HC Deb 28 April 1836 vol 33 cc427-32
Mr. Walter Campbell

rose, pursuant to a notice which he had given, to move, that the promoters of the Stirling Canal Bill be allowed to proceed therewith. He would briefly state the case on which he grounded his motion, and then leave to the House to decide upon its merits. A petition had been presented to the House, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to enable certain parties to construct the Stirling Canal, for the purpose of joining the Forth and Clyde navigation. The Bill had been intrusted to him (Mr. Walter Campbell), and on strict examination of the Standing Orders, be found, as he thought, that they had all been complied with. Four Gentlemen, however, subsequently petitioned against the Bill, on the ground that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The petition was referred to the Standing Order Committee, and, after considerable discussion they decided, upon a division of 7 against 6, that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The decision of the Standing Orders Committee was grounded upon their fifth resolution, which required that where any canal, being intended to be a continuation of another canal or, navigation, was intended to be constructed, it was necessary to give notice to all parties who were interested in brooks, streams, or watercourses running into the original canal. He contended, that this was too strict an interpretation of the meaning of the fifth resolution. It was impossible to give a plan of all waters, brooks, and streams, without minutely describing all waters running into the original canal; and after even all this had been done, it would still be competent for the owner of a water meadow, the brook running through which had not been properly described, to come forward and say, that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. His (Mr. Walter Campbell's) opinion of the meaning of the fifth resolution was, that no person should be taken by surprise, or injured in his property without his knowledge. He contended, that there could be no surprise in this case, as the plan had been properly lodged with the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Stirling. He trusted, notwithstanding the decision to which the Standing Orders Committee had come, that the House would permit the Bill to go to a Select Committee upon its own merits. In the case of the Edinburgh Bridewell Bill in 1827; the Liverpool Dock Bill in 1828; and the Dorchester and Selby Road Bills, though the Standing Orders had not been complied with, the House had interposed, and permitted the Bills to proceed. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that notwithstanding the Standing Order, the promoters of the Stirling Canal Bill be allowed to proceed therewith.

Sir George Clerk

was anxious, as a Member of the Standing Orders Committee, to state to the House the reasons which would induce him to call on them to support the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. He believed that there never was a case in which the House had interfered with the Standing Orders Committee, unless upon the ground of preventing great public inconvenience. In the case of the Edinburgh Bridewell, the House had not suspended the Standing Order upon the application of any promoter of the Bill, but had been called on to do so by a Member of the then Government, who stated that it was most important that no time should be lost in proceeding with the Bill. He was not aware of the reason that influenced the House to interfere in the other cases that had been mentioned; but he was sure that they had been influenced by some public considerations, and had been anxious that those cases should not be drawn into a precedent for similar interference. He was willing to admit that some inconvenience might arise from too strict an interpretation of Standing Order No. 5, and there might hereafter be some modification of it; but if that Order was now referred to, it would be found that no case had been made out for the interference of that House. The present was a canal communicating with an existing! canal, and to be supplied entirely from it. The object of having the plans laid before the Committee was, that full notice should be given to all the owners of the brooks and streams that supplied it. Now any owner might permit a certain portion of his stream to be supplied to a canal, but it would be an act of the greatest injustice if that Canal Company could afterwards, without due notice to the owner, give such an indefinite quantity to other canals as would draw off the entire supply from the owner's mills. He did not think the House was bound to go further than to put a proper interpretation upon the Standing Order which had been referred to. He concurred in the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, and he therefore left it for the decision of the House.

Mr. Loch

said, though this was a question of very great importance to the midland counties of England, there were many instances within his own knowledge where such interpretation had not been put upon the Standing Order. There was the Liverpool and White Church canal, in which it was within his own knowledge the plans were not considered requisite. He thought the interpretation attempted to be put on the Standing Order was extraordinary, and, therefore, he would support the motion of the hon. Member (Mr. W. Campbell).

Mr. Palmer

, as one of the Standing Orders Committee, was very desirous to have the opinion of the Chair as to whether that Committee had properly done its duty or not.

Sir George Strickland

said, that by the Standing Orders parties were bound to deposit a plan and description of the county through which the canal proceeded, and this he believed had not been done in the present case. But there was another question before the House, viz., whether the party did show such a case of hardship as that the indulgence of the House and of the Standing Orders Committee might be expected? On that point he would not dwell; but he thought that the hon. Member who brought forward the case, was defective in one part of his speech, inasmuch as he did not show a case of public inconvenience of such a magnitude as to induce the House to dissent from the regular order. It was the duty of the House to adhere to the Standing Orders as a regular rule, but where a case was shown of strong necessity, or of great public inconvenience, he would be the first to allow a departure from them, and to show indulgence to the parties.

Sir James Graham

wished to state the reasons which induced him to concur with the majority of the Standing Orders Committee. Before the House reversed this decision, he begged to state that two Committees had concurred in the opinion that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. This, therefore, was an appeal from the concurrent decisions of two Committees, and was in itself a question of great importance. He admitted to the fullest extent that an adherence to the Standing Orders must lead to considerable inconvenience in the midland counties in the formation of any canal, but notwithstanding this he was bound to state that the Standing Orders, although, undoubtedly, they would lead to inconvenience, were consistent with the rights of property and the principles of justice. The Standing Orders, as now framed, whatever might be the inconvenience arising from it, was strictly in conformity with the sacred rights of property in the original proprietor. Now this was the case:—A party came, and, by a legislative enactment, procured a certain control over the property of another; but the Legislature distinctly said to the parties, that this control was given for a specific purpose, and to a limited extent. The Legislature tells the proprietor of the stream or watercourse, that for the public good it is necessary that he should surrender to a certain extent his control over the stream, but certainly after the supply of the canal the surplus water both in law and in equity belonged to the original proprietor, and no party had a right to dispose of that surplus to another. Should a miller have a right to agree with a party for the supply of water for his mill, and then go to another party and dispose of the surplus water after his own mill was supplied? In like way the lord of a manor makes an enclosure. He gives the right of burning lime to those commoners who concur with him, but surely he does not thereby entitle the commoners to burn lime for sale. The cases were quite analogous to that under the consideration of the House. Whatever inconvenience might result from the standing Order it was in strict conformity with the rights of property and the rights of the original owners which the House was bound to protect.

Mr. Evelyn Denison

was surprised that his hon. Friend, the Member for Yorkshire, should suppose the Standing Order was so clear that nobody could doubt the meaning of it, when, in fact, in the Committee upon the Standing Orders a considerable difference arose, and a division took place upon that very Standing Order. He thought that in the case of this canal the Standing Order had been distinctly complied with, and he believed that in the Committee he had moved a resolution to that effect. All that was required by the Standing Orders was that a direct line should be drawn upon those points from which the water was to be taken, and that had been done. This canal would enter the other at its highest level, and could not interfere with the rights of any person, as it would be supplied by the waste water, that would otherwise run over; and as it was waste water, which would flow when the canal was at its highest level; it could not be said that it was drawn from the springs which supplied the original canal. He conceived the projectors of the measure had done all which could be expected from them in giving notice to the parties interested in it.

Mr. Denis O'Connor

, as one of the majority who voted in the Committee of Standing Orders, wished to state his perfect concurrence in the view taken by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland. It appeared to him the parties had not complied with the rules of the House, and that it should be regarded as the extension of the original line of canal.

Mr. Walter Campbell

replied: The complaining parties were all aware of the source from whence the canal was to be supplied. He had not entered into the merits of the Bill, but he would now take the liberty of stating that the canal had not one lock from one end to the other— that it was literally waste water by which it was supplied, and that no injury would result to these parties, as the whole water of these streams was given to that canal. There was a vulgar Scotch proverb which he should mention, as it was very trite and applicable: it had been said, that these parties had been injured; yes, and a pig might fly, but it was a very unlikely bird.

The Speaker

said, that as his opinion had been appealed to, he considered that property in water was as much deserving protection from that House as property in land. It seemed that the question was considered so important that the matter was referred back to the Committee on the Bill. That Committee was of opinion that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, and the Standing Orders Committee, to which the question had been referred, were of the same opinion, then the question came before the House, had the Standing Orders been complied with? He thought that this canal was an extension of the original canal, a proportion of the water of which already belongs to the original proprietor of the brooks or streams, and being an extension of the original canal, he thought the decision of the Committee correct. If that Committee had decided on what he understood to be the nature of the Standing Order No. 5, would the House by a different construction set aside the standing order. He called upon the House to sustain and confirm the decision of the Standing Order Committee.—Motion withdrawn.