PORT OF LONDON BILL.

HL Deb 16 December 1908 vol 198 cc1764-817

Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

* THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, before your Lordships agree to the Motion it may, perhaps, be convenient that I should say a word or two upon an important principle contained in this Bill, which I can deal with better from this place than from the Chair. It is the question which was raised on the Second Reading by Lord Cromer, and is dealt with by Clause 6 of the Bill. Clause 6 was inserted in its present shape at a very late stage of the proceedings in the other House, and consequently it has not received the consideration, in that shape at any rate, of the Joint Committee which considered the whole Bill. The object of this clause is to shorten the time, to diminish the expense, and to make it generally more easy to execute certain works and to acquire land otherwise than by agreement. I will not enter into the question of the provision enabling the Board of Trade to issue an Order empowering the Port Authority to execute certain works, because that is not exactly the point to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention, although it is one which I am quite sure will not be lost sight of by other noble Lords. What I want to draw attention to are the provisions to facilitate the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement. At present that can only be done by the promotion of a private Bill or by a Provisional Order, which is very much the same thing, either of which may be referred, if Parliament so determines, to a Committee of both Houses, before whom all the parties can be heard. The few years experience that I have had of the office I now hold leads me to say that that is a most lengthy, cumbrous, and costly procedure, and though I should be extremely reluctant to see any operations of any magnitude of this kind, involving very large sums of money or areas of property, removed from the ken of Parliament I cannot help seeing that there is a desire on many sides that something should be done to cheapen the method of acquiring land. The clause, I think, has been very carefully considered, and although its drafting admits, perhaps, of some improvement to make it, especially the early part of it, more intelligible to those who will have to interpret it, yet I think that, generally, the main object is attained, namely, that land may be taken for the purposes of the Port Authority by an Order of the Board of Trade, which can only be made after an inquiry by an impartial person. I do not quite know what is meant by an impartial person. I daresay the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be able to tell us what the Board of Trade mean by an impartial person; but, at any rate, I hope I may assume that what is meant is some I person in no way connected with the Board of Trade or any other Government Department. Then it proposes that the Board may make an Order, and that Order will, of course, have all the sanction of law if—and this is a very I important "if"—after it has lain on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for thirty days during the Session, there is no Motion for an Address from either House against its enforcement. That I look upon as a very valuable safeguard, because it does not entirely remove this matter from the ken of Parliament nor place it solely in the hands of a Government Department. It still leaves to Parliament the power of listening to complaints; and if Parliament thinks that injustice has been done, by an Address to the Crown the whole of the proceedings may be quashed. There is one proviso which I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Camperdown proposes to omit—namely, the proviso that the Board of Trade may by Provisional Order make such modifications and adaptations of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts to be incorporated in an Order under this section as may be specified in that Provisional Order. This, I venture to think, is not a safe proviso to place in a Bill, because it would give the Board of Trade power to bring in a Provisional Order making a general variation of the terms of the Lands Clauses Acts, which might be quite appropriate to some particular acquisition of land but not to all such purchases, and which, in my humble judgment, could not afterwards be varied except by another Provisional Order. If these Orders are to be made at all, they should incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts in their entirety, and there should be no power on the part of the Board of Trade to set aside any of the provisions of those Acts. I rather welcome this clause, altogether not on account of its utility in this particular Bill, of which I am not in a position to judge. But I cannot help thinking that there is such wide dissatisfaction with the present system, which has been in operation for many years, that it will not be inadvisable if your Lordships pass a clause of this kind, that perhaps, after watching the operation of it for some years we may be able to determine whether there is not some cheaper and less cumbrous method by which we can deal with the taking of small quantities of land other than by coming to Parliament by Provisional Order or Private Bill.

* EARL CROMER

My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this subject. The whole question is much too important to be dealt with either at this period of the session or in connection with this one clause. There is one method by which these great delays in dealing with Private Bills could be avoided. As far as my experience goes, there is almost always in important Bills some vital question of principle and also a quantity of detail. I submit that it is the business of Parliament to deal with principles and not the business of Committees. Committees ought to deal merely with details. I would instance what happened in the case of the London Electricity Supply Bill. The expenditure in connection with that Bill almost amounted to a public scandal. Behind it lay the important principle whether this should be done by the municipality or by private enterprise, and I submit that that ought to have been decided by Parliament before the matter went to the Committee. I am at this moment sitting on the Staffordshire Potteries Committee. An important question of principle is involved—namely, whether these small towns should be federated, and also the extent to which it is justifiable on the part of Parliament to override local opinion. I submit that that is a question which Parliament ought to decide. In the case of the Port of London Bill a different practice was adopted, and a very wise one. In that case, too, there was a question of principle involved, and an instruction was given to the Committee. If that were done in other cases, an enormous amount of time and money would be saved. As regards the particular clause in this Bill, I heartily agree with what the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has said. I think we ought to have some definition of an impartial person. I have not the smallest doubt that the Board of Trade will exercise their powers impartially. I have not put down an Amendment, because I hoped the noble Lord would deal with the point himself. I should like him to put in—

* THE LOED PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)

I think, with great respect to the noble Earl, that until we come to the Amendments it would be wise to defer any observations upon them. At present we are dealing with the general principle.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

After what has just fallen from the noble Earl the Leader of the House I shall not discuss the details of this clause. I can quite understand why my noble friend the Chairman of Committees desired to address your Lordships at this stage, because, owing to his unfortunate disability, in a few minutes he will not be in a position to address your Lordships at all. It is very difficult to go into the details of a clause on the Motion to go into Committee, and after what the noble Earl has said I will reserve what I have to say until we reach the clause.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Perhaps I may, within the limits which I have ventured to lay down, say a word on what fell from the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, because I think it must be agreed by all your Lordships that a certain new departure, possibly of a far-reaching character, is involved in the propositions contained in the clause under notice. I think most of us who have had experience in the rooms upstairs will be disposed to agree with what has fallen from my noble friend on the cross benches, and also from the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. We have all felt, I think, those of us who have had much to do with those Committees, that they are very admirable tribunals for important matters, but I do not think that anyone who has spent the days and weeks and months that some of us have there can possibly deny that there is a considerable expenditure of time in relation to them which cannot be regarded as entirely profitable. And when I say time, that, of course, means money. I do not mean the time of those who sit on the Committees, but the very valuable and expensive time of the parties concerned. A Committee of your Lordships' House is like an elephant—it can pull down a tree and pick up a pin; but it is not an economical thing to keep an elephant in your establishment for the purpose of picking up pins. That is what I am afraid has sometimes been the case with regard to the work of the Committees of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, mentioned a particular Committee in which the question of municipal trading came up, and he argued that the question ought to be settled by Parliament on a general principle and not settled in a particular case by a Committee on a Bill. That touches me rather nearly. I presided for two years over a Joint Committee on the question of municipal trading, and we were unable, I am sorry to say, to arrive at any general conclusions whatever. That so went home to the President of the Board of Trade—at that time Mr. Gerald Balfour—that he did not think it worth while to re-appoint a Committee. I, therefore, think that if the noble Earl sits upon many more Committees he will probably have to consider the principle of municipal trading in relation to particular cases, and he will not find the general principle so easily settled by Parliament as he seems to think.

* EARL CROMER

My point was that private people ought not to be compelled to pay £100,000 because the principle had not been settled.

On question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

*THE EARL OF DARNLEY moved to amend Clause 1 by increasing the number of the appointed members of the new Port Authority from ten to twelve. He said the Amendment was designed to give representation to the two counties of Kent and Essex on the new Port Authority. As precisely the same arguments applied to the case of each county, the two counties had been put together in the consequential Amendment for convenience. The main argument for this representation rested upon the fact that the river, over which the new Board would be practically the sole Authority, flowed for over forty miles between the shores of these two counties, and that in each county the great industrial centres of population lay along the shores of the river. From Woolwich to Gravesend, on the Kent side, there was practically one continuous line of riverside towns, wharves and factories, all dependent entirely, or almost entirely, for their prosperity upon the proper working of the river. On the Essex side there was an estimated population of some 490,000 people in districts bordering on the river, all equally interested and dependent on the river for their livelihood. Under the Bill these enormous interests, including those of all the riverside manufacturers would be absolutely unrepresented on the new Authority Up to now each of the two counties had had a representative on the Authority that had managed the lower river—the Thames Conservancy—and the county representatives had been extremely useful on that body, not only to their own constituencies but also to the Conservancy Board itself in giving information as to local industries and questions affecting the river banks, river pollution, and other matters. Under this Bill the two counties to which he had referred would be entirely disfranchised. The maintenance of the sea walls was an especially important matter. There were many miles of sea walls in both counties, protecting thousands of acres of land and large and populous districts. It could hardly be supposed that the London representatives on the new Authority would be able ade- quately to protect these largo interests without any of that local information which a representative from the county would be able to give. The new Port Authority would also be the Authority under the Rivers Pollution Act, and there, again, would have powers which would very gravely affect the interests of the two counties, and of the health resorts along the shores, and the fisheries. As had been argued in the House of Commons, it seemed hardly just that the Authority which would have control over fifty miles of river should be entirely composed of representatives elected by people within the first eight miles. The case for Kent and Essex was further strengthened by the fact that the Royal Commission of 1900 especially picked out Kent, Essex, and West Ham for representation. Both the county council of Kent and that of Essex petitioned Parliament for representation, but the Joint Committee were not able to hear their arguments, and the matter was brought before Parliament in the House of Commons on the Committee stage of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade agreed that an excellent case had been made out for the two counties, but wanted no additions made to the very compact and workable numbers of the Authority as proposed to be constituted under the Bill. He thought it would be difficult to sustain by argument that a workable and manageable body of twenty-eight would lose those desirable qualifications by being increased to thirty. One of the main grounds of refusal appeared to have been that there was to be nothing sectional about the representation on the Board. Mr. Rowlands, the Member for the Dartford division of Kent, a large riverside constituency, had declared it absurd to talk of sectional rights as applied to a county having 1,000,000 inhabitants and such vast interests in the river as the county of Kent. Other hon. Members agreed. He understood that this sectional or geographical basis of representation had been made use of in the constitution of every Port authority in the United Kingdom with one exception—namely, the Port of Liverpool; but he had been told that there was no possible analogy to be drawn between the case of the Mersey and that of the Thames. The Mersey Dock and Harbour Board already owned practically all the great interests concerned, and there were no miles of thickly - populated shores of the two counties of Lancashire and Cheshire to be unrepresented as in the case of the Thames. It had been stated by the Chairman of the Joint Committee that the Board was to be composed of representatives who would be anxious to promote the interests of the Port of London as a whole. Surely, from the lowest standpoint of self-interest alone, any improvement of the trading facilities of the Port of London would be so beneficial to the inhabitants of the riverside towns of Kent and Essex that it would receive the greatest support from the representatives of those two counties. In these circumstances, he hoped the Government would be able to accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 2, to leave out the word 'ten,' and to insert the word 'twelve.'"—(The Earl of Darnley.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said the noble Earl had pleaded very eloquently for representation for his own native county and for that of the county of Essex, which occupied an analogous position on the other side of the Thames estuary. He was sorry to say he could not agree to the inclusion of a representative of either of these counties on the Port Authority. The matter had been considered before the Joint Committee, and the conclusion which the whole of the members of the Committee came to was that the number of appointed members of the body was quite large enough already. What they desired was to make this a business body to control a purely business concorn—namely, the Port of London. It was true that in the composition of the body representation was given to the London County Council and to the City of London, but he thought their Lordships would see that the interests of those two bodies, representing as they did the town of London, were altogether exceptional, and that no other public body could claim to have an analogous interest. The noble Lord had quoted the fact that the Royal Commission advocated the giving of representation to each of these counties. That was perfectly true; but it must be remembered that at that time it was contemplated that the Port Authority should consist of forty members and not of twenty-eight, and the giving of two members out of forty was not the same thing as giving two out of twenty-eight. Further, the composition of the body contemplated by the Royal Commission was different from the composition now proposed, in that the nominated element predominated largely over the elected element. That, of course, was because the scheme contemplated by the Royal Commission was one in which the finance was to be backed by the London County Council. In this case the Port was to stand in that matter absolutely on its own legs, and, therefore, as he had explained the other evening in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, a predominating influence on the Board was given to the representatives of the shippers and traders. The noble Earl had said that to include two extra members would not seriously affect the nature of the Board. But this was hardly a question of two members: it was a question of principle. If Kent and Essex were to be given these representatives, how were the Government to refuse similar representation to West Ham, Surrey, and Middlesex, to mention only three of the other applicants who were sure to come forward? If they did that, it would mean that the proportion between elected and nominated members, to which he had already alluded, would be upset, and if they were to restore it, it would mean making the body very much larger than was contemplated. The Government were most anxious to avoid that for two reasons. There was no doubt that a small body was generally recognised as being more businesslike than a large one. There was also no question that it would be difficult to find good men with sufficient leisure to devote to the work of the Port of London, and that difficulty would be enormously increased if they doubled the number of members of that body. Then the noble Earl alluded to the sea walls of the counties in question. In connection with that, he would point out that ample provision was made in the Bill against any damage that might be done to sea walls by the dredging operations of the Port Authority. On the grounds he had mentioned he hoped their Lordships would not support the Amendment.

* THE EARL OF JERSEY

did not think the answer which had just been given on behalf of the Government could be considered quite satisfactory. Why should not the other authorities having jurisdiction along the banks of the river, such as the Middlesex County Council, to which he belonged, and the Surrey County Conncil be represented? After all, the great object ought to be to get a thoroughly representative body. There was another important point. This question of representation was not gone into at all by the Joint Committee. It was surely a new departure in the working of a joint committee, or of any committee, if the chairman was to decide beforehand that the question was one of principle and therefore was not to be gone into, and then refuse to hear the parties interested. He confessed that he read the Report of the proceedings of the Joint Committee on this point with great regret. It would be a great pity if it went abroad that an important principle could be settled beforehand by a Committee without allowing the parties to be heard.

* VISCOUNT MILNER

did not think the Committee was animated by the somewhat autocratic spirit which the criticism of the noble Earl seemed to imply. Simply with a view of saving public time, the Committee did not hear the whole series of these applications for local representation—because it was put to them so convincingly by the promoters of the Bill that it was not desirable to make the numbers of the Port Authority much larger than the figure originally contained in the Bill. If the Government were right in thinking that a body of about twenty-five would be more workable than one of forty, it became necessary to scrutinise very closely every single plea for addition. So far from being opposed to the principle of representation, the Committee were very anxious to make the Port Authority even more representative, but representative of those directly interested. The changes made by the Committee in that respect went in the direction of strengthening the number of the elected as contrasted with that of the nominated members, and he would have liked to give even a more decisive preponderance to the elected members. The people in Kent and Essex who were interested in the river would be represented through the elected members. It was not from hostility to the various localities that the Committee took the action which they did.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

could not understand the explanation of the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount had laid great stress on the necessity for keeping the appointed members to a limited number, and said that this necessity obliged his Committee to scrutinise very closely every single plea for addition. The way in which the Committee scrutinised those pleas was by giving the local authorities no opportunity of putting their pleas forward. He did not understand why the Committee refused to hear people who already had an interest in the river and already possessed representation on the Thames Conservancy. He could not agree that if they admitted one or two of these authorities, they must admit the whole number; but he did think Middlesex and Surrey should be admitted. He protested against putting a county council on exactly the same level with half a dozen other bodies. A county council was a body representing a large area, and it was representative, to a certain extent, of the smaller authorities. And if they were to take the line which it appeared the Government were very much inclined to take, that county councils were never to be trusted to represent anybody or to do anything, he really did not see why they created those bodies at all. There never had been a Government, he thought, who had fettered so much the discretion of county councils in various directions, and placed them so drastically under the authority of Government Departments. This was another instance, it seemed to him, of the distrust of county councils—a very extraordinary symptom on the part of a party supposed to have very great confidence in representative Government and in the democracy. He agreed with Lord Jersey that there were other county councils besides those of Essex and Kent, who had a claim to be represented on this body, but that was no reason for not including Kent and Essex; and by adding four or five to the number and satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the counties concerned, they would not be doing any harm to the efficiency of the new Authority.

LORD BELPER

disclaimed any interest in either of the two counties wishing for representation on the Board, but said it seemed to him that the Amendment embodied a very important principle. He thought he could best point out the importance of the principle by reading a resolution passed unanimously by the County Councils Association, not in connection with this Bill, but in regard to a measure of a similar character a year and a half ago. The resolution ran— That this council is in favour of the principle that county councils should be represented on boards of conservancy of rivers which pass through their areas. That resolution was come to in consequence of strong representations made with regard to the important interests of people who live along the banks of rivers. He did not pretend to know the interests in this case as well as the noble Lords who spoke for the counties concerned, but this was not a merely sentimental proposal. There was an immense population in Essex living, he believed, on twenty-three square miles of land, the whole of which lay below high-water mark, part of it as much as ten or twelve feet below, and this part was only protected by the sea wall. Those who lived on the banks of the river might be materially affected by any works that were done in the river, and the object of having a representative of the riparian owners on the authority was that he might point out the possibility of damage being done before steps were taken, so that the damage might be avoided.

* LORD HARRIS

said the remarks both of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and of Lord Milner showed that the consideration by the Committee was far more largely, and quite naturally, given to the commercial side of the question than to the conservancy side. He admitted that if it had been a purely commercial question, the two counties concerned would not have such a strong case for representation as they undoubtedly had. But the principle of representation on the banks of the river was recognised in the Bill itself, and it was only when they came below the Port of London that the principle was ignored. He submitted that that was unreasonable. In a sense there was taxation without representation. It was most important, not merely in the interests of the dwellers on the banks, but in the interests of other large areas some distance from the banks, that the river walls should be maintained. Those walls were kept up by a system of taxation, and operations might take place in the river which might seriously affect those walls. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill considered that the counties were protected as regarded damage. If he remembered aright, the provision was that any dredging done within fifty yards of the bank was to be with the approval of the county engineer. But a great deal of damage could be done to a river wall by dredging at a greater distance than fifty yards. There were possibilities under the Bill of operations being undertaken in the river without the county possessing the opportunity of having a word said on its behalf on the board. It was most unreasonable that it should be possible for operations to be undertaken which might seriously injure property along the river without those concerned having any opportunity of knowing that the operations were to take place. He submitted that the principle recognised above the Port of London had been disregarded below it. Taxation did not go hand in hand with representation in this Bill. On these grounds he hoped the Government would reconsider the provision.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

could not help thinking that the Members of the Joint Committee now realised the force of what he had ventured to urge upon their Lordships on Second Reading, that it was a pity the Committee did not hear the whole of the case before they reported, not because the conclusions of the Committee were distrusted, but because there was always a sense of injury left behind if people were not allowed to have their say. Although the Order of the House of Commons was that all the parties interested should be heard, when it came to the point as to representation the Committee decided that parties who were vitally interested should not be heard. That had left behind a sense of great grievance, and, moreover, it throw an obligation on their Lordships to consider the subject de novo, because it had never been considered at all. Wharves and other facilities for trade were being constructed along the shores of Essex and Kent, and this fact gave these counties what he should venture to describe as vital port interests, quite apart from the question of flooding. Lord Milner was of opinion that these interests were sufficiently represented by the franchise which the Bill gave to the payers of dues. What franchise had the county of Essex, or those interested in the development of the shore of Essex, in the Port Authority? They had a very small part of the voting power of those who paid dues outside the docks. The whole voting power of those who paid outside the docks was minute compared with the voting power of the docks, and only a small fraction of that fraction was the voice which Kent and Essex would have in the administration of the Port. What chance, therefore, was there of their interests being closely considered? Let them look at the composition of this body. There were eighteen elected representatives and ten nominated representatives. Of the eighteen elected representatives, the payers of dues outside the docks could only expect four.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

That is not proved.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No, but the noble Lord did not deny it when I said it.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

I was not in a position to confirm or deny it. No one can say one way or the other until the register of payers of dues is in existence.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

submitted that he had sufficient grounds for assuming that his figure was accurate until the noble Lord brought forward a figure on the other side. Supposing he were right, of the eighteen elected representatives the interests outside the docks could only elect four. Let them imagine a case in which the whole of the ten nominated members considered a particular proposal in the interests of the docks unfair to the outside interests. They would all vote one side, and the representatives of the outside interests would, of course, vote with them, but, even then, they would not be able to carry their view against the representatives of the docks. The decision would depend upon the casting vote of the Chairman. That could not be considered ample representation for those interests outside the docks which were in direct competition with the docks. If the Committee were good enough to add these representatives to the Port Authority, the impartial members of the board would be in a larger proportion, and there would be much greater guarantee of fair consideration when the two competitive interests were in question. Lord Milner had submitted that the London County Council stood in a very special position. He admitted it did not stand in the same position as under the Bill previously before Parliament. On that occasion the direct financial responsibility of the County Council was involved.

VISCOUNT MILNER

There was a much larger number of representatives.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

And Kent and Essex had none.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said that on that occasion a distinction was drawn between the County Council of London and other county councils because the former had a financial responsibility which the other county councils did not have. But that had now disappeared altogether, and, therefore, if they gave representation to the County Council of London there was, at any rate, a claim for some small representation for the other bodies. He suggested, very respectfully, to the Government that they should give way on this point. Naturally there was a certain amount of friction and jealousy in the passage of a great Bill of this kind, but the granting of judicious concessions such as this would add much to the smooth passage of the Bill.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

In spite of the appeal of the noble Marquess opposite, I think it is not difficult to show why it is not possible for us to give way on this particular Amendment. It has been very truly pointed out, in the course of this discussion, that there is a real question of principle involved, and the desired giving way is not giving way in respect of adding one member for Essex and one member for Kent, but it is the abandonment of the entire principle on which this Port Authority is based. The Port Authority is based, not on a geographical principle at all, but on a principle of commercial representation, and if you add these members, it is not the addition of this or that gentleman to the body—it is the complete abandonment of the principle of commercial representation, in favour of the geographical plan; that is to say, you abandon the Mersey principle in favour of the principle which obtains at some other places, while it is the deliberate opinion of those who have looked into this question and have been in a position to adjudicate upon it, that the principle of the Mersey Dock Board is the one best suited to the conditions of London. If you go on the geographical plan you adopt a different system altogether. These gentlemen elected from the different counties will be free to represent the particular interests of those counties. It is not, I think, to be supposed that they can take the same interest in the general work of the board as is taken by the other members. I do not say that their attendance would be limited to the occasions on which the particular matter of the river banks was involved, but their interest, and consequently their attendance, would not be of the same character as in the case of those interested in the daily life of the Port. Then the noble Lord, Lord Belper, mentioned a case in which county councils had been represented in consideration of what took place in the upper reaches of the river, and Lord Harris pointed out very truly that in the third Schedule of this Bill there is a great deal of county representation. Those two statements appear to me to answer each other. The county representation exists in the upper reaches of the river because that is in the nature of a Rivers Board and not a Port Authority; and as that representation exists in the upper reaches of the river, which are looked after by the counties interested in them, the whole question of the upper reaches disappears in relation to this particular question of the Port of London. The noble Duke opposite said that we were operating in a direction hostile and adverse to county councils. I really do not know to what particular action of ours he alluded, and it seems hardly worth while to deny that we are actuated by any hostility towards the county councils of Kent and Essex. If it were a mere question of doing an obliging thing for them, we should be delighted to do it; but it is altogether impossible for us to accede to this Amendment without departing from the general principle of the formation of this body. As regards particular interested counties, it does seem to me that Section 44 safeguards them as far as they possibly can be safeguarded by an Act of Parliament and without immediate representation on the Board, and probably in practice it will protect them quite as well. The noble Marquess who has just sat down turned the argument into a somewhat different channel. He opened up the question of what he considered to be the inadequate representation of the riverside trader. That surely is an entirely separate question. If the proportion of members representing the commercial traders is insufficient, that is a point which can be argued separately, and a large representation can be devised for them.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Does the noble Earl wish to imply that the Government would favourably consider such an Amendment?

* THE EARL OF CREWE

No. I meant so far as this particular Amendment is concerned the noble Marquess's argument did not seem to me to be particularly relevant. I do not see what reason there is to suppose that these special representatives of counties would specially interest themselves in the fate of the riverside trader. The noble Marquess did not himself go further than to say that they would at any rate be impartial, that they would not be biassed in favour of the docks. I confess that does not seem to me to be a very strong argument, and I repeat once more that this Amendment is really far more important and far-reaching than might appear from the terms of it as it stands on the Paper, because, as was so very clearly pointed out by the noble Viscount on the cross benches, it modifies almost to the point of destroying the principle of representation in the Bill.

LORD AVEBURY

supported the Amendment, and said he had listened with astonishment to the argument of the noble Earl. If the Port of London was to be managed by commercial authorities, how was it that among the nominated representatives they had the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, the County Council, and other bodies less or more in touch with commercial interests represented? The noble Viscount on the cross benches had defended the action of the Committee, but the Committee had been most unfair in having heard all the arguments against Kent and Essex and refused to hear any of the arguments in their favour. Lord Salisbury had, if anything, understated the case. The payers of dock charges would vote on £2,100,000 and the others on £320,000; it was, therefore, obvious that those who were interested in the docks would have an overwhelming advantage over those who were not so interested. He hoped the Committee would support the Amendment.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

We have been left such a lamentably short space of time in which to consider the intricacies of this Bill that I am inclined, so far as possible, to shelter myself behind the authority of the Joint Committee, and if I believed that this Amendment vitally affected the principles upon which the Committee have proceeded, I should hesitate to give it my support. But I cannot bring myself to believe that the addition of these two members to the Port authority really will have the effect of fundamentally changing the complexion of that Authority. If it were the case that by adding representatives of the Kent and Essex County Councils we should open a door through which a number of other similar representatives would have a claim to pass, I should concede at once that the Amendment was a very dangerous one. But surely the position of these two counties is exceptional. My noble friend has pointed out that they both include a large amount of the frontage of the river, and we all know that it is a part of the river in which commercial and industrial enterprise of all kinds is going ahead rapidly at the present time. They

CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)	Shaftesbury, E.
	Carlile, E.
Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)	Carrington, E.	Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)
	Chesterfield, E.
	Craven, E.	Milner, V.
Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)]	Cromer, E.	Selby, V.
	Fortescue, E.
Ripon, M.	Onslow, E.	Allendale, L.

have, therefore, a commercial interest in the river, and they have also, as has been shown, a very considerable territorial interest, inasmuch as a large acreage of the county lies below the tide level. It does seem to me that a case has been made out for giving representation to these two counties, which, let us not forget, have representation of some kind at the present time, and which are not only to be deprived of that representation, but to be deprived of it without having been given a hearing. That seems to me to give them a very strong case. It is suggested to us that this authority, if it is to be an efficient body, must remain of moderate dimensions. I quite agree with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that as a rule the efficiency of bodies of this kind varies inversely with their size; but I am not quite convinced that efficiency ends at twenty-eight, and that the addition of two extra members makes the whole difference in that respect. I have listened to this discussion with a perfectly open mind, and I am bound to say that I have been convinced by the arguments in favour of the Amendment.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

said the Amendment before the Committee was to leave out the word "ten" and to insert the word "twelve." The noble Earl who had moved this also had an Amendment later on to add to subsection (6), which provided the number of appointed members, one representative to be appointed by the Kent County Council and one by the Essex County Council. He presumed the Committee would accept the decision on the present Amendment as governing the subsequent Amendment.

On Question, that the word "ten" stand part—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47; Non-contents, 90.

Armitstead, L.	Herschell, L.	Poltimore, L.
Burghclere, L.	Lochee, L.	Reay, L.
Courtney of Penwith, L.	Lucas, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)	Lyveden, L.	St. Davids, L.
Denman, L. [Teller.]	Macdonnell, L.	Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]
Eversley, L.	Manners, L.	Shuttleworth, L.
Fitzmaurice, L.	Marchamley, L.	Swaythling, L.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Monson, L.	Tenterden, L.
Hemphill, L.	Nunburnholme, L.	Welby, L.
Heneage, L.	O'Hagan, L.	Winterstoke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Bedford, D.	Morton, E.	Colchester, L.
Newcastle, D.	Nelson, E.	Cottesloe, L.
Northumberland, D.	Powis, E.	Crawshaw, L.
Portland, D.	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Ellenborough, L.
Sutherland, D.	Waldegrave, E.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
	Westmeath, E.	Forester, L.
Ailesbury, M.		Harris, L. [Teller.]
Bath, M.	Churchill, V.	Hastings, L.
Bristol, M.	Esher, V.	Hatherton, L.
Bute, M.	Falmouth, V.	Hindlip, L.
Hertford, M.	Hill, V.	Hylton, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Killanin, L.
Salisbury, M.		Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Zetland, M.	Portman, V.	Lawrence, L.
	St. Aldwyn, V.	Leith of Fyvie, L.
Camperdown, E.		Middleton, L.
Carnwath, E.	Abinger, L.	Mowbray, L.
Cathcart, E.	Ashbourne, L.	Newton, L.
Cawdor, E.	Atkinson, L.	North, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Avebury, L.	Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Darnley, E. [Teller.]	Barrymore, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Dartrey, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Denbigh, E.	Belper, L.
Doncaster, E. (D Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Blyth, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurley.)
	Boston, L.	Saltoun, L.
Eldon, E.	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)	Sandys, L.
Haddington, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Seaton, L.
Harewood, E.	Calthorpe, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Jersey, E.	Carew, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Lindsey, E.	Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
Lovelace, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Waleran, L.
Malmesbury, E.		Willoughby de Broke, L.
Morley, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Wynford, L.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORD AVEBURY moved an Amendment to reduce the representation of the London County Council on the new Port Authority from four to two members, who might or might not be members of the Council. This Amendment, he said, was not due to any want of confidence on his part in the London County Council. The fact was, the duties of the London County Council were enormously heavy. Years ago Lord Rosebery, a former chairman, expressed the earnest hope that they would not break the back of the Council; but since then not a year had passed without important additional duties being thrown on the County Council. He had often been asked whether some of the young and able men in the City could not be induced to serve on the London County Council, but it had always been found that there was reluctance to do so, owing to the great amount of time necessary to be given to the work. He maintained that it was impossible for any man to do his duty as a member of the London County Council and at the same time to be an efficient member of the Port Authority. In the previous Bill it was quite right that the London County Council should have more representation, because the Council were to be asked to give a guarantee. There was no question of guarantee in this Bill, and he therefore submitted that to give the London County Council two members would be to afford them adequate representation. If the Committee adopted his Amendment the number of members would again be reduced to the magical figure of twenty-eight, to which the Government had attached so much importance.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 5, to leave out the words 'By the London County Council, being members of the Council, two.'"—(Lord Avebury.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

trusted that the Government would not accept the Amendment. The noble Lord was so well-known both for his knowledge of London and his work on the London County Council, that he would be acquitted of any desire to show any disrespect or unfairness to the London County Council, but by this Amendment he had a little dissembled his love. Previous Bills tried to place the whole responsibility of this enormous charge on the Council. He felt as strongly as anybody that the imposition of fresh duties by Parliament on that body had its drawbacks, and might end in overloading it. But, however undesirable it might be to charge it with the whole service of the river, it was indisputably desirable that there should be complete contact and harmonious working between the new authority and the Council. He agreed as to the difficulty of finding men able to discharge their municipal duties and duties of this character; but that difficulty was overcome in the case of the Thames Conservancy, and when they considered how the powers given under the Bill interlaced with the functions of the County Council, it would be seen that there was no incongruity in giving the Council the representation proposed in the Bill.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said that the fate of the London County Council in the matter of representation on the Port Authority resembled that of the ten little niggers. As the Bill was introduced, it was given five members, but the Joint Committee cut that representation down to four, and he hoped that their Lordships would keep it at that number. If the counties of Kent and Essex, which had comparatively small interests in the Port of London, were to have a member each, it was not making an excessive demand that the County Council, with its far greater interests, should find two of its number and appoint two other members.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— In page 2, after line 13, to insert the words 'By the Kent County Council, one. By the Essex County Council, one.'"—(The Earl of Darnley.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out subsection (11). (11) The first elected members, instead of being elected as provided by this Act, shall be appointed by the Board of Trade after consultation with such persons and bodies having knowledge and experience of trade of shipping in the Port of London as the Board may think fit and the first chairman shall, if the Board think fit, be appointed by the Board, and shall, if appointed by the Board, be paid such salary (if any) as the Board may determine. He did not propose to move the Amendment, but had placed it on the Paper in order to direct attention to the fact that under this subsection the first board was to be exclusively appointed by the Board of Trade, and under Schedule 1 they were to remain in office for four years.

Clause as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

LORD AVEBURY moved to omit the provision that the Port Authority might "carry on the undertaking of any dock company transferred to the Port Authority by this Act." He said this was a most important part of the Bill and one which had received no consideration whatever by the Joint Committee. The Committee no doubt considered what the price should be, but the Chairman ruled out of order any consideration of the question of purchase. Experience showed that whenever businesses of this kind were transferred to a public body they were more expensively managed. The expense would be much greater than was estimated, and there would be little margin of income for the improvement of the river. This provision would impose an immense mass of detailed labour on the Port Authority in the management of warehouses which required great knowledge of business and a very careful supervision of details. It was most important that the authority should have time to consider large qusetions affecting the river, and should not be occupied with the petty but important details of the transaction of a business of this kind. Why was this body going to buy only certain wharves and warehouses? It would follow that it would have an interest in some and none in others. It would be very difficult for it to exercise fair play between the different parties on the river if it had a direct pecuniary interest in some wharves and warehouses and none in others. The Authority should have nothing to do with an immense business of this kind, which had no connection with the control of the waterway. To saddle the Port Authority with the management of great warehouses would divert their attention from more important duties and would raise considerable friction.

Amendment moved— In page 3, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words '(a) carry on the undertaking of any dock company transferred to the Port Authority by this Act.'"—(Lord Avebury.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said the noble Lord had complained that though the price to be paid for the docks had been discussed, the abstract question of whether or not they should be purchased had not come under consideration. So far as he himself was concerned, he did not feel at all guilty on that head, because of the time he had ventured to occupy in moving the Second Reading quite three-quarters was devoted to that particular question, which was undoubtedly the main point in the Bill. It was thoroughly before the House on that occasion, and it was almost on that alone that their Lordships gave their judgment in favour of the Second Reading. They had been told by the noble Lord that it was not necessary for the Port Authority to buy the docks. He did not propose to go into that question deeply, and he did not think their Lordships would wish him to. He would, however, point out that more than 100 years had elapsed since the first docks were made, and they were made because at that time, when the tonnage of shipping using the River Thames was not a tithe of the tonnage using it now, the congestion of the river had been found so intolerable that it was necessary to relieve it in some way. If that was the case then, it must be much more the case now. Therefore, they might assume that docks were necessary. Then if there was to be an authority set up which was to control the Port, but not to buy the docks, what was it to do? Was it to set up docks on its own in competition with existing docks, hampered as they would be by the Parliamentary restricttions placed upon them, and then starve them out of existence? He could hardly believe that their Lordships would approve of such a proceeding. Such a scheme would outrage a sense of common fairness. He did not think their Lordships would wish him to reargue the case in favour of purchase, though, of course, he would be perfectly prepared to do so if necessary.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought his noble friend's speech had been misunderstood. What Lord Avebury complained of was that the question of purchasing the docks was not allowed to be discussed before the Joint Committees. That he believed to be the fact. The question of purchase was not discussed before the Joint Committee although the question of price was. The shortness of the time allowed to their Lordships for the discussion of the Bill was very unsatisfactory and no opportunity was afforded of going into the very heart of this subject. He thought the great community of London and its commercial interests deserved better at the hands of the Government and of their Lordships' House than that they should slur over this most important matter. But so it must be. There was no doubt that if they were to decide, as Lord Avebury suggested, that the docks should not be purchased it would mean the wrecking of the Bill, and involve the postponement of a settlement of the question to a future more or less remote. On the Second Reading it was agreed on all hands that the time for settlement had arrived, and therefore, as the deletion from Clause 2 of the paragraph in question would mean the postponement of a settlement, he regretted he could not help his noble friend in carrying his object. Moreover, he was in favour of purchase, and, therefore, could not support the Amendment on the merits.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, on the point that this question of purchase was not discussed before the Joint Committee, being considered a closed question before it reached them, I may remind the House of what happened with regard to the London Water Board. I was a member of the Joint Committee which considered that matter, and we were not only not permitted to discuss the question as to whether the water companies should be bought out, but we were not permitted to discuss on that Joint Committee, over which Lord Balfour of Burleigh presided, being at that time a Member of the Government—we were not permitted to discuss who the authority should be to buy them. That being the case, I think we may fairly claim that in not permitting the Joint Committee to discuss this question of purchase we have not gone nearly as far as the former Government did on a somewhat similar occasion. The noble Marquess who has just sat down made a complaint which has been to some extent made before as to want of time for dealing with this matter. I do not think the noble Marquess is entirely justified in that complaint. We have never suggested that a discussion upon this Amendment or upon any other Amendment should be curtailed for want of time. I think discussion upon this Amendment useless because it is really a repetition of the discussion on the Second Reading, and on that account I certainly should be disposed to deprecate further discussion upon it. But as regards time for general discussion of the Bill, I should like once for all to say this. We have on several former occasions mingled our tears with those of noble Lords opposite in regard to the brevity of the time given to this House, unfortunately, as I think, for the discussion of important subjects. We shall not mingle them again after what occurred in this House with respect to the Licensing Bill. On that occasion the noble Mar- quess, in words which I am glad to believe will become immortal, stated that the amount of discussion which that measure had received both in and out of Parliament enabled noble Lords opposite to decide to throw it out before the Motion for its Second Reading here had been made. Therefore, I must warn noble Lords opposite that they will receive no more apologies from this Bench on the question of the amount of time given for the discussion of important measures.

LORD AVEBURY

said he fully agreed as to the importance of establishing a Port Authority, but they might do that without purchasing the docks. He felt, however, that he could not carry the matter further, and would content himself with having made his protest.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* THE EARL OF JERSEY

, on behalf of the Earl of Meath, moved to insert in the clause, among the duties of the Port Authority, the preservation of the rights and interests of the public in respect to the Thames, its backwaters, and its towpaths. Similar duties, he said, were laid upon the Conservancy Board as regarded the upper portion of the river.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 30, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words '(e) preserve the rights and interests of the public in respect of the Thames, its backwaters, and its towpaths.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

pointed out that it was provided in the Bill that the Port Authority should take over the powers and duties of the Thames Conservancy Board, and any liability of the kind referred to in the Amendment would fall upon the new authority. The President of the Board of Trade had stated that he was willing to institute an inquiry into the question of public rights with regard to the matters mentioned in the Amendment. That was a promise with regard to the upper river, and on behalf of his right hon. friend, he would be willing to extend that promise to the lower river in the same sense.

* THE EARL OF JERSEY

asked whether the noble Lord meant that, if the result of the inquiry was to show that there were certain rights that ought to be preserved, the Port Authority would preserve them.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

replied that if there were found to be rights which ought to be preserved, steps would be taken to have them preserved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawal.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

wished to call their Lordships' attention to one or two points in the clause. They were matters of detail. He was not sure whether the Government were really satisfied with the drafting of the clause, and if he called their attention to one or two things in it he thought it would save time because it might give them an opportunity of putting them right. The first subsection of the clause proposed that the Port Authority might make application to the Board of Trade for an Order under certain circumstances and in certain places. One was if they wanted an Order to construct works which would otherwise require statutory powers. That was simple enough, but when they came to the next case it was almost impossible to construe the Bill as it stood, because what was said was that the Port Authority might apply to the Board of Trade where the works were such in the opinion of the Board of Trade that they ought not to be constructed except under such an Order. How was the Port Authority to apply to the Board of Trade in the case of works which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, ought not to be constructed except by an Order? How would they know what the opinion of the Board of Trade was before they made an application? It was evident there had been some confusion in the drafting, and it had got upside down. That was the first criticism he made on the drafting, and he would deal next with the substance of that point. What were the kind of works which in the opinion of the Board of Trade ought not to be constructed without an Order? He knew quite well that certain works could not be constructed without statutory power, but what works were they which depended as to whether they ought to be constructed or not upon the opinion of the Board of Trade? There was no indication in the whole length and breadth of the Bill to as to what those works were. He did not know whether it was actually proposed that there should be a kind of paternal oversight by the Board of Trade over all works proposed to be constructed by the Port Authority. If that was what was proposed he was not quite sure that it was of great public advantage. This great Port Authority, once it was established, ought to be allowed to have a free hand; he meant, of course, subject to other people's rights. Within their own rights they ought to have a free hand. The paternal care of the Board of Trade was probably a mistake. Then he would go a little further. There was another case in regard to when these applications might be made, and these Orders might be issued, when it was thought to impose charges not previously authorised. Authorised by whom? He supposed not previously authorised by the Board of Trade, but, if so, they ought to be sought, because otherwise there would be given to the Board of Trade power by these extra Parliamentary Orders to vary what had been settled by Act of Parliament, and he was quite sure the Government did not intend that. He recommended, therefore, all those points to the consideration of the noble Lord. There was just time before the Report stage to make some changes in the drafting if the noble Lord found it open to these criticisms. He would not go further into the clause because the other points would be raised by specific Amendments, but as he was dealing with the clause generally, he might say that in one respect only he could not agree with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He did not think that the provision at the end, which was supposed to protect private rights by laying these Orders before Parliament, was worth very much. That particular provision was a very valuable one when they were dealing with matters of public interest, but he thought it would require a very strong case indeed for Parliament to interfere in order to protect a small private owner by the cumbrous procedure of moving an Address to the Crown in consequence of injustice revealed by Papers laid upon the Table. In very few cases could that be availed of, so he did not think the provision amounted to very much. But he mainly rose in order to call attention to what he thought were mistakes in drafting. He would like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he would reconsider the drafting with a view to putting it right, and also to ask him specifically upon the first subsection what were the works which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, ought not to be carried out by an Order from them.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said he Would, of course, consider the points which the noble Marquess had brought forward, and if the ambiguities which the noble Marquess detected in the clause were really there in the opinion of their draftsman, they would gladly follow his advice and be thankful for the indication he had given them. He had a form of words which he thought would meet the objections, which he would hand to the noble Marquess so that he could consider them and bring the matter up again on Report.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

proposed an Amendment to insert the words "of longitude" in the subsection providing that no land should be authorised to be acquired compulsorily which was situate to the westward of the Meridian six minutes east of Greenwich. He pointed out that confusion frequently took place between minutes of time and minutes of longitude.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 19, after the word 'minutes,' to insert the words 'of longitude.'"—(Lord Ellenborough.)

*THE EARL OF JERSEY, on behalf of the Earl of Meath, moved an Amendment to add a proviso that nothing in the Act should authorise the appropriation or the utilisation for the purposes of the Act of any common, or commonable land, or any recreation grounds, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground, fuel, or other allotments, or any land held on trust which prohibited building thereon. The object of the Amendment was, he said, to prevent common land or recreation grounds which were now regulated by existing legislation from being taken away compulsorily for other purposes instead of being brought before Parliament. He thought the House would understand that it was not desirable that when the public had common land or recreation grounds, and had gone to the expense of having them governed by Act of Parliament, these should be taken away without the direct sanction of Parliament.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 29, after the word 'requisite,' to insert the words '(c) nothing in this Act shall authorise the appropriation or the utilisation for the purposes of this Act of any common or commonable land or any recreation ground, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground, fuel, or other allotments, or any land held on trusts which prohibit building thereon.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said that this was a matter in which the noble Earl in whose name the Amendment stood was well-known to be interested. The noble Earl moved a simlar clause in a Bill which was lately before their Lordships' House, the Irish Housing Bill. There had been certain negotiations in regard to, and, he thought, some exception taken to, that clause in the other House, and what he would suggest would be the adding of a new subsection instead of the one the noble Earl had on the Paper and which would read: 'That nothing in this section shall, without the consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, authorise the acquisition of any common or commonable land, or any recreation ground, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public or any disused burial ground." He would hand those words to the noble Earl in order that he might consider the matter before the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to omit the proviso dealing with the case of land which was taken compulsorily, on the ground that the procedure proposed was not only cumbrous, but in certain cases unsatisfactory. The proviso was that the Board of Trade might by Provisional Order make such modifications and adaptations of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts to be incorporated in an Order under the section as might be specified in the Provisional Order. The procedure proposed was very singular and perhaps he might be allowed very briefly to explain it. If land was required to be taken compulsorily, it might be done under the Lands Clauses Acts. Then supposing that the Board of Trade wished to modify any conditions which were found in the Lands Clauses Acts, either as to arbitration or anything else, they must introduce a Provisional Order into Parliament in which they would have to specify the particular respects in which they wished to modify the Lands Clauses Acts. That was the first procedure. After the Provisional Order had passed through and received the assent of Parliament, there came the second procedure. This was that they must go to Parliament for an Order (at least they had to make an Order which must lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for thirty days) which would embody the Lands Clauses Acts as modified by their previous Provisional Order. On this matter there arose two questions. What could a Provisional Order do? Would it be in the power of the Board of Trade to modify once and for all the clauses in the Lands Clauses Acts? He submitted that if it were in the power of the Board of Trade to do that by a Provisional Order, it was a most improper way of altering a Statute. But let them suppose that that was not the case, but that in each individual case the Board of Trade must apply for a Provisional Order. He did not see such a great objection to that, because in each case they would have to plead that owing to some particular reason the Lands Clauses Acts ought to be modified. But even in that case it seemed to him that this proviso was an inadvisable one. He would remind their Lordships of the history of this clause. It was not in the Bill as originally introduced. There was a clause in the Bill which empowered the Board of Trade simply by an Order to take land compulsorily. The Joint Committee declined to accept that, and modified the clause and said that it should be necessary to apply to Parliament for a Provisional Order. On that the Government said they did not propose to proceed with the clause and so they dropped it, but when it got back to the House of Commons in Committee the President of the Board of Trade introduced this very obscure clause which, to a certain extent, contradicted the decision, or went against the decision, of the Joint Committee. Therefore, it was that he proposed to omit the proviso. The result would be that if they required to take land compulsorily they would have to take it under the Lands Clauses Act simpliciter.

Amendment moved— In page 6, to leave out lines 34 to 37 inclusive."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

* VISCOUNT MILNER

said the Joint Committee desired that the protection of the Lands Clauses Act should be given to persons whose land was going to be taken away and it was in consequence of the Amendments made by the Committee with that object that the Government withdrew the Clause.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said the intention in introducing the clause was to simplify and cheapen the process of acquiring land as far as possible; not that they wished to cheapen it in the sense that they wanted to pay less to the owner, but that they wanted to pay less in the expense of acquiring it. They wanted to avoid as far as possible the expenditure of money in legal and other expenses necessitated by coming continually to Parliament for the acquisition of very small patches of land. That had been the principle which had guided his right hon. friend all through the discussions which had taken place on this question, and the right hon. Gent 1cmin had, he thought, met all the opposition to this clause manifested by different parties in the fullest and most generous way. It was designed in order to get some cheapened procedure without any suspicion that they were wishing in any way to damage the interests of the owners of land. He was, however, given authority to accept the proposal of the noble Earl and to omit this proviso from the Bill. In doing so it was very much in the hope that they would not have further alterations made in the clause during its passage through the House.

LORD AVEBURY

said he had on the Paper an Amendment to subsection (3) so as to provide that "if the order of the Board relate to authorising the purchase and the taking otherwise than by agreement of land" the Order of the Board should be provisional only and should not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament. He had put down the Amendment at the request of the London Waterside Manufacturing Association, many members of which owned various tracts of land between Barking and Tilbury. The clause as it stood entirely altered the presumption which had hitherto held good. He was not quite sure, however, how fir the case was modified by the Amendment which the noble Lord has just accepted. If the noble Lord would tell him that the point raised by those he was representing was met, then he would not press the Amendment at this stage and would consider whether it ought to be brought forward on Report.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

thought any reasonable objection to the clause had been met by the Amendment he had just accepted. Of course, if the noble Lord did not agree with him, it would be open to him to raise the matter again at a later stage.

LORD AVEBURY

said he was quite content to accept that assurance, and would not press the Amendment. He was sure the noble Lord would not complain if he found it necessary to raise it again at a later stage.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

pointed out that subsection (3) to this clause ought to come before subsection (2). The first thing was that before making an Order the Board of Trade were to appoint an impartial person to hold an inquiry, and if he reported that the land ought not to be acquired compulsorily, the Board issued a Provisional Order. That was the first procedure. But if the person appointed reported that it ought to be acquired compulsorily, then the procedure under subsection (2) followed, so that subsection (2) really came after subsection (3).

LORD FITZMAURICE

said the point was a very fair one to raise, and the Government would consider it before the Report stage.

EARL CROMER

asked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he had considered the point raised as to providing that the "impartial person" appointed to hold an inquiry should not be in the service of the Government.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said he had an Amendment which was proposed to meet that point. It was to insert after the words "impartial person" the words "not otherwise in the employment of any Government Department." He thought that would meet the noble Earl's wishes.

THE EARL OF CROMER

assented and thanked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for the spirit in which he had met him.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

intimated that he would move the Amendment on Report stage.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 12 agree 1 to.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME moved an Amendment standing in the name of Lord Inverclyde. The object of the Amendment was, he said, to put on the new Authority the lighting and the beaconage in the River Thames. The shipping community of the country felt that the new Authority could carry out the lighting and the beaconage of the Thames with economy and much better than the present authority.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause: 'Provisions as to Lighting, Buoyage, and Beaconage.—(1) As from the appointed day there shall be vested in the Port Authority the management and control of the lighting, buoyage, and beaconage of the Port of London and of the estuary of the River Thames westward of imaginary straight lines drawn from the Neptune Tower on the North Foreland, in the County of Kent, to the eastern extremity of the Sunk Sand, and thence to the eastern extremity of the Gunfleet Sand, and thence to the Naze, in the County of Essex, and in respect of such area the Port Authority shall be the local lighthouse authority within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. (2) The Port Authority shall within the said area have the following powers (namely): (a) To erect or place any lighthouses with all requisite works, roads, and appurtenances; (b) to add to, alter, or remove any lighthouse; (c) to erect or place any buoy or beacon, or alter or remove any buoy or beacon; (d) to vary the character of any lighthouse or the mode of exhibiting lights therein; (e) to maintain any lighthouse, buoy, and beacon; (f) To make such surveys and do all such things as are expedient or necessary for effectually lighting, buoying, or beaconing the Port of London and the estuary of the River Thames within the said area. (3) As from the appointed day the Trinity House shall cease to manage or control the lighting, buoyage, and beaconage of the Port of London and of the estuary of the River Thames within the said area, and the expense of such lighting, buoyage, and beaconage shall cease to be paid out of the General Lighthouse Fund, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to take away or limit the powers of the Trinity House as general lighthouse authority under Sections six hundred and fifty-two to six hundred and fifty-four, inclusive, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. (4) As from the appointed day the property in all lighthouses, buoys, and beacons within the said area and in the appurtenances and equipment thereof, together with the freehold or leasehold lands whereon any of the same are situated, and all rights, easements, and choses in action relating thereto or enjoyed therewith which immediately before the appointed day belong to, or are vested in, or enjoyed by the Trinity House shall be, and the same are hereby transferred to and vested in the Port Authority to the same extent, and for the same estate and interest as the same were immediately before the appointed day vested in the Trinity House, and may be held, recovered, used, and enjoyed by the Port Authority accordingly. (5) In respect of any of the lighthouses, buoys, and beacons so transferred to the Port Authority, and in respect of any new lighthouses, buoys, and beacons to be hereafter erected or placed by the Port Authority, His Majesty may, by Order in Council, fix such dues to be paid to the Port Authority in respect of every ship which enters the said area, and which passes the lighthouse, buoy, or beacon, or derives benefit therefrom as His Majesty may think reasonable, and such dues shall be deemed to be local light dues within the meaning of, and shall be paid by the same persons, and may be recovered in the same manner as light dues under Part XI,. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. (6) For the purposes of this Act the expressions 'lighthouse' and 'buoys and beacons' shall have the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.'"—(Lord Nunburnholme.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said there was several reasons, apart from the merits of the proposed new clause, why their Lordships should not agree to the proposal. In the first place, it would transfer to the Port Authority the property and rights of Trinity House without giving the latter an opportunity of being heard, as this was not in the notices of the Bill. Another reason was that when a similar clause was moved in the other House of Parliament, the Speaker ruled it out of order and he did not think their Lordships would wish to pass a clause which must inevitably meet a similar fate when it went back to the other House. He did not think that in the circumstances their Lordships would think it necessary to discuss the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13:

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved an Amendment which he hoped would meet the wishes of Lord Ritchie as expressed in a proposal on a later portion of the Bill. The Amendment was to the third subsection and was intended to limit the contribution paid by the river interest towards the revenue of the Port Authority in Port dues to one three-thousandth part of the total value of the imports and exports passing beyond the seas during any one year. This might sound a rather complicated process, but it was on the same line as the provision already in the Bill which limited the contribution on account of Port dues to one one-thousandth part. The Amendment would provide that the contribution made by the river interests should not exceed one three-thousandth part. He hoped that the Amendment would, at all events, go a very long way towards removing, if it did not altogether remove, the apprehensions which noble Lords had so frequently expressed with regard to the fate of the river interests under the Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 19, line 15, after the word 'year,' to insert the words' or if the amount received from Port rates on goods discharged from or taken on board ships within the premises of the docks of the Port Authorityexceeds one three-thousandth part of the said aggregate value.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

said he was very much obliged for the concession. It did not, however, go very far to meet the wishes of those whom he had been representing, but it did, to a certain extent, meet those views. It was a small crumb of comfort for which he was very much obliged.

LORD AVEBURY

asked what would happen supposing the one three-thousandth part was not enough to provide the interest on the Port Stock. Would the interest be reduced?

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said the interest could, in no case, be reduced. It was a definite bargain. If there were not sufficient funds it would be necessary for the Board to go to Parliament again and to have the maximum scale revised.

LORD AVEBURY

asked what, in that case, became of the concession? Although it was reduced in the first instance, if there was not enough money to pay the interest on the Port Stock, then the river would have to contribute as much as before.

* VISCOUNT MILNER

said that, as he understood it, there was no guarantee. The promoters of the Bill believed, and he thought they were right, that with the powers of taxation contained in the Bill the Port Authority would be able to meet the interest on the Port Stock. There was an absolute limit under this clause to what it could raise in dues on goods, and now there was a double limit because it could only raise something over £300,000 in all, and it could only raise about £100,000 or a little over from the river interests outside the docks. That was an absolute limit and was a perfect protection to these interests. They could not be taxed any more unless a fresh Act was passed. Until a new law was passed their liability appeared to him to be absolutely limited by the clause which the Government had brought in and which certainly ought to be a great reassurance to the persons whom the noble Lord represented.

LORD AVEBURY

said the question was a complicated one, and it was very desirable that the matter should be made perfectly clear. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said the interest upon Dock Stock could not, under any circumstances, be reduced, but Lord Milner had said that the contribution from the river could not, under any circumstances, be increased. He hoped the amount might be sufficient, but supposing it were not, what would happen? Either the interest on the Port stock must be reduced or somebody must find more money, and he did not quite understand how the matter stood.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said if there was not enough money, any owners of the £500,000 of Dock Stock could apply to the High Court for the appointment of a receiver and manager of the Port Authority's property.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that under another clause the Port Authority had, at the beginning of every year, to submit an estimate of their receipts and expenditure, and if the Board of Trade found the receipts were not sufficient to meet the expenditure they were empowered to make higher rates.

LORD FITZMAURICE

thought that clause covered the point. The point raised was one which contemplated, no doubt, a state of things which theoretically might take place, but the Government believed that the calculations they had made, as stated on the Second Reading, were abundantly clear, and that there was a sufficient margin. In connection with this matter, he would remind the Committee of what the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, had previously stated, namely, that in all this mass of calculations, they must lake into account the great undeveloped property possessed by the Port Authority. That property represented a value which the Government believed would go on increasing every year.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

was confident that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was quite right. If the Amendment were put in it would be impossible to raise the maximum exacted from the river interest above this one three-thousandth part of the aggregate amount. It was an absolute bar, and the river interests might be quite confident that short of another Act of Parliament, nothing could exact more money from them than that fraction represented.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that no doubt if there was a deficit money would have to be found somehow, but the interests alluded to were protected from being charged in any way above that amount.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to insert a new subsection providing that an Order made by the Board of Trade under the preceding section should not take effect until a draft thereof had lain for thirty days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if either House during those thirty days presented an Address to the Crown against the draft no further proceedings should be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new Order. The noble Earl said the clause concerned was a very important one. It gave power to the Board of Trade to increase dues. The Port Authority was in every case to submit to the Board of Trade an estimate of their receipts and expenditure, and if the Board of Trade were satisfied that the receipts were likely to be insufficient to meet the charges they might make an Order requiring the Port Authority to levy any additional or increase any easting dues which they were authorised to levy to such an extent and for such period as the Board might specify. Therefore, not only was it made legal for the Board of Trade to increase the dues but they might do so for such period as they might specify. That meant that although an estimate was for the year only, the Board of Trade might say that additional dues were to be paid for two, three, or four years, or whatever period they might specify. That, of course, was giving to the Board of. Trade a very large additional power in deed. It seemed to him that this was one of the cases in which the Order of the Board ought to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and be subject to an Address. What he was pressing was in exact conformity with Clause 6. Clause 6 said that where any works were proposed, or where it was proposed to make any additional charge, any Order made under the section must be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. Much more ought to be done in this instance, because this was a question of imposing additional dues, and, as they knew, the river traders had greatly complained that they were being hardly dealt with in the Bill and that they had not been heard. If in any particular year they were going to authorise the Board of Trade to raise additional dues, clearly the persons who were to be affected ought to have an appeal of some sort, and it seemed to him that the appeal given by laying the Order upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament was the least they could do in that direction.

Amendment moved— In page 28, line 5, after the word 'law,' to insert the following new subsection: '(3) An Order made by the Board of Trade under this section shall not take effect until a draft thereof has lain for thirty days during the session of Parliament on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if either House during those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new Order.'"—(The Earl of Camper-down.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said he quite understood the noble Earl's point, but he appeared to have forgotten a very important limitation which was imposed by subsection (2) of Clause 13 By that subsection the maximum rates which might be levied upon goods in the Port would have to be fixed by a Provisional Order and any increase in dues which the Board of Trade might sanction under the section to which the noble Lord had alluded must keep within the maximum which had already been fixed by Parliament. There was no power whatever in the clause to vary the maximum dues as fixed by Provisional Order. He thought that that should remove the apprehension of the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he was afraid that that did not touch his point at all. He quite agreed that under Clause 23 as it stood there would be no power to the Board of Trade to exceed the maximum, but within the maximum the Board of Trade might charge more or less as it saw fit. It was to prevent an additional charge being imposed upon either the directors of the docks or the river traders that this ought to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. River traders had complained very much and had said that their interests had not been duly attended to, that they had not been heard, and that they had no right of appeal. What could be the objection to saying that this was to be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament? If it were right in Clause 6 it was much more right in the present case. The mere question of a maximum did not touch the point at all.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said there was a grave question to which he had not alluded before but which would certainly arise under the proposed subsection. Parliament might possibly abandon the habit it had developed of late years and might not sit continuously, and there might be a period of six months during the year when Parliament would not be sitting, and the proposal of the noble Earl might act in an extremely inconvenient way in that case.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

could not admit that the argument of inconvenience applied. It was a much more important thing than inconvenience. The question was whether the Board of Trade was to have power to impose additional charges to those which were being levied now. That was the point, and it seemed to him that the clause, as it now stood, gave very large powers to the Board of Trade. It gave the Board the power of making additional charges, and there ought to be some opportunity of protesting against those charges, whether by the dock owners, the river traders, or any persons who were affected. He objected to making Boards independent of Parliament. They had had an instance in connection with the Old-Age Pensions Act. It was only because it was necessary that the Orders in respect of that Act should lie on the Table that they had had an opportunity of stopping what clearly was illegal. In this case a great injustice might be done.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said that as he understood it the rates to be charged were secured by Provisional Order under Section 13. They were maximum rates, and the effect of fixing those maximum rates by a Provisional Order was that the Port Authority could charge anything up to the maximum and there was no necessity to go to Parliament again so long as they kept within the maximum. But the Post Authority might elect not to charge up to the maximum, and the result might be that persons to whom they owed money would not be paid. Then this clause gave power to the Board of Trade not to vary the decision of Parliament, but to compel the Port Authority to charge up to their full powers in order to satisfy their creditors. That did not seem to him to trench upon the prerogatives of Parliament, because it was all within the maximum which the Provisional Order had laid down. If that were so, he did not think that even the greatest purist need find any fault with the clause. Provided always it did not give to a Department power to vary the decision of Parliament, he did not think they need question it. Where they had proposals to vary the decision of Parliament he was the first to protest, but as he understood the clause he did not think that objection applied in this case.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that, putting aside the technical point of the relative position of that and the other House, the powers which the Board of Trade had were not nearly so extensive as they might imagine from the rather alarming and a little exaggerated language of the noble Earl. Those powers could only be used within the maximum laid down by the Act and the maximum was specially limited with a view to meeting a possible deficiency. There was no power given to the Board of Trade to act as a sort of commercial Cæsar and order arbitrarily a great increase of these rates which had been determined by Parliament to be kept within certain limits. The rates could only be raised within those limits, and for a specific purpose, namely, to meet a deficiency. If the words as to a deficiency were not sufficiently clear or accurate, the Government were quite willing to consider the point upon Report, but he was bound to say that the words appeared to him to be quite sufficient for the purpose.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said there could be nothing objectionable in the Order lying on the Table, but it would have the result that there would be an appeal for any persons who felt aggrieved.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

said there was precisely similar power vested in the same Department in respect of another part of their duties, and it worked with perfect ease and without any complaint. In respect to light dues the Board of Trade had power within defined limits to increase or lower the light dues upon shipping, and it worked without any difficulty.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend subsection (1) so as to provide that the Port authority should "forthwith" submit to Parliament reports as to attempts to settle differences between persons interested, and the Port authority instead of "from time to time," and should submit a special Report with regard thereto instead of reporting as they thought fit. The noble Earl said the Board of Trade in this clause was attempting to make an arrangement to settle differences. Under the clause as it stood it seemed that unless they thought fit to submit anything to Parliament nothing could make them do so. Would it not be better to say that they should forthwith submit to Parliament a special Report in regard thereto?

Amendment moved— In page 31, line 9, to leave out the words 'from time to time,' and to insert the words 'forthwith,' and to leave out from the word 'such' to the word 'fit' in line 10, and to insert the words 'a special Report with regard thereto.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said the effect of the Amendment would be that every trivial complaint which might possibly be made to the Board of Trade without any foundation whatever, would have to be made the subject of a special Report to Parliament. He thought that would cause an enormous amount of trouble not only to the officials of the Board of Trade, but also to their Lordships, and that the words as they stood gave a very sufficient protection.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

directed the noble Lord's attention to the last two lines of the clause. The Board of Trade, if unable to settle a difference, was to make such order as in their opinion the circumstances required. That gave the Board of Trade absolute and full authority over the whole tenancy.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that if the noble Earl would consult other Acts of Parliament bearing on this question he would find that if a conciliation clause was to be worth anything at all some power and authority must be vested in the Government Department unless they were going to relegate all these things to the expensive proceedings in a Court of Appeal. The whole object of these conciliation and arbitration clauses was to avoid litigation and to get a cheap, easy, and rapid tribunal for the benefit of the parties concerned. The only alternative was to relegate everything to a Court of Law where, no doubt, after great delay, and some expense, the parties might possibly get a legal decision of very great value. That was not the intention of this Bill. It they took the analogy of the Education Department it would be found that that Department had an enormous jurisdiction which was very carefully and beneficially exercised in matters of what might be called conciliation.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that supposing he were one of the parties to a difference and wished to go to law on the matter, under this clause he would be debarred from appealing to a Court. There was power given to the Board of Trade to say "We will try and settle the matter for you, but if you will not agree we will settle it for you compulsorily, and you must put up with what we say."

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

asked whether any obligation was imposed upon the Board of Trade to report from time to time.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said the Board of Trade were certainly to report. The nature of the Report remained within their discretion.

Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 30, agreed to.

Clause 31:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 32 to 37, agreed to.

Clause 38:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39 to 48 agreed to.

Clause 49:

Amendment moved— In page 39, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'first day of January,' and to insert the words 'thirty-first day of March'; in line 11, after the word 'such,' to insert the word 'earlier or.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 50:

Amendment moved— In page 40, line 28, after the word 'schedule' to insert the words 'Provided that the repeal of the words in Section seven of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1905, mentioned in that schedule which limit the period during which the increased duties of tonnage authorised by that Act may be demanded and received shall take effect as from the first day of January 1909, and notwithstanding that the powers of the Conservators are not transferred to the Port Authority until a later date.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 56 agreed to.

Clause 57:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 58 to 63 agreed to.

First Schedule:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment to provide that the first Port Authority nominated by the Board of Trade should go out of office on 1st April, 1911, instead of on that date in 1913. The noble Earl said their Lordships would remember that the first Port Authority was to be nominated by the Board of Trade. The appointed day was 31st March, and therefore, the first authority would enter upon office on 1st April, 1909, and the clause as it stood proposed that they were to continue in office until 1913, a period of four years. The normal term of office of a Port Authority was to be three years, and therefore, although the authority was to be entirely changed the first body which was to hold office during the transition period was actually to hold office for a year longer than their successors would do. He thought some very good reasons ought to be given for that. When they were making a change of local government or anything else the persons who were in office at the time of transition continued in office for a short period and then handed over the office to their successors; but these gentlemen were to continue in office for four years. What had they got to do? On 1st April, 1909, they entered upon office, and within six months they had to prepare and submit a schedule of rates. That must be done by 1st October. Then the Board of Trade had to insert those rates in a Provisional Order and obtain the consent of Parliament. How long should they be given for doing that? They received the schedule on 1st October, and surely by the 1st August of the next year they would have had plenty of time to pass the schedule and to get the Provisional Order. Within thirteen weeks of that time the schedule came into force. What reason could there be for the Authority continuing in office for nearly three years after that? He supposed he would be told that it was necessary to prepare a register, and that until persons had paid dues they could not be placed upon the register. But what was going to happen during the next two years? There would surely be people paying dues, and if so, why was it necessary that they should have to wait up to the year 1913? They would have plenty of time if they were given only until 1st April, 1911. He thought they would all be of opinion that in establishing a new authority it was desirable that that authority should take up its duties as quickly as possible.

Amendment moved— In page 56, line 24, to leave out the word 'thirteen,' and to insert the word 'eleven.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said that in the first place he did not admit that the authority which would be appointed under the provision for the appointment of members who were afterwards to be elected by the Board of Trade would differ very materially in its composition from the body that would be elected subsequently. These gentlemen were to be appointed by the Board of Trade after consultation with the various interests involved, and he thought that was a matter in which the Board of Trade might receive a little confidence that they would appoint men who would be really representative of those interests. Therefore he did not think that any serious harm was likely to arise from those gentlemen continuing in office for four years instead of three, but that of course was not the reason for the proposal in the schedule. The reason was that if they laid down in black and white in the Bill that the election had to take place in the year the noble Earl mentioned, 1911, they would certainly find that was impossible. They did not believe that the election could take place on 1st April, 1912. The Port Authority came into existence oil 31st March, 1909. They thought it would not be unreasonable to give them two or three months to settle down before they actually commenced framing their register of payers of dues. They thought it was likely that the appointed day for that purpose would probably be 1st June, and from that date the six months would count. That would bring them up to 1st January, 1910. Then the register was to be left with the Board of Trade who had to examine it and submit it to Parliament. That was not likely to be done before 1st April. Then that Provisional Order had to come before Parliament. They had only consumed a week or two of Parliamentary time up to now before the order came before Parliament. It then had to be considered, and it was highly probable that all matters connected with docks being very contentious it would not pass into law before 1st September, 1910. The Port rates would commence on 1st December of that year, probably, and the completion of the first year of those rates which was necessary before they could even begin to form a register of payers of dues would not be completed until 1st December, 1911. Then there would be the work of forming a register, and it seemed hardly reasonable to suppose that that could be done before 1st April, 1912. That register had to be carefully scrutinised by the Board of Trade, and it had to be seen that the different interests in the river, in the docks, in regard to shipping and in regard to merchants each received proper representation. Time must be taken over that, and provision was also made for the register being varied by Provisional Order. He did not think all that could possibly be done with any degree of certainty under another year, which brought them to 1st April, 1913.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he did not mind altering his date to 1912, but he really thought their Lordships had never heard of a case in which a body took four years to prepare for its successor.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said the Government could not consent to the modified proposal.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

First schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second schedule agreed to.

Third schedule:

* LORD DESBOROUGH

, on behalf of Lord Heneage, moved to amend the schedule by inserting a provision that one of the two conservators to be appointed by the Board of Trade after consultation with such persons and associations concerned in the use of the river as a place of recreation as the Board might think fit should be specially selected for his knowledge and experience in Thames Fishery Preservation. The noble Lord referred to the enormous number of bank anglers whose legitimate recreation should be looked after. It was a very healthy recreation and for the most part innocuous for the fish. It was important that somebody with knowledge of fish culture should be represented on the Board.

Amendment proposod— In page 63, line 38, after the word 'fit,' to insert the words 'and one of such two shall be specially selected for his knowledge and experience in Thames fishery preservation.'"—(Lord Desborough.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

pointed out that the provision of the Bill was that two appointments made by the Board of Trade were to be made after consultation with persons using the river as a means of recreation. This was a new provision as far as the Thames Conservancy was concerned, for although the rowing interest had been very efficiently represented on the Thames Conservancy of late years that has not been done officially by an Act of Parliament. What was proposed to do was to consult the great rowing clubs, the persons who held regattas, and the members of angling associations, and he hoped the noble Lord would be content with that assurance without asking them to be absolutely bound down to a certain appointment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third and fourth schedules agreed to.

Fifth schedule:

*THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to amend the schedule by extending the area of control of the Thames Conservancy from the boundary line between the parishes of Teddington and Twickenham to a point 100 yards above the south-west corner of the entrance to the Brentford Docks. The noble Earl said the Amendment was of considerable importance to the town of Richmond. The object of the Bill was to create a Port Authority for London, and to look after the commercial undertakings along the bank of the river. There were no docks or quays of any kind higher up the river than Brentford. The town of Richmond was very much afraid that if the control of the river in front of Richmond were handed over to the Port Authority their particular interest in the river would not be looked after so well as by the Thames Conservancy. He could not imagine that docks or quays or railways were likely to be made between Richmond and Teddington Lock, but at the same time this Bill would give the Port Authority the power to construct such works. He admitted his Amendment came rather late in the day. The Corporation of Richmond ought to have moved earlier in the matter, but after all there was great justice in their claim that this portion of the river, not needed for commercial purposes but for purposes of amusement, recreation, and health, should be under the Thames Conservancy and not under the authority which was solely to deal with commercial matters. The Amendment would mean that the Thames Conservancy would come down to 100 yards the landward side of Brentford, below that and were the docks and quays which would be under the Port of London Authority.

Amendment moved— In page 65, line 6, to leave out the words 'the boundary line between the parishes of Teddington and Twickenham,' and to insert the words 'at a point situate one hundred yards or thereabouts above the south-west corner of the entrance to the Brentford docks.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said this matter was never raised before the Joint Committee. He did not, however, press that so much against the inhabitants of Richmond, but it would be unfair to alter the scheme now, because the whole of the financial arrangements as between the Thames Conservancy and the Port Authority had been undertaken on the understanding that the river was to be divided at the point set out in the Bill.

* THE EARL OF JERSEY

asked whether the noble Lord could tell them whether the duties and obligations under the Richmond Bill of 1890 would be carried out by the Port of London authority, or whether any of the provisions of that Bill were repealed by the present Act?

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

assured the noble Lord that every general obligation of the Thames Conservancy Board was also taken over by the new Port Authority, and there would be no change of the law in that respect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

I propose with your Lordships' permission to put down the Report stage of this Bill to-morrow.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Of course, we have no objection to that course if it suits the other arrangements of business. The noble Lord has been very kind in promising to consider certain points on which he is going to move Amendments to-morrow. What we on this side would like to know is shall we be able to see these Amendments in print, or will they be manuscript Amendments?

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

said he would endeavour to have them in print.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sure the noble Lord will do his best, and perhaps the authorities of the House will be a little more rapid in printing than is sometimes the case.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

If I am able to expedite it I will. I should be glad to learn whether it would meet the convenience of the House if I took the Third Reading to-morrow.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

We raise no objection.

Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 259.)