bill proposes to transfer all the property and management of the Harbour to the Corporation, with power to apply the income and proceeds of the sale of the Harbour property to the paying off of the town debts and the improving of the town—in other words, to transfer property held in trust for public purposes to a Town Council, whose primary interest would be in the town and not in the Harbour purposes. The management is to be confined to a committee of the Town Council, with, the same representatives as at present, of the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and of the two railway companies. The Lord Warden is to be removed, and the Mayor and four more Town Councillors are to be added to those who now sit. The acts of the committee are subject to the Town Council, and the Representatives of the Government will have no place which is supreme. With regard to the removal of the Lord Warden from the Board, I may say the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Palmerston—former Lord Wardens—took especial interest in the work 659 of the Harbour. I have tried to follow the example of these illustrious men for more than 20 years. I believe, perhaps too fondly, that my independence of all local interests, and the facilities I had as a Representative of the Crown for communicating with successive Governments of all politics on the business of the Harbour, and thus keeping the Government and Board in harmony, has made me of some use. In personal qualifications, I do not deny that a town councillor might be much more than equal to me; but, in the course of nature, my tenure of the office must be short, and I much doubt whether even five town councillors, all liable to be changed every year—an important circumstance—would make up for the services of such men as the Duke of Wellington, Lord Dalhousie, Lord Palmerston, and of such as I hope will be my successors. I know that the President of the Board of Trade is of opinion that the Lord Warden should not be removed; but I pointed out to him that there would be some incongruity in asking such a man as, for instance, the Duke of Wellington to be a member of the committee of the Town Council, under the Mayor, and subject to the absolute control of a superior body. There is now an intimation that the Lord Warden, the Representative of the Crown, may appoint a representative of himself; but the privilege would not be of much value, as his nominee would be in the same hopeless minority as the Representatives of the Government Departments. I do not clearly gather from the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) what are the primâ facie arguments in favour of the Bill. It is stated that the Government Departments have come to an agreement as to important alterations. But with whom? Neither the Town Council, nor any committee appointed by them, have been consulted or know anything of these alterations. It is stated that the Town Council can, by their credit, give pecuniary aid to the Harbour. The Harbour Board is much obliged at this additional proof of the proverb, that everybody likes to lend to the rich. The Harbour Board has a large property, they can borrow quite as cheaply as the town, and they think the offer a poor compensation for the power claimed to use the Harbour property for town uses. It is said that an arrangement has been come 660 to with the railways. It is possible that this has been done privately; but the South Eastern Company's shipping interest is in Folkestone, not in Dover Harbour. As to the London and Chatham, they maybe asked, "It is all very well to dissemble your love, but why do you kick me downstairs?" They have presented a Petition complaining, among other things, of the gross injustice of the composition of the committee of the Town Council and of the power reserved to the Town Council. All the noble Earl's statements are, if I may use the phrase, begging the question—assumptions. He assumes that, if the transfer is made to the shifting body of the Town Council Committee, with the Government Representatives in a helpless minority, great results will flow—more ships in an improved harbour, and greater facilities for continental traffic. If these anticipations have any solid ground, the present management must have been bad in failing to secure such improvements. But I can show that any such insinuation can only be an afterthought. When the Bill was first proposed to the Town Council, the proposer stated distinctly, without a dissentient voice being heard, that there was no complaint against the administration of the Harbour Board. Some such complaints have since appeared, founded on mis-statement of facts; but the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade, 14 days ago, with his usual courtesy, confirmed to the deputation which waited upon him, the assurance of the proposer of the Bill that there were no such complaints, and he assured us that we were not in any sense on our defence. Further, than this, an overwhelming majority of the traders and shipowners, the local parties who are interested in the Harbour, are opposed to the Bill. They have petitioned Parliament against it, urging, among other reasons, that it is unjust to divert Harbour revenues to other purposes, and objecting to the management being placed in the hands of persons who have no knowledge whatever of the duties they will be called upon to perform, and who, before they have time to acquire that knowledge, might all be superseded by others no better qualified than themselves. A considerable number of the most important ratepayers are also against it; but I admit that a majority 661 are in its favour. Indeed, it would be odd if they were not so. The present Board is representative and without any pecuniary interest. Though they have always endeavoured to benefit the town, when compatible with their duty to the Harbour, their primary object has been the Harbour. But for the ratepayers, their primary interest is in the Borough; and it is natural that they should be tempted by the idea of discharging the town debts and of improving the town by means of the Harbour property, derived not from local rates, but from former passing tolls. Also there are many ratepayers holders of leases, some of which will shortly expire, and there is to be found in the Bill a peculiar provision which they must greatly appreciate. I do not think that I can be contradicted in saying that the transfer is contrary to the principles on which the Board of Trade and Parliament have acted for many years up to the present day. In some places harbours used to be in the hands of Town Councils, and it was found that their funds were often diverted to local purposes of a different character; and therefore since the passing of the Town Dues Act, the efforts of successive Governments have successfully placed harbours in independent hands. It is true that there are two small ports—King's Lynn and, I believe, Preston—where the money has been provided by security on the town rates, and where, naturally, the management rests with the Town Council. But no such example exists with regard to large national harbours in this country; they are all managed by independent authorities, and that policy has always been upheld by Parliament. Your Lordships will have remarked that my contention is, that this Bill is not founded on any charge of mal-administration by the present Harbour Board, and that it proposes a policy in direct opposition to that which has been advocated by successive Governments and by Parliament up to the present time, and that no arguments of any weight have been advanced for such a change. But, even if the substance of the Bill wag good, there is a grave objection of form which must be fatal to it. It is a Private Bill, promoted suddenly at the latest moment consistent with the Standing Orders. This Private Bill cancels the principal provisions of a 662 public Act of 1861. Such a proposal, now made for the first time, is contrary to the principles and practice of Private Bill Legislation, and would, as many of your Lordships must be aware, have excited the lively indignation of the late lamented Lord Redesdale. It is certain that he would never have been a party to it. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade will probably make a statement to your Lordships. I know that he is hampered by a pledge he gave to the Promoters of the Bill, that he would not oppose the Bill. It was shown at a meeting of the Board of Trade that this decision was founded on exclusively one-sided information; but what I would request the noble Lord to state is, whether, at the time of his decision, his attention had been called, or whether it had occurred to him, that this Bill is, as I have said, contrary to the principles and to the practice of Private Bill Legislation in this House, dealing in the manner it does with a public Act. I think I have a right to appeal to the noble Duke the Chairman of Committees, whether it is in his opinion well to create such an innovation; and I would extend the appeal to noble and learned Lords who have studied and observed the ways of this House. It has been urged that the principle of this Bill is a great one—namely, the extension of local government. I am in favour of such a principle, and I think it desirable that municipalities should have increased power; but the principle of self-government is that those who pay should be represented in the body that spends their money, not, as it will be in this case, the money of others; but the question remains whether this extension should be, in this particular direction, by means of a Private Bill. If the Government think this change of policy should be adopted, they should propose a public enactment dealing with the general question. But even if they shrink from being logical, and prefer to make the experiment at first only in one instance, let them give that experiment the best chance. Let Glasgow or Liverpool try it with their great and powerful Corporations. The Corporation of Dover is most respectable; but it is only the ruling body of a small town which cannot be put in comparison with the great cities I have named in import- 663 ance, wealth, or population; and, on the other hand, Dover Harbour is not a mere local harbour. It is a national port, and one of the chief highways to the Continent. It is strongly fortified. A great extension of the Harbour has been sanctioned for Imperial purposes, and the last Committee of the House of Commons recommended, in accordance with Minutes of the Treasury and the Board of Trade, that it should be placed under the present Board, strengthened, not by more members of the Corporation, but by more Representatives of the Government Departments. I venture to say to your Lordships, do whatever may be right, but do it in the right way. This House is subject, like other institutions, perhaps more so, to criticisms, sometimes of a friendly, sometimes of a hostile character. I, like others of your Lordships, have not shrunk in this House and out of it, sometimes before most unfavourable audiences, to defend it against accusations which seemed to be unjust. One of our battle-horses has always been the admirable, judicial conduct by this House of its Private Business; I appeal to your Lordships whether we have yet heard any single argument in favour of the advantage, the importance, and the urgency of this Bill, to induce you to abandon all the time-honoured traditions of our Private Bill Legislation in this Assembly, in order to encourage such a measure as this. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
§ Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Earl Granville.)
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON)said, the matter was not one of such great dimensions as the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) appeared to have assumed, and the course that had been adopted was not contrary to the public interest, or to the usual course pursued in questions of the kind. Notwithstanding what the noble Earl had said, he (Lord Stanley of Preston) contended that the Board of Trade neither had, nor was it their province to take up a position antagonistic to the Harbour Board on the one hand, or one of encouragement to the promotion of this 664 measure on the other. Having regard to precedent, they had looked only to the general feeling of the town in the matter, and, doing so, there was reason why the Board should not oppose the Bill ab initio, but should allow it to be subjected to thorough investigation, and to stand or fall by its own merit He could join the noble Earl in the tribute he had paid to the Dover Harbour Board, as to the manner in which that body had carried on its financial and other work; but, while he said that, he could not disguise from himself the fact that there was a strong feeling in the town that there had not been that advance as to harbour facilities in the Port of Dover which might have been expected, and which the current trade of the place demanded; and it was felt that if the Harbour was in the hands of persons who were more deeply ooncerned in the interests and trade of the port—who would take a more lively interest in its affairs, and who would have the power of raising loans on the larger security of the Borough rates—great advantages would be gained. When the matter came before him in December last, he suggested that certain alterations should be made in the Bill, and that it should, before passing, be referred to a Hybrid Committee of either House for consideration. He did not think that the course taken was exceptional, further than that, in this case, there were naval and military considerations mixed up with the municipal and commercial question; but the Bill would not interfere with the outer roadstead or the Admiralty Pier, and it was not opposed by the Naval and Military Authorities. He had a list of 20 cases in which Corporations acted as Harbour Authorities; and there were other cases in which Corporations, although they were not themselves the Harbour Authorities, practically controlled those who were. The promoters of the Bill, he believed, were quite ready to adopt a clause to secure that the Harbour dues should always be applied to Harbour purposes; and, therefore, the Board of Trade had allowed the Bill to go forward. He did not appear as either the advocate, or the opponent of the Bill. At the same time, he felt very strongly that where a town was endeavouring, and making strenuous efforts to increase the trading facilities of its port, and doing so in a manner which, as it seemed 665 to him, did not appear to interfere with other public interests, it was not the duty of the Board of Trade to stand in the way. He believed their Lordships would be well advised if they allowed the Bill to be read a second time, as, in that case, another tribunal could deal with the complicated points at issue, and, after inquiry of that kind, their Lordships would be in a position more clearly to determine whether, on the whole, the points advanced by the noble Earl were such as outweighed the general considerations in favour of the Bill.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he opposed the second reading of the Bill, on the ground that no reply had been given to the objection of his noble Friend (Earl Granville); that the Bill was practically a private measure which proposed to interfere with a body which had been created by a public Act for public purposes, and reasons of national import. No one could doubt that if it were impossible to separate the management of the Inner Harbour from that of the Roadstead, local interests must be subordinated to those of the nation. He objected to public legislation being repealed by means of private Bills, considering it a most dangerous thing, as the latter had not the same safeguards.
§ LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, it was important to adhere to principle in these matters, and the principle which had been firmly established for many years in appointing Harbour Boards was that of having them elected expressly for Harbour purposes. He had received that morning a paper which had the appearance of coming from his own side of the House; but it had led him to the conclusion that he should vote against the second reading unless there was more to be said for it than he had heard yet.
§ EARL STANHOPEsaid, he could assure their Lordships that the Harbour finances would, if the Bill passed, be entirely distinct from those of the local government of the town, and that no part of the Harbour property would be devoted to Corporation uses. As to the objection raised regarding the repeal of a Public Act by a Private Bill, he might say that the Admiralty had insisted that the provisions of the Dover Harbour Act of 1882 should be repealed. 666 But, at any rate, the noble Duke the Chairman of Committees (the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos) had, after full consideration, allowed the Bill to proceed to a Second Reading, and, therefore, had practically over-ruled the objection.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he trusted some Member of the Government would offer some reply to the point raised by his noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) in regard to a matter of great national importance. The only important harbour managed by a Corporation was that of Bristol.
§ EARL GRANVILLEasked if they were to have no further declaration of the views of the Government on this matter? He was entirely in ignorance whether they were going to support or vote against the ordinary principle and practice of both Houses with regard to Private Bills overlapping public measures.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he had always been brought up to believe that these matters were not to be made Party measures.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had not sought to make this a Party matter.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was a question of the practice of the House. As to the remarks of the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Earl of Selborne), he (the Marquess of Salisbury) must say he had the greatest possible respect for him; but he had always thought, when on the Front Opposition Bench, and when the noble and learned Earl was Lord Chancellor, that he was a little of a formalist in these matters, and he thought so still. He thought the noble and learned Earl wrong then, and he thought him wrong still. He thought the House might judge of these matters for itself, and to declare that something laid down by a Public Act could never be infringed upon by a Private Bill, was to lay down a rule which could not possibly be observed, and which was absolutely untenable in practice. It was obvious that any kind of Private Bill Legislation must upset something which had been provided by Public Statute, and such a doctrine as the noble and learned Earl had attempted to lay down was abso- 667 lutely unfitted to the practice of the House. The matter was one that depended a good deal upon details which could be argued better before a Private Bill Committee than in that House. It seemed to him to be eminently a Bill which was fitted to be dealt with by a Private Bill Committee. If he were asked whether he would vote in favour of, or against, the Bill becoming law, he might have some difficulty in giving a final answer at present; but he was not asked that question. He was asked whether it was not a Bill that ought to be decided by a Private Bill Committee; and as this was a matter which was to be argued out before the proper tribunal, he would say that the Bill ought to be sent before a Select Committee. The matter was one which depended a good deal upon details, upon the evidence of individuals; and he thought it would be more proper that it should be argued in a Committee than before that House.
§ LORD HERSCHELLsaid, it was not a mere question of a Private Bill interfering with the enactments of a Public Bill. It was a question of a Private Bill introduced by a Corporation, for the purpose of taking to themselves the property of a Body constituted by a Public Act for a public purpose. There was no precedent for such a course of procedure as that, and no case had been cited by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Preston) of its ever having been done. If they passed the Bill, they would lay down a precedent which might be followed by every town possessing a harbour.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he was bound to call their Lordships' attention to the fact that there were precedents in favour of the Amendment of a Public Act by private legislation. The case of the Thames Embankment and the Metropolitan District Railway went to prove there was no absolute and inflexible rule against infringing Public Acts in a Private Bill.
§ LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he must point out that what he said was that there was no precedent for a Private Bill taking away from a Public Authority powers which it possesses, and which had been conferred upon it by Act of Parliament.
§ On Question, That "now" stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 50; Not-contents 45: Majority 5.
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ Bill read 2a accordingly.