HC Deb 21 February 1884 vol 284 cc1545-57

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

MR. STAFFORD HOWARD,

in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, there might have been something unusual in the course taken in regard to this Bill last year in opposing the second reading; but the opposition the Bill then met with received a considerable amount of justification from the fact that the Select Committee, to whom the Bill was referred, rejected it upon its merits. Therefore, in taking a similar course this year, the same objection could not be taken, because the Bill had been brought in again in exactly the same form, and contained no material alteration from the measure which was presented last year. Consequently, the reasons for and against it remained the same, and he could not understand why the Bill should have been again reintroduced this year. It had been alleged that the opposition to the Bill, and to Bills of this nature, generally were prompted by certain views of sentimental, well-meaning, but foolish individuals, whose ideas ought not for one moment to be allowed to stand in the way of those of practical persons who proposed to develope the mineral wealth of the country, and to promote great engineering works to the advantage of the neighbourhood in which they were carried out. Perhaps it would be as well that he should state shortly and clearly the grounds upon which the Lake District Defence Association, and those persons who agreed with that Association in its views, opposed this Bill, and would continue to oppose all such Bills. He might remark, in passing, that those who belonged to the Association he had mentioned were not a small knot of obscure individuals, but they included among their number many influential Members of Parliament, influential and well-known writers for the Press, and hundreds and thousands of the residents of our great cities, who annually resorted to the Lake District for recreation and enjoyment, and for the means of recruiting their health. The number of people who sought this kind of relaxation was every year growing larger, and it would increase with the population of the country. The preservation of the natural features and characteristics of the Lake District was highly essential, if it was to continue to afford that pleasure and enjoyment which was necessary; and, under these circumstances, it was the intention of those who desired to preserve the Lake District to oppose every Bill of this kind until it was proved that such measures were absolutely necessary in order to serve some important public interest, and had advantages which would outweigh those considerations to which he had referred. It was with that object that last year he had moved an Instruction to the Committee, to whom the Bill was sent, that they should have power to consider the nature of the scenery, and the way in which it would be affected by the Bill; and, further, that the Committee should hear evidence as to the injury which the construction of the railway might cause. If the second reading of the Bill were now carried, he proposed to move that a similar Instruction be given to the Committee. But, considering the result of last year's Committee—a Committee of Gentlemen perfectly impartial upon the subject, and not likely to be carried away by sentimental views—considering that that Committee, after careful inquiry, threw out the Bill on its merits, he thought he was justified in asking the House now to throw it out upon the second reading. It was not necessary that he should add more to what he had said. He had tried to explain the grounds on which the Bill was opposed; and should the second reading be carried, he should feel bound to move the Instruction he had moved last year. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Stafford Howard.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he had hoped that the House would have heard some more valid reason for the rejection of this Bill on the second reading than that which had been given by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) represented the district which was nearest to Ennerdale Lake; and knowing that the local feeling was in favour of the Bill, he should give it his support. He had heard no substantial reason given for adopting the unusual course of throwing out a Private Bill upon the second reading. His answer to the objections raised by the hon. Member was simply this. The Bill was not the same Bill as that which was rejected last year. The opponents, in the statement of their case, alleged that, with the exception of a small variation of the line, the Bill was the same as the Ennerdale Railway Bill which was rejected on its merits by a Committee last year. Now, he did not know precisely what it was that guided the Committee in the rejection of the Bill last year; but he had always understood that it was in consequence of a deficiency in the matter of the financial arrangements. It was supposed that the Company had not provided sufficient funds for carrying out the undertaking; and he believed that it was upon that ground that the Bill was rejected, and not at all on the sentimental ground of any interference with the scenery, which it certainly did not effect, as any hon. Gentleman who was acquainted with the district would know. He took his objection to the course now proposed to be taken on a much stronger ground; and as an old Member of the House, he ventured to say that never in his experience had he known so bold a proposal made in reference to a Private Bill. He believed that many hon. Members he saw before him, who were familiar with the practice of the House, would agree with him when he said it was a principle well understood that no Private Bill ought to be rejected on the second reading, unless it manifestly inflicted some injury or injustice, either upon the public, or else upon private individuals, which it was not within the competence of a Select Committee to remedy, or unless the Bill itself followed some solemn rule or decision of the House. This could only be determined after the full and careful examination which a Committee upstairs would give to the Bill. Was it a sufficient ground for rejecting it to say that it would interfere with the Lake scenery? If it would interfere, as the hon. Member said it would, with the Lake scenery—and, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had never heard a more absurd objection in his life—that was a matter which would certainly be proved before the Select Committee, who would be able to hear statements both on one side and on the other. If the Committee chose to let the Bill stand or fall on such a ground as that, well and good; but it would be hard and unjust to the promoters that the matter should be cut short in the present instance without any evidence whatever. He would ask the House what was the nature of the opposition that was raised? Who were the individuals who were opposing? He would take upon himself to say that not one in I 00 of the opponents ever saw Ennerdale Lake or Ennerdale Valley. The locality had, however, been familiar to him all his life. Before going through the reasons which the opponents gave against the second reading of the Bill, he wished to tell the House that up to the present moment there had not been one single Petition against the Bill. No landowner had protested against it; no Railway Company had lodged a Petition against it; the local authorities were all in favour of it, and so were the in habitants of the locality. He would now very shortly go through the reasons which had been adduced by two or three people whom nobody ever heard of before, one of them residing at Windermere —which was altogether out of the district—and the other at Ambleside. Those two gentlemen were the authorities on whom the opposition was based. He would go through the reasons they assigned, and he would undertake to knock those reasons all to pieces. In the first place, the Petitioners said that the scheme was, with the exception of a slight variation in the course of the proposed Railway, the same as that proposed by the Ennerdale Railway Bill of last Session, which was rejected on its merits by a Committee of the House. He had already explained that that was not so. The Railway had been considerably altered, and it was now proposed to carry it through a cutting, 25 feet deep, for a considerable distance; whereas last year it was proposed to carry it along the shore of the Lake. He was advised that the financial objection raised by the Committee last year had been removed, and that the line had now received sufficient support in promotion to warrant the passing of the Bill. The next reason against the second reading was as follows:— It is not pretended that the proposed railway is for the convenience of the population in Ennerdale, which consists of the residents in about a dozen farmhouses; but it is intended as a means of developing certain veins of lead and iron, which are alleged to exist in the surrounding hills. The scheme is, therefore, not to serve public, but private interests. Not to serve the public interests! Was not the development of the resources of the country, and the employment of labour in the construction of a railway, matters of public interest? He should like to hear any of the sentimental Radical Party deny that proposition. The document from which he quoted said— The scheme is not to serve public, but private interests. Was it to serve private interests to develop the resources of the country; and, more than that, to give an access to one of the English Lakes, which at the present moment did not exist? The hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. Stafford Howard) could scarcely have visited the locality. If he had, he must know that Ennerdale Water was nine miles from Whitehaven, and that there was no means of getting there without hiring an expensive conveyance, which involved an hour and a-half side. To pedestrians the length of the journey made it almost an impossibility; and to the humbler class of tourists Ennerdale Lake, if worth seeing at all, was a sealed exhibition. The next ground of objection was— That visitors to Ennerdale can now travel by railway to a station within one mile and a-half of Ennerdale Bridge. It was quite evident that the compilers of these extraordinary reasons had never been in the district at all. The last statement he had read was altogether false. Ennerdale Bridge was a mile and a-half from the Lake, and the nearest railway station was four miles from the head of the Lake, and there was not a passenger station there at all; it was only a mineral station, and of so obscure a nature that even its name was not to be found in Bradshaw's Guide. In point of fact, to go to Eskdale Station would involve a long journey in a roundabout way from Whitehaven, and would occupy nearly as long a time as driving along the road. The next reason was— That the town of Whitehaven draws its water supply from Ennerdale Lake. Any iron or lead workings in the neighbourhood of the Lake would render the water unfit for use. Now, whatever the professors of sentimentalism might say, the inhabitants of Whitehaven were best acquainted with this particular matter; and he declined to allow such a statement as that to be made without challenge. The allegation was that the water supply of the town of Whitehaven would be rendered unfit for use if this Railway at Ennerdale were constructed. It was really a reduction ad absurdum to put forth such childish arguments as that. The inhabitants of Whitehaven, almost to a man, were in favour of the Bill. The whole district was in favour of it, and nobody knew that better than the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth), who moved the rejection of the Bill last year, and then withdrew his opposition. Why did the hon. Member take that course, and why did he abstain from moving the rejection of the Bill now? It was because the rejection of the Ennerdale Bill last year had been frequently dinned in his ears since, at every meeting he had attended; and he found that it was likely to make a considerable hole in his future chance of political success. The hon. Member had, therefore, discreetly retired from the front of the battle, leaving it to be fought out by the professors of sentimentalism. He had now gone through the reasons assigned by the opponents of the Bill for its rejection. He had shown that the landowners' opposition had been entirely withdrawn; and, on general grounds, there must be two opinions as to whether a railway which ran through a deep cutting for about a mile, and was altogether invisible from the Lake, was an injury to the scene or not. His own opinion was that the passing of a railway train would not spoil a district like this; but, on the contrary, would be an advantage in a picturesque way. [A laugh.] Well, that was a matter of opinion, of course. Why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite induce Her Majesty's Government to make representations to Foreign Powers not to allow railways on the Italian, Swiss, and Savoy Lakes? He saw an hon. Member who was now opposing the Bill at Aix-les-Bains. Would the hon. Member say that the railway train there, coasting along one of the most picturesque Lakes in the world, and travelling through tunnels, spoilt the Lake? He was afraid, if the hon. Member did, that he would got no one else to agree with him. Why did not hon. Members get up a Society here for pitching the St. Gothard Railway over the precipice? Was it an outrage to cross the Righi in a railway train, or to visit Lake Como, Lake Maggioro, or the Lake of Geneva by railway? Such arguments would not hold water for a moment, if they were to be considered from a common-sense point of view; and he coutended that these sentimental people ought not to be listened to. He maintained that, upon general grounds, and in accordance with the practice of the House, they ought not to reject the Bill upon the second reading; but that the promoters had an indefeasible and absolute right to go before a Select Committee, whore their case could be heard and supported by evidence. If the House refused them that privilege, they would do not only what was inconsistent and what was unreasonable, but what was absolutely unjust.

MR. BRYCE

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), in supporting the second reading of the Bill, had asserted that the Bill differed materially from that which was rejected by the House last year; but as far as regarded the injury which would be inflicted upon the scenery of the locality, it was practically the same Bill as that of last Session. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No.] He believed he was right in the assertion he made; and therefore this argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman fell to the ground. No doubt, in the case of Private Bills it was desirable that questions of detail should go before a Select Committee, and should not be considered in the House itself; but in this instance the question was not one which related to the details of the Bill, but it involved a general principle, which concerned the whole community. It must be borne in mind that the persons most interested against the proposal would have no locus standi in opposition to the Bill when it reached a Committee stage. The public were not represented before the Committee, but only the landowners, and those persons whose interests were likely to be pecuniarly affected. Therefore, so far as the public were concerned, it was only possible to state their case in the House itself. He might mention a precedent which must be in the minds of hon. Members—namely, the Epping Forest Bill, which was rejected on the second reading on account of the injury it proposed to do to the public by destroying the beauty of Epping Forest. The right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven asserted that this Bill would confer a public benefit by developing the mineral resources of the country. The case of the opponents was that the minerals were of very small value. Indeed, it was proved before the Select Committee last year that the minerals were of such small value that it was very likely it would be found not worth while to work them. In point of fact, the Bill was a Speculators' Bill, introduced in order to float shares in a Company; and he was of opinion that a Bill of that character ought not to be looked upon with any indulgence, as if it were one really developing important industries. So far as access to Ennerdale Lake was concerned, there was already a railway not far from the Lake, within three miles of it; and the fact that it was not used for passengers only proved that nobody wanted to go by rail. The Valley itself was secluded and desolate, and its solitude and desolation formed part of its charms. The public did not require any new access to it, but were quite able to get there by means already existing. As regarded the water question, he believed it was perfectly true that the working of lead and iron ores would pollute the water of the Lake. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in endeavouring to prove that the construction of the line would not interfere with the scenery of the district, practically admitted that the question of scenery was one which the House did well to consider; but contended that the existence of railways tended rather to improve Lake scenery than otherwise. The same argument was put forward by one of the engineers of the Bill, who said, in a letter to which he (Mr. Bryce) wished to call the attention of the House— This railway will do no damage whatever to the scenery. I will go further, and say that it will practically improve the scenery by affording a contrast between the works of the Great Architect and the puny efforts of His creatures. But notwithstanding the aspirations of this pious engineer, those persons who took au interest in the scenery of the district had no wish to have their minds improved by any such contrast as the construction of this line would afford. He trusted that the House would, by rejecting the Bill, direct these artistic engineers and speculative promoters to transfer their efforts to districts where they could not destroy a piece of scenery singular even in the Lake Country for its wildness and solemn grandeur.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words before they came to a Division, as he happened to be the surviving trustee of a property which would be largely affected by the Bill; and he wished to point out that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was entirely in error in his statements that the mineral resources of the country were not worth developing. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was advised, on competent authority, that, with regard to the particular estate with which he was connected, the minerals to be developed were by no means inconsiderable. He therefore thought that that was an important consideration in discussing the merits or demerits of the Bill. Whether wisely or unwisely, but wisely he ventured to think, Parliament had thought it expedient to withdraw from the House, as a whole, the consideration of all details affecting Private Bill legislation; and he thought the House would act very unwisely if it now reversed that principle, and consented to deal with the merits of a Bill upon the second reading, thus resuming into its own hands the consideration of details of that kind. There had been one statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. Stafford Howard) which, with all respect, he ventured to contradict. The hon. Gentleman said this Bill was rejected last year by a Committee upstairs, upon the grounds on which he opposed it now. [Mr. STAFFORD HOWARD: No.] He saw the noble Lord, who was Chairman of the Committee, in his place, and the noble Lord would contradict him if he was wrong, when he said that a general impression prevailed that the ground on which the Bill of last year, differing as it did in some important respects from the scheme now before the House, was rejected by the Select Committee, was not the reason suggested by the hon. Member, but a wholly different ground—namely, a ground of finance, which had nothing to do with the question of scenery at all. He would only say, in conclusion, that he had every reason to believe that the great majority of those persons in the Lake District to whom the preservation of objects of interest, like this, was far more precious than to any individuals in that House—those persons who lived in the neighbourhood—had arrived at the conclusion that the benefit which would accrue to the general public, as well as to themselves, would be largely augmented by the additional access to the district which was proposed to be given to this Bill. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was perfectly correct in saying that at the present moment the British tourist, in whose behalf so much had been said that night, was absolutely unable to get to this Lake. He was told that there was no railway station within four and a-half miles of the head of the Lake; and he need not remind the House that that fact practically withdrew Ennerdale Lake altogether from the ordinary tourist's route. He hoped the House would not be led away, by any of the grounds which had been stated, from following the universal custom of referring details of this sort to the consideration of a Select Committee; and that they would not consent to resume into their own hands intricate questions affecting Private Bill legislation. He trusted the House would refer the Bill to the ordinary tribunal provided by the custom of the House, and would not interfere with the due course of inquiry that was adopted in such cases.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would not detain the House for more than two or three minutes. If he had entertained any doubt as to the propriety of opposing the Bill, his opposition would be confirmed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther). The real fact of the case was this—there existed in this small district some of the most beautiful scenery to be found in the country. No doubt it was quite right to say that there already existed means of getting to it. But the real opposition to the Bill was this—that it involved the destruction of this beautiful scenery in a district very differently situated, as far as regarded railways and such kind of works, from the Swiss and Italian mountains; because it was very easy, by the construction of such works, to have a very beautiful piece of country entirely marred, which it was impossible to do by the formation of railroads in Switzerland and Italy. It was not a mere question of preserving this beautiful piece of country from great injury by railways; but it was the case, which the right hon. Gentleman had put in its right form, of the future possible development of lead and iron mines, which would utterly spoil the scenery, even much more than this railway. It was a question of public policy, therefore, whether the House should consent, for the sake of carrying out a speculative development of the resources of the district, to run the risk of marring a very beautiful part of the country.

MR. AINSWORTH

said, that as some reference had been made to him, he was anxious to explain why it was that he had not taken the same course in regard to the Bill this year as that which he took last year. Last year he brought the matter very shortly before the House, but he did not take any part in the Division. He intended to follow the same course on the present occasion, and he should not take any part in the Division. His reason was this—the proposed Railway affected a small portion of land in the country in which he was personally interested, and therefore it might be considered that he was an interested person. He trusted, for the same reason, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) would also abstain from taking part in the Division, because he, too, was an interested party.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was quite ready to pair with the hon. Member.

MR. AINSWORTH

certainly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would follow his example.

MR. MAC IVER

said, that railways were nearly always of great advantage to the property through which they passed and the surrounding district; and it was no ground of reproach to hon. Gentlemen who had property in the district that they should come to the House and support the introduction of a railway system. Personally, he had no property in this immediate district; but he knew something of the locality, and also something of the people who got up the opposition. They consisted of a few busy-bodies, who had a crotchet they were desirous of bringing before the public in order to win a fleeting popularity. There was occasionally something in the cases which they represented; but in the present instance there was absolutely nothing at all. The Bill proposed to construct the Railway for the purpose of giving access to a district which was at present practically inaccessible—a very beautiful piece of the country, which many who desired to see it found themselves unable to do, owing to the difficulty of getting at it. He must, therefore, heartily support the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee in the usual way. He had distinct authority for stating that the Bill was not the same as that which was rejected by the Select Committee last year. It was a different scheme, and there was no reason why it should not be referred to a Select Committee.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 148: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 15.) Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed.