§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSMr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the Sale of the Southport Foreshore to the Lords of the Manors.
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, he rose to Order. He wished to know whether the sale of a piece of land by the Government was a matter of such urgent importance that it was necessary to move the Adjournment of the House?
§ MR. SPEAKERIs it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Jesse Collings be now heard? [Cries of "Aye, aye!" and "No, no!"]
239 The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported that Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen in their places:—
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid: I have to apologize to the House for the course I am taking; but when the House has heard the statement I have to make, I think hon. Members will be disposed to agree with me that no apology was necessary. Looking to the urgent importance of the question I am about to discuss, I was in hopes that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) to the Question I put to him earlier in the evening would have been of such a character as to have made it unnecessary for me to bring this matter before the House in such a way; but, unfortunately, such is not the case, for the right hon. Gentleman is positive that he will not recede from the partial sale which has been effected; and he will only promise to use his good offices with the Lords of the Manors, so far as a very small portion of the foreshore is concerned.
§ MR. DODSONPerhaps the hon. Member will allow me to repeat that my good offices were not offered in respect to one part of the foreshore only, but on the question in general.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS,continuing, said. It is only a stronger way of putting my case. The right hon. Gentleman has reason to know, as I am informed, that the Lords of the Manors, who have supposed rights over a small portion of this foreshore, can now be forced to come to terms; but that if once the purchase is completed, these landowners, whose title is now doubtful, will have a clear title from the Duchy of Lancaster, and will refuse to come to terms, in which case the Corporation will have to fall back upon the good offices of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not for a moment doubt that those good offices will be used in the most rightful manner; but the case is one of the greatest urgency, and if this sale is carried out against the wishes of the Corporation, it will mean disaster and partial ruin to the town. The case is one of very great difficulty, I know; but if the right hon. Gentleman likes to make an effort, he will be able to stop this great disaster which is 240 impending over the borough of South-port. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in times gone by, use strong, but not exaggerated language, as to the benefit and the glory, and the credit which municipal and local governments bestow upon the country at large. I am inclined to think that the municipalities, and all those who are engaged in the task of local self-government, should receive the very strongest consideration from the Central Government; and I am, therefore, glad the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is present, because it has been said to me during the past week—"If we could only get the Prime Minister to know the merits of this case, we are sure he would not allow us to be victimized in this manner." For this reason, as I have said, I am glad to see the Prime Minister in his place to-night. Now, I have had nearly 20 years' experience of local government and municipal government in almost all its phases, and in almost all kinds of work connected with it; and I say, in all my experience, I have never known treatment so cruel and so much to be lamented as that to which this municipality is now being subjected. Southport is an important town, and has within 30 miles of it 4,000,000 of persons. It has been described as the sanatorium of the district; and in the town itself, there is a population exceeding 40,000 persons, while the increase is more rapid than in any other part of England, for it has twice doubled its population within the last 20 years. The local government of the town and the municipality are very popular, for they have done a great deal for the town in the way of establishing all sorts of institutions, such as gardens, baths, libraries, and an aquarium; and they considered it absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the town that the land of the foreshore should not go from them. To use the words of the Mayor of the town—
It will be a sad thing for us to have to rely on the tender mercies of the representatives of the landowners in any improvements we have to make.To put the case plainly, the local authorities have published a map of the foreshore. They divide it into two parts— one part coloured brown goes all along the front of the town, and is about 4,000 acres, the frontage to the sea being 241 several miles. The land adjoining belongs to the borough of Preston, and contains about 5,000 acres. These two lots of 9,000 acres have been sold by the Duchy for £15,000, about 5,000 acres to one landlord and 4,000 to another, and it seems to me there is only one way out of this compact. The Mayor and Corporation are willing to give almost anything for the foreshore in front of their town. In order to prevent the sale being carried out, they are willing to give a premium on the price paid for the land to the extent of 5 or 10 per cent. They are even willing to give £15,000 for the one plot of 4,000 acres, leaving out altogether the larger plot of 5,000 acres, which is agricultural land. I just want to refer to the correspondence which has taken place in this matter, and I will detain the House as briefly as I can. I will quote no more than is absolutely necessary. The question was first raised by the Corporation of Southport in October, 1880, on their application in regard to the land to the Duchy. The Duchy sent a surveyor to survey the land they proposed to buy, and Mr. Cartwright, the surveyor, named a sum of £9,000, and wished to know if the Corporation would purchase on these terms. On the 19th March, 1881, an additional piece of land was asked for, and correspondence went on regarding it until April, 1881, when a letter was addressed to the Duchy, asking for some information as to the claims made on the foreshore by the trustees of the two landlords in question. On April 13, 1881, the Town Clerk wrote and stated that the reason the Corporation wished to have this information was because the trustees of those two landowners claimed to be the owners in fee of the whole of the foreshore, coextensive with the borough of South-port. On May 24, 1881, the Town Clerk further wrote, and speaking on the Southport and Cheshire Railway Bill of 1881, then before Parliament, said they had petitioned against it, giving the authority of Mr. Whitaker that the foreshore belonged to the Duchy. The Attorney General of the Duchy, in evidence given on the Bill, disputed the rights of those two landlords, but declared that the Duchy had full rights. There was, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General of the Duchy and Solicitor General of the Duchy in support of the 242 contention that those landowners had no I claims to the foreshore in question, and that the Duchy had full powers over it. On July 4, 1881, the Town Clerk wrote to the Surveyor General of the Duchy, and asked the very pertinent question whether, as the purchase of this piece of land would probably involve a lawsuit, it could not be obtained at a lower price than the sum named? A few days afterwards, the Surveyor General, in acknowledging the receipt of the letter, said that the town authorities appeared to lay too much stress on the validity of any claim which might be set up adverse to the Duchy in regard to the piece of land in question; but added that the Town Clerk was quite at liberty to use such arguments, in order to get the price of the land reduced; and, having regard to the fact that the land was to be used for public purposes, he was prepared to advise the Chancellor of the Duchy to let the Corporation have it for £10,000. The Corporation then endeavoured to get from the representatives of the landowners an abstract of their title, or something upon which they founded their title. The Duchy complained of the delay on the part of the Corporation; and that delay could be explained by the fact, which was perfectly well known, that Corporations in general referred those matters to Standing Committees, and that was the course followed in this case. On August 26, 1881, the Town Clerk wrote, saying that the Council had decided to purchase the foreshore from the Duchy. That letter was acknowledged by the Surveyor General, who, in his reply, on the 29th of August, said the terms of the agreement would be drawn up by the Solicitor of the Duchy. On the 9th of September, the Town Clerk wrote, and asked for an interview, in order that they might discuss certain matters arising out of the subject, prior to the business being referred to the Solicitor. The next letter from the Town Clerk was of September 15, and said that he was instructed by the Sub-Committee to recommend the Town Council to purchase the rights of the Duchy in the foreshore for £9,500. On the 14th of October, he wrote again to the same effect; and asking if it would not be better to send a proof of the agreement, embodying the terms of the purchase, for perusal? Mr. Whitaker, writing 243 the next day, said he thought it would be better to prepare a draft agreement, embodying the terms, and that it should be sent to him for his approval. Then there is nothing of importance in the Correspondence until we come to the 7th of September, when Messrs. Prior, the London Agents of the Southport Corporation, wrote to Mr. Whitaker, enclosing the proposed agreement for the purchase of part of the foreshore on the part of the Corporation. I may say, in passing, that the agreement has never boon formally rejected. It was not returned to the Corporation, and it is in the hands of the Duchy at the present time. I am told that all agreements, when they are done with, are returned, and that the legal advisers of the Corporation lay great stress on this point. There was in the terms of the agreement a clause to the effect that, subject to the authority of Parliament being obtained, the vendors agreed to sell, and the purchasers to purchase, certain portions of land, being part of the foreshore, for the sum of £9,500. If the Act of Parliament was not obtained by the 1st of September, 1884, then it would be void; and it was signed by the London Agent of the Corporation and the Town Clerk, and addressed to Mr. B. Inglehardt on the part of the Duchy. Coming down to the 4th of January, 1882, the Solicitor to the Duchy wrote to say that it would be impossible to deal with the draft agreement until he had had an opportunity of conferring with some of the heads of the deputation on the 27th of January, 1882. Mr. Whitaker, writing to the Town Clerk, said that, although he had had no definite instructions, he had had the opportunity of forming an opinion on the subject, and that he felt some confidence in stating his belief that sanction might fairly be anticipated of the arrangement provisionally; and, in the interview which was to take place with the Chancellor, he thought the representatives of the Corporation ought to be prepared to state the sum that could be paid down as whole or part of the purchase money. That was a very serious alteration; and the representatives of the Corporation asked that they should go back to the original agreement, as they were not prepared to pay down the purchase money. I now come to the letter of the 21st February, 1882, which is the most important of the whole 244 correspondence, and which the Duchy set great store by, as they say it put an end to the whole correspondence. But there is not one word in the letter putting an end to the correspondence, and I venture to say that no hon. Gentleman who hears it read will dream that any such thing as breaking off the negotiations was intended in it; the Town Clerk simply wrote to Mr. Whitaker, to the effect that it was of vital importance to the town that the foreshore in front of it should be in the hands of the Corporation; and that accordingly the Committee had decided to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy to receive a deputation, in order to show him that it was impossible for them to enter into anything but a provisional agreement, and to ask him also to sanction such an agreement, after showing him the desirability of the foreshore being in the hands of the Corporation. That deputation was never sent to the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), and reasons why it was never sent have been given by the Corporation. There are other letters; but in none of them is there any question of putting an end to the negotiations. They wished to try the claim of the landowners to the foreshore before they purchased it; and, in fact, there is a letter from the Town Clerk to the Corporation to the trustees of the landowners, to the effect that he would accept, service of a writ in order to try the matter, as the Corporation were anxious to have the matter settled. Other correspondence followed, which brought the matter down to the present time. On March 29, the Town Clerk wrote again to the Solicitor to the Duchy, saying he hoped, at an early date, to wait upon Mr. Bright; but all these things showed that there was simply a hitch in the negotiations. Then there was a letter calling Mr. Whitaker's attention to a debate that had taken place in the Southport Town Council, when a Town Councillor had said that the Duchy had offered to sell the whole of the foreshore for a sum of less than £15,000. In reply, the Solicitor to the Duchy wrote, saying it would be time enough for the Duchy to commence litigation when its rights were infringed. On January 4, 1883, there was a letter from the Solicitor to the landowners, furnishing the Corporation with the long- 245 expected abstract of title, comprising some 136 folios, with maps, &c.; and the Town Clerk, having examined it, reported, on the 24th March, that the landowners had no title to the foreshore. In fact, the right of the Duchy to sell the foreshore has never been contested. They agreed to a clause; but the Duchy felt their full right of sale, or they would not have considered the question of selling. This was on the 6th of April, and on the 7th, the Mayor of Preston, in cross-examination, was asked by the landowners' counsel to whom the foreshore belonged, and he replied—"To the Duchy of Lancaster." "But," said the counsel, "you are aware that we are the owners," to which the Mayor replied— "No; I am not." No doubt, the landowners were somewhat frightened at the position which the Duchy were taking with regard to its rights in the sale of this larger portion of the foreshore to the Corporation of Preston; and also by the evidence of the Mayor of Preston, a man of great standing and influence in the locality. Therefore it was that, on the same evening, they opened negotiations with the Duchy. This was on the 6th April; and without troubling the House further, I may say that, on the 9th, the Mayor, who happened to be in the Committee Room of the House, heard, almost by accident, that the foreshore had been sold to the landowners. I am sure that, on such a matter, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister will extend the sympathy which I know he feels for municipalities to this Corporation, placed, as they are, in this unfortunate position. The Town Clerk wrote to Mr. Whitaker, Solicitor to the Duchy, expressing a desire to avert a state of things which those members of the Corporation who were in London considered would be disastrous to the best interests of the town of Southport. They claimed the right to regard the original offer of the Duchy, to sell the foreshore to the Corporation, as still open; but, at the same time, they offered, if necessary, on their own responsibility, to vary the terms which they had offered. This, in my opinion, shows the earnestness and public spirit of these men, who, as members of the Corporation, without profit to themselves, but with that patriotic feeling which has made England what it is, take part in managing the affairs of the community 246 in which they live, and give their services for the good of their fellows. This is a spirit which has long distinguished the English people, and which, in the case of Municipal Corporations, produces as good and earnest work as is done by any body of men, however well paid they may be, or however high the honours which they may receive; and I say that such men, who represent authorities best in English life, should receive the hearty care and consideration of the Government. These gentlemen knew very well that they must run risks, as members of other Corporations have done. They knew there was no time to go to the Corporation; and, therefore, they were prepared to sign a contract, making themselves personally responsible for the payment of the purchase money, in the event of the Corporation declining to endorse their action. They knew the landowners had their creatures in the Council, and that others of the body, under fear of threatened litigation, might sway the Corporation into backing out of any contract that might be made, as the Town Clerk, in the letter which I am paraphrasing, said—The members of the Corporation then present in London, consisting of the Mayor, an Alderman, and two Members of the Council asked for a favourable answer from the Duchy, on the ground, if on no other, that the public interest was of no less interest and solicitude to the Crown than to the Corporation.That was on the 9th of April, and on, the 15th there came out certain elaborate heads of an agreement between the Duchy and the landowners, for the sale and purchase of the foreshore for £15,000, £2,000 of which was paid down almost immediately. On the same day the Town Clerk received a reply from the Solicitor to the Duchy to his letter of the previous day, to which I have referred. Mr. Whitaker, the Solicitor, said that the proposal of the members of the Corporation had been submitted to the Duchy authorities, who had decided upon accepting the offer of the landowners. This resulted in further negotiations, based upon a protest on the part of the Corporation of Southport, who maintained that they had been promised the first refusal, and demanded that no other offer should be entertained until theirs was disposed of; and in reference to this point the interviews between the authorities of the Duchy and 247 the representatives of the Town Council are worthy of attention. To those representations Mr. Whitaker replied that all negotiations were off; but added that he would entertain an offer if made before 3 o'clock in the day; this communication being received at 1 o'clock. The representatives of the Council retired, and, after consultation with the Town Clerk, they returned and made an offer of £9,500, with an offer, if necessary, to go up to £10,000. The Surveyor General and the Solicitor to the Duchy declared, however, that that amount was useless; and when the Corporation's representatives tried to ascertain what would be taken, one of those two gentlemen took out a pencil and figured down £12,000 as the amount that would be accepted. That was at 3 o'clock. At length they got the time extended to 5 o'clock, and ultimately until 7 o'clock, as if they were criminals asking for a short respite because they hoped a reprieve would arrive, instead of being the representatives of the Corporation of a great town. I feel somewhat warmly about the treatment of these gentlemen, for I believe in Corporations and in representative local government. The deputation then offered £12,000 on their own personal responsibility. They came down to this House at 4 o'clock, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) expressed his sympathy with them, offered his assistance, and asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy to give them an interview. Surely, this was a cheap enough thing; but it was refused. Later in the evening the request for an interview was renewed, after the arrival of the Mayor of South-port, who had posted up for the purpose again. It was again refused, and I will not trust myself to say what I think of this refusal. The excuse of the right hon. Gentleman for his refusal was, that there was a point of law involved; but I would ask what had any question of law to do with the Duchy of Lancaster? These gentlemen wore willing to buy certain lands from the Duchy, and, in doing so, to take the risk of whatever legal proceedings might be instituted against them on that account; and the Duchy was not asked, or expected, to protect the Corporation against any lawsuit on the part of the representa- 248 tives of the landowners. It turned out, howover, that the question of law had to do with the matter in another and more objectionable way, because it was announced in the Committee on the Ribble Navigation Bill, on the next day, that the foreshore had been sold by the Duchy to the landowners, and the counsel, in stating the fact, said that the Duchy had sold, "Peace instead of war." What, as a matter of fact, had they done? In a conflict between 45,000 people and their rights the Duchy had taken the side of the two landowners against the 45,000, and had given them a legal and an unquestionable title to the foreshore; and they had done this, with the original agreement between themselves and the Corporation in their possession. It had never been returned or annulled in any way. The Town Clerk of South-port wrote a further letter to Mr. Whitaker, on the 12th of April, renewing his protest against the right of the Duchy to sell the foreshore, in face of the non-cancelled agreement to sell to the Corporation; and to that he received the somewhat off-hand reply that Mr. Whitaker declined to make any reply to inquiries which he deemed "wanting both in pertinence and propriety." Then, on the 19th, there was a letter from the representative of the landowners to the Duchy of Lancaster, in which it was stated that the landowners owned 19–20ths of the land within the borough of Southport, and had, therefore, far greater interest in the welfare of the town than the Corporation. The fact, however, that, because they already possess 19–20ths of the land in the borough, therefore the remaining twentieth should be given them is a position I venture to dispute. The Corporation also protested against this, because they knew that if the remaining twentieth was handed to the landowners, they would become masters of all the position relative to the progress and improvements in the town. An offer has been made of the good offices of the Duchy with the Lords of the Manor, as regards the treatment of the Corporation in this matter; and, as an illustration of that treatment, and how little those good offices may avail, may I mention that in 1878 the Duchy of Lancaster sold to the Corporation 120 acres of land for £340 for the purpose of making a carriage I drive and other improvements; but the 249 landowners claimed for the rights in the same land no less than £21,000, and it was only by threats of litigation that they were induced to abate their demand until it reached £7,000, which the Corporation paid. It is, after all, a sort of Rule of Three sum; if, in 1876, the landowners claimed£21,000 for 120 acres of land, with a defective title, or no title at all, what are they likely to demand for 4,000 or 5,000 acres, over which they have a full title conferred by the Duchy of Lancaster? The whole sea front of the town will be in the hands of two people, and the Corporation, before they can make their intended gardens and other improvements in that direction, will have to buy back this land for some fabulous sum; while, as the Mayor had said— "Parliament has no idea how we are ground down from the same quarter." There is yet another very serious matter. Last year a scheme was promoted for the making of a railway along the foreshore —in fact, along the whole front of that town. One of the landowners is favourable to that scheme, which may be brought forward again; so that the town stands in danger of having this railway made at no distant date, to the utter ruin of the community. I would, therefore, renew my appeal to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Duchy, that, even at the risk of a small loss to the Duchy, they will secure the foreshore to the inhabitants of the town. I bog of them to remember that the public interests of a great borough of 45,000people, rapidly increasing, a town which, as the sanatorium of a large district, is worthy of far more consideration than the interests of two landowners, who, however respectable they may be—and I have no word to say against them in that respect —have no right to control the interests of the large population of the borough. I can only say, in conclusion, that if the Government persist in ratifying this bargain, they will not only commit a blunder, but they will turn a blunder into a disgrace.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
§ SIR EDWARD WATKINI am bound to say, Sir, that I have never seen a greater blunder than has been made in this case by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy 250 of Lancaster; and I can only assume that it must have occurred, or, at any rate, originated, in the interregnum between the resignation of his Predecessor, the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and the appointment of the present Chancellor. What the Government have done has simply been to place a monopoly in the hands of two landowners, as against the public and the Corporation of Southport. Is it to be supposed that these contracts entered into suddenly, and to some extent in the dark, should be carried out without Parliament having any knowledge of them at all? The House is made cognizant of most contracts by their being laid on the Table; and I would ask whether it is to be assumed, for a moment, that the Chancellor of the Duchy is to be allowed to make a contract vitally affecting the interests of the 45,000 inhabitants of Southport, and millions of people outside it, without the House having any control over the transaction? It is time the House should show its authority over these contracts, made for the Duchy by a single Member of the Government. There are places where the Board of Trade hold that the foreshores should belong to the country; and I maintain that, if they are alienated at all, it should be in the interest of the public, and not of private individuals. One Department responsible to Parliament is protecting the interests of the country in this direction; while a practically irresponsible Member of the Cabinet is bartering them away. In this case a bargain appears to have been made with the landowners, without notice to persons with whom the Duchy had previously been treating; and it seems to me to have been an act of the grossest bad faith. At any rate, it would be so regarded among common sense men of business. It is a bad bargain in itself, and ought to be reconsidered; and I hope the House will stop in, as far as it can, and insist on an inquiry being made, with a view to having the whole matter put right.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would suggest to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) to use his endeavours with his hon. Friends, in order that they should shorten their speeches in relation to this question, or they might lay themselves open to the 251 charge of Obstruction. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) thought that a great deal of unnecessary fuss had been made about the matter, and that it might safely be left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the case to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) had called attention was, no doubt, one of great hardship to the town immediately concerned; but a much wider question than the interests of Southport was involved in it, because it had reference to the rights and interests of many towns throughout the Kingdom. The question was, whether the Crown, as a Corporation, ought to have regard solely to its private interests; or whether it should have regard to the interests of the public? He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) unhesitatingly maintained that those who acted for the Crown, as a Corporation, ought to have no regard for the private interests of the Crown to the exclusion of public rights. The question was one of vast and far-reaching importance. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had acted in strict accordance with the traditions of the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster— that was to say, he had endeavoured to make as much money as he could, to be transmitted to the particular purposes of the Duchy. In doing so, he must be held to have acted in accordance with the policy of those who conducted the business of the Duchy. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) could only regret the impotence of the House in this matter. He wished to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was the only servant of the Crown in that House over whom the House had absolutely no control. He was the only Member of the Government over whose administration the House had no authority. The House did not vote his salary, which came from the income of the Duchy; and it was open to question whether the House ought to recognize and give Parliamentary title to the acts of an officer over whom it had no control. That was a subject which, he thought, was fairly open to discussion; but he thought it was beyond question that the sale to the Lords of the Manors of this foreshore was a transaction which the House should condemn. He hoped the House 252 was not disposed to approve the transaction, and he could only say for himself that if his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich thought it right to go to a division, he should vote with him, as a protest against the action of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with regard to this matter.
§ MR. DODSONSir, the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Motion (Mr. Jesse Collings), and the two hon. Members who have spoken since, have all of them spoken as if the Duchy of Lancaster had been the absolute or undisputed possessor of this foreshore; but I must remind them, when they talk of the hardships of the foreshore being in the hands of riparian proprietors, that they were claimants, and strong claimants, to the exclusive possession of the foreshore. It was a legal question whether they were not the owners of it; therefore, if the Duchy had sold their interests to the Corporation, the Corporation would still have had to deal with these riparian owners, and they would have had either to fight it out with the riparian proprietors, or make terms with them. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion made very light of the claims of the riparian proprietors, and, in one part of his speech, said that Mr. Whitaker, as Solicitor to the Duchy, had declined to admit them; but there was practical proof of the difficulty created by the claim of the riparian proprietors. What took place in 1878, to which the hon. Member has himself adverted, and to which I called the attention of the deputation who waited upon me this afternoon? In 1878, the Duchy sold its interest in part of the foreshore to the Corporation for a sum of about £300, or a little more; and the Corporation had next to negotiate with the riparian proprietors, and to pay them some £7,000 or £8,000 for their titles to the same part.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSSince then, the abstract of title has been given; and, that having been examined by the Corporation, it has been found that no title really existed at the time. The Corporation would have sued the landlords to get that money back, but for the fact that they are precluded by some formality. Therefore, what occurred in 1878 has been proved to be a different matter, and the case does not apply at all.
§ MR. DODSONThe abstract of title was furnished to the Duchy. It showed, at all events, a fightable claim. But I will put it upon still higher grounds. The Corporation were perfectly aware of the difficulty which they would have with the riparian proprietors if they acquired the interest of the Duchy; for there is a letter, written in 1881 by the Town Clerk to the Solicitor to the Duchy, in which he uses this phrase—
The Corporation, in purchasing the foreshore from the Grown, will be most certainly purchasing a heavy lawsuit with it.Had they acquired the interest of the Duchy, they would have still the claims of the riparian proprietors to deal with, and the Corporation had learnt by experience that it is a very serious question to deal with. The hon. Baronet who spoke from the Bench above (Sir Edward Watkin) said it was a matter of bad faith on the part of the Duchy officials. Having held the Office for so short a time, the expression does not apply to me, for I was not Chancellor? when the negotiations took place; but, on behalf of the officials of the Duchy, who are gentlemen who discharge their duties loyally and faithfully, I must protest against any imputations of bad faith raised against them because they interpreted certain documents differently from some other people, the representatives of the Corporation. The hon. Member who introduced this question went, at great length, through the Correspondence, and gave a résumé from his point of view. I trust I may be allowed very briefly to point out the view of the Duchy. The position is this—About two years ago the Surveyor General of the Duchy and a Committee of the Town Council of Southport entered into a verbal arrangement for the sale by the Duchy of their rights in the foreshore to the town. The terms of the arrangement were, unfortunately, not reduced into writing, as they ought to have been, and there is a question between the parties concerned as to what they really were. As a sample of the inaccuracies which have, unfortunately, become current in consequence, I may refer to a letter which the hon. Member himself has brought forward and quoted. It was stated, at a public meeting, amongst other things, that the Duchy had offered to sell the whole of the foreshore for a sum of less than £15,000, and to guaran- 254 tee the town from all lawsuits in any shape or form. Now, the fact is, that it is the practice of the Duchy never to enter into covenants for title, and, therefore, it never gives a guarantee; and the Corporation had knowledge of this, for it had been so informed on a recent purchase of part of this very foreshore. This shows how loosely the negotiation was conducted, and how little reliance is to be placed upon the recollection of anything not reduced into writing. But the contention on the part of the Duchy is this—that whatever were the terms of the verbal agreement, it is admitted, on both sides, that they were to be subject to the sanction of the Chancellor of the Duchy on the one side, and the Corporation on the other. Further, it is quite clear, from the letter of the Town Clerk on the 14th of October, 1881, that in his view the price and the area were the only terms agreed on, and the other terms were to be arranged between himself and the Duchy Solicitor afterwards. A dispute afterwards arose, as to whether the agreement was to be a provisional one or not. When the draft agreement, formulated by the Committee, was sent to the Duchy Solicitor, he found it was to be provisional only, upon the Corporation asking, if they thought fit, for Parliamentary sanction at any time within three years—in other words, that the Duchy were to be fast bound for three years, while the Corporation remained, free. The Duchy Solicitor objected to that, stating that he was not prepared to accept an agreement involving the proposition. In February, 1882, the Town Clerk wrote to the effect, that he must adhere to the proposal laid down, or that the negotiation must come to an end. Surely that was breaking off the negotiations. Then he goes on to say—Inasmuch as it is of vital importance to the town that the foreshore should he in the hands of the ratepayers, it is proposed to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy to receive a deputation from the ratepayers, and request him to sanction an arrangement similar in principle to the draft already sent.No copy of the draft was sent as proposed to the Chancellor. No application was made to receive a deputation, and, as a matter of fact, no such deputation took place. Then there came the letter which the hon. Gentleman referred to—namely, the letter of the 29th March, from the 255 Town Clerk to the Solicitor of the Duchy, in which he said he was informed that the solicitors to the Lords of the Manors proposed to submit their claim to a Court of Law, and that the Corporation, "as intending Purchasers," were anxious to know what course it was proposed to pursue, and asking to be informed at an early date.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the letter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman described the Corporation as intending purchasers, and yet he said that the negotiations had been broken off.
§ MR. DODSONYes; I say so; for the letter of the 29th of March is not a renewal of negotiations with the Duchy officials; but, on the contrary, it re-states the intention of the Corporation to appeal to the Chancellor. The Solicitor to the Duchy answered, on the 19th of April, to the effect that he had no information to give. The position, therefore, was that, in February, the Town Clerk, on behalf of the Committee of the Corporation, broke up the negotiations, and said he would appeal to the Chancellor, and on the 29th March he wrote to ask for certain information. The date of the letter in which they broke off negotiations with the Duchy officials was the 21st of Februan1, and the letter to which he had just referred was the 29th of March, 1882. After this letter they took no steps to approach either the officials or the Chancellor in any way. After 12 oils months had elapsed, surely the Duchy were entitled to consider not only that negotiations were at an end, but that there was no intention of re-opening them. I have a further confirmation of that, and that is that the view taken by the Town Clerk and the Corporation themselves was to the effect that, by their letter of the 21st of February, negotiations were broken off. The Town Clerk, in March, 1882, distinctly stated to the solicitors to the landowners that the negotiations between the Duchy and the Corporation had terminated. In May, 1882, the Corporation gave practical proof of this, for they entered into an agreement with the landowners for the purchase of an easement over part of the shore; although, in February, the Town Clerk had said he could enter into no agreement with them, unless the Duchy would waive its claim to the foreshore, neither could he settle with the Duchy unless the landowners would 256 waive their claim. This, again, was a further confirmation of the fact that the Corporation did not look upon the title of the trustees as valueless. Our contention is that not only were the negotiations with the Duchy admittedly terminated, but that the Corporation were absolutely in treaty with persons claiming adversely to the Duchy to purchase from them a part of this very foreshore. In this state of the case the Duchy and the landowners were brought together in a Committee Room in which the Ribble Navigation Bill was investigated, and the representatives of the Corporation were there in the Committee Room for several days, sitting side by side with the representatives of both. They made no effort to re-open negotiations with the Duchy, nor any attempt to deal with them for the foreshore till the 9th of April. The riparian proprietors made an offer to the Duchy on the morning of that day; and on that day the Corporation, whether they had heard of that offer or not, I do not know; but they came forward with an altogether new proposal, and not with a suggestion to revive the old negotiations. They made us an offer in the afternoon. The two offers were very carefully considered; and we concluded that the offer of the landowners was, on the whole, the best, and it was attended with the great advantage that it closed the door against litigation. The Duchy were perfectly free to deal with either party, or with neither of them. ["Oh, oh!"] That is the position we take up. We maintain that, inasmuch as the negotiations with the Corporation had failed, we were entirely free to deal with anyone. Now, it has been said we ought to have specially considered the interests of the Corporations as a public body, and that, in dealing with such matters, we ought not to forget the claim of public bodies. My answer to that is that it is the practice of the Duchy in such matters to weigh and consider such claims on the part of public bodies; but we do not think that they are to outweigh all other considerations. In this particular case, if we had given a preference to the Corporation, and accepted from them what we thought an offer, on the whole, less good for the Crown than that made by the riparian proprietors, we should still not have placed the Corporation in the position of being masters of their own fore- 257 shore, because they would even then have had to deal with the riparian proprietors. It is said the latter have asked a largely-increased price for their right above that which they had themselves given to the Duchy. I am not aware what they have asked; but if they have demanded a larger price than they gave to the Duchy, they did so for the very simple reason that they now own the whole title to the foreshore. The Duchy, as it were, formerly held one-half, and the riparian proprietors the other half. Of course, when the two halves are put together, whoever has got them will ask for the whole considerably more than one party would ask for his half. The hon. Member said I had refused to give an audience to certain members of the Corporation on the evening of Monday, the 9th, when we had decided to close with the offer of the landowners, and the matter was placed in the hands of the agents of the Duchy on the Ribble Navigation Bill, to settle with the landowners upon the basis of that offer. After the Committee had broken up that evening I was asked to go out into the Lobby to speak to some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I felt it would be quite impossible for me, having intrusted the matter to the agents of the Duchy, behind the backs of those gentlemen, personally, to enter into negotiations with anyone.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSWhat I complained of was that a simple request for an audience on the part of the Mayor and Corporation of Southport was refused by the Chancellor of the Duchy; and I complained of the want of courtesy and of the want of appreciation of the position the Corporation occupied.
§ MR. DODSONI can assure the hon. Gentleman there was no intention to display a want of courtesy or want of appreciation of the Corporation's position. The reason why I declined to see the representatives of the Corporation was simply the one I have mentioned. In conclusion, I can only say I greatly regret that there should have been any disappointment felt by the Corporation at the conclusion arrived at. I cannot, however, see that their position would have been so very materially better if they had acquired our disputed title to the foreshore. I can only repeat what I said to the deputation which waited upon me 258 this afternoon—namely, that if I can, by using my good offices as mediator, in any way bring about an amicable settlement between the two parties concerned, it will afford me very sincere pleasure to do so.
§ MR. SLAGGAs one of those who know Southport very well indeed, and also as one acquainted with the cir-stances of the case, I feel bound to say a few words with regard to this very serious grievance. Southport is a most enterprizing place. It has an energetic Corporation; and the very essence of its success as a watering-place is that it should have control of this foreshore. In that respect I consider they have received very terrible injury indeed. It must be dear to the House that there is a very great difference between the position Southport now holds and that which it would have occupied if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had treated it as it ought and deserved to be treated. The difference is this—that the riparian proprietors have now got possession of that valuable, and to Southport indispensable, foreshore; and whatever is spent upon it will be for the substantial benefit of those proprietors, instead of for the benefit and advantage of the town and public at large. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman had, at one time, an opportunity of dealing with the Duchy's rights in a manner advantageous to the Corporation of Southport; but that opportunity was lost. He had, in fact, a golden opportunity of dealing with all the interests involved in a way which would have been satisfactory to each of the parties; and I fail to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's answer whether he was tempted from that rational course by a desire to avoid a law suit, or a desire to get more money for the Duchy property. It seems to me that there was no difficulty in so treating the question of the transfer of the property, that the rights of the Corporation might have been absolutely and entirely safeguarded. The Corporation of Southport were perfectly prepared to buy the property with all the risks attaching to it, and I am sure they would have confronted the legal difficulties with confidence and success. The case of the Corporation is one which, to my mind, has really no avenues of explanation open to it. The people 259 of Southport have a great grievance, and I hope it is not yet too late to reverse the policy of the Duchy in this matter. I understand that the affixing of the seal to a document is the culminating act in transactions of this character, and that the seal has not yet been attached in this case. I hope, therefore, that the strong representations made to the right hon. Gentleman will induce him to exorcise all the influence in his power in order to avert what threatens to be a great disaster to the town of Southport.
MR. GLADSTONESir, I admit that, apart from the method in which this matter is introduced, the question is one which may be fairly brought under the discussion of the House. There are two lights in which the matter may be viewed. The one is the conduct of an administrative Department of the Government, and the other is to obtain the utmost possible advantage for the Corporation of Southport that the present situation will admit of. There may or may not be grounds for what has been done by the Government. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Slagg), expressed a hope that the strong representations which have been made to the Government will be allowed to have an important bearing upon the agreement which have been virtually made. Now the question of affixing a seal to a legal agreement is not a question which, it is very easy to say, could be determined by statements made in the House of Commons. However worthy the attention, these statements in themselves might be most obviously dealt with, mainly upon the position the negotiations have attained, and on the duties attaching to the parties between whom the stage has been reached. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) has said that he is most anxious to afford all the assistance he can towards a settlement of the matter in a way that should be satisfactory to all parties. I have no wish to say anything in extenuation of the moral conduct of the Government, because that is not a matter which at this moment we have in view. I take it that my hon. Friend (Mr. Collings) will do the best he can for the Corporation and people of Southport, and I know enough of Southport to be able to understand the great interest and importance of this 260 question to the people; but my right hon. Friend stated that he was most anxious to offer all the assistance he could, by mediation, towards securing a just settlement of the matter. I do not think, even if my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich had shown that there had been some defect in the conduct of the business on the part of the officers of the Duchy — which I cannot for one moment admit is the case—that it would justify my right hon. Friend in doing less than fulfilling the obligations honourably attaching to him in the present state of the negotiation. I am acquainted with one of the riparian owners of these estates. It is a great, and a most important estate; and I am quite convinced that such people as the trustees of the Scarisbrick Estate ought to be well aware that they would be pursuing a most unwise course, in the interests of the locality generally, in their own interests also, if they were to attempt to make an extreme use of any rights they may have acquired. My right hon. Friend and myself are under the impression that it is the desire of those parties to deal equitably in the matter. If that be so, can the hon. Gentleman do better than endeavour to strengthen the hands of my right hon. Friend in the offer of mediation he has made for the general good and general advantage of both parties? His offer is by no means limited to one particular part of the foreshore. He is perfectly ready and desirous to be of use with respect to the whole question. Therefore, there can be nothing better than endeavouring to strengthen the hands of my right hon. Friend in giving effect to the offer which he has made. Let my hon. Friend by all means censure anything which has been done; but, in the present case, no one can say in honour, by usage, nor by law, it is possible to arrest a regular negotiation for the sale of property, when everything has been agreed upon, and when nothing remains but the formality of affixing the seal. I cannot certainly see the advantage of pressing upon my right hon. Friend that which is morally beyond his power to do. I hope it will be seen that I am not acting as a partizan. I sincerely desire that the best that can be done should be done. I will not enter into any question as to the nature of the very long and complicated correspondence which has 261 taken place; but I am certain my hon. Friend will do wisely if he endeavours to aid my right hon. Friend in his purpose of working in the best way he can to secure the equitable settlement of the question.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he felt bound to say a word or two on the question, seeing that the principles which were raised interested not only the people of Southport alone, but all municipal boroughs which possessed a seashore. The Prime Minister, unfortunately, gave the go-bye to these principles; for speaking persuasively, as he always did, his speech simply amounted to the statement that there was no use in crying over spilt milk, or adopting a policy of recrimination, and that the best thing was to rely upon the good offices of the Duchy. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman, instead, had given only one or two words of sympathy, and of the extreme impropriety of using these ancient rights of the Crown to make money, it would have been more satisfactory to many hon. Members. He (Mr. Stanley) contended that these ancient rights possessed by the Crown should never be severed from the Crown unless they became vested in public bodies such as Corporations or Harbour Trustees; and as the Duchy stood in the same position, it ought not to be allowed to traffic in these rights. There might be those who thought the Duchy of Lancaster had the right, as well as any other person, to put the money in its pockets regardless of public necessity. Let thorn look at the position of Southport, held in the grip of these lords of the manor; in future they would not only be lords of the land, but lords of the sea also. Although they were told that the trustees of the Scarisbrick Estate would act desirably in the matter, it was not always found that the owners of large estates went in a large-handed, generous manner towards the public; but the larger the estate, the greater the territorial power. The mere fact of the Scarisbrick Estate being so large, made it all the more dangerous to give to them the power to hamper all the improvements of the borough. He should rather think that the town of Southport would be better off if the soil belonged to 50 people than to one. At present it was in the power of that one possessor to impede the development of the town, 262 and he would necessarily be afforded many new weapons for extortion. The town would be bound over hand and foot. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what he would think, if such an attempt had been made on any town in which he was interested? He (Mr. Stanley) had been told that the foreshore of Scarborough also belonged to the Duchy. How would the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman feel, if the owners of the soil were to come in, and behind the back of the town of Scarborough buy the rights of the Crown? How would the right hon. Gentleman like to see all the activity and development of Scarborough, as a seaside resort, fettered by such foreshore powers? He (Mr. Stanley) was sure, if such a question should arise in reference to Scarborough after this debate, that there would be no fear of Scarborough's rights being bartered away for a few thousand pounds to the Duchy. He protested strongly against making use of these ancient rights for the private profit of the Duchy; and he hoped one good result would follow from the debate—that the House would never again see a Minister of the Crown promoting a private bargain, with respect to the Crown's property, which would put a large and growing town under the thumb of a landowner, without consulting the wishes of the people who were principally interested in the matter.
§ MR. LEAKEsaid, he should have preserved the studious silence he had hitherto maintained, had he found that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had taken up the interest of his constituents in this subject; but as he (Mr. Leake) had waited in vain, he felt that, as the Representative of the adjacent division of the county, it was his duty to say a word or two. He regretted to hear the Prime Minister say that the negotiations had gone too far to be broken off. The only consolation they got was the promise that the best efforts of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would now be used to repair what was undoubtedly a disaster. Personally, he wished the right hon. Gentleman had still in his hands the power which he possessed in April, and that it might be used to enable the rival claimants 263 to come to an amicable settlement. He had parted with that power; and he (Mr. Leake) could only trust that the right hon. Gentleman would still find the resources of reason and persuasion as powerful and successful as they would have been then. He did not complain of bad faith as regarded the Duchy; but what he did complain of was, perhaps, quite as fatal in a Public Office—namely, the bad policy of the Government in using the ancient powers they possessed, not in defence or support of the growing wants and necessities of large communities in their midst, but in aggrandizing and perpetuating those comparatively obsolete rights of lords of the manor, which were almost an anachronism now; that was certainly bad policy, and he was the more distressed that it should proceed from a Liberal Administration. He trusted that from that discussion and from that incident a very different policy would be adopted in the future in all such Offices as were not directly responsible to the House, and that they would consider that, though those rights were of antique foundation, their use had, in the present time, ceased, and they must be adapted to modern requirements.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he rose, not to prolong an already too long debate, but to protest against the deliberate manner in which the Radical Party had that evening wasted the time of the House. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), having asked a series of Questions about a purely local question, and expressed dissatisfaction with the answers, had called upon his Radical Friends to support a Motion for Adjournment. The hon. Member was also supported by hon. Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House; but that was not to be wondered at, for one of their number had declared that their policy was a policy of Adjournment. The hon. Member for Ipswich had detained the House for an hour and a-half with an enumeration of the grievances of some wretched watering-place in Lancashire, which might, no doubt, be of considerable interest to the place concerned, but which did not, in the least, interest hon. Members who represented other places in that House, and who had come down to listen to matters of far greater importance. He did not forget—indeed, he wished to call atten- 264 tion to the fact—that the hon. Member who had so occupied the time of the House with that Motion was the same hon. Gentleman who asked the Prime Minister the other day, whether he would not consider the propriety of keeping the House sitting through the autumn, until all the measures of the Government mentioned in the Queen's Speech should have been passed. He was astonished, under those circumstances, at the unblushing effrontery of the hon. Member in bringing on the Motion he had done that night. He objected in the strongest manner to these Motions for the Adjournment of the House. He had never made that Motion at Question time, nor had he ever supported any Motion of that kind himself; and he would recommend the Prime Minister and Lord Granville, when next they should feel inclined, at the Aquarium or elsewhere, to animadvert on the Obstruction of the Conservative Party, to look nearer home, and to call attention to the tactics of hon. Members of their own Party below the Gangway.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.