§ Captain Winnington moved the Second Reading of the Severn Navigation Bill.
Captain Berkeleyhoped the House would give him its attention while he stated shortly the reasons which induced him to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He would not go into the details of the Bill, as he considered a Committee the best place for their consideration; but he would rest his opposition to the measure on the ground that it contemplated the destruction of rights and privileges which had existed for centuries, and which had been confirmed 1116 by charters of Kings Henry 6th, 7th, and 8th. A private company wished to monopolise those rights and privileges, in order to promote their own interests; but he hoped the House would not sanction such a proceeding, and that it would preserve those rights for those who had so long enjoyed them. The House had laid down certain regulations in regard to all similar undertakings, railways for instance, and those regulations required that a certain number of assents of landholders on the line should be given before the Bill was allowed to be proceeded with. Now, in the present case the distance was seventy-one miles, and there were only four miles and a half of assents. That, he thought, sufficiently showed the feelings of the landholders. In the second place, the regulations of the House required that all undertakings of this sort should have two termini; now the present undertaking had no terminus whatsoever. It was said that they were to raise the water to the height of twelve feet, but where was the use of increasing the depth of water in one part of the river when there was no terminus, which would admit of vessels drawing more than five feet? In the third place, he gave his opposition to the measure because it would interfere with the free navigation of the river, and invest a private company with rights which ought to be open to the public. He opposed it because the toll to be levied was to be exacted for the benefit of private individuals, whereas he contended that the toll, after paying off the debt, ought to be applied to the public use. These, then, were the great principles on which he resisted the measure—viz., want of a terminus, and want of consent from the landowners whose property would be interfered with, and because it would interfere with the free navigation of the river.
The Earl of Darlingtonhad never seen an instance of an attempt to bring in a private Bill likely to produce greater injury to property and less benefit to the public. Could it have been shown that the measure would be productive of public advantage, and that compensation would be afforded for the injuries done to property, he should have considered himself bound to support the undertaking; but as no public advantage could arise, and as there was no prospect of compensation, he felt it his duty to oppose the second reading. The promoters of this Bill were a joint-stock company, and the object was 1117 to establish at Worcester conveniences for shipping, similar to those possessed by Gloucester. He was no advocate for monopoly, but they ought to seek the attainment of their object out of their own means, and not endeavour to make the public pay for an advantage which was merely local. Look at the injustice which would be done to the landowners of Shropshire and Montgomeryshire, to whom the navigation of the river had always been free; but on whom the present Bill contemplated the levy of a toll, without yielding any corresponding benefit. During eight months of the year the river was open to the trade of those counties, but during the other four months, in the heat of summer, the river was not navigable, and what the present Bill proposed was, to render a portion of the river navigable during the whole year. But of what use would the deepening of the river be to those who were situated higher up than the termination of the contemplated improvement? And would it be reasonable or just to levy a toll on those who, in fact, derived no advantage from the undertaking? It was because of the injustice which would be done to the Shropshire traders that he opposed the Bill. He allowed that to improve the navigation of the Severn would be desirable; but, because he made that admission, there was no reason why he should agree to the present measure, which would prove merely beneficial to a joint-stock Company, and, instead of conferring any advantage upon the public, would inflict a serious injury on the landowners and traders of the counties he had mentioned. Next Session a Bill would be brought forward which would accomplish all that was desirable in regard to the navigation of the Severn, at much less expense than could be done by the present Bill, and he hoped therefore the House would pause before allowing the Bill to be read a second time.
Sir George Stricklandthought it a wholesome practice for the House sometimes to reject Bills on the second reading, and not put parties to the expense attending a Committee. The present was one of those Bills which, he thought, the House would act wisely in rejecting; for the river Severn had for centuries formed a common highway for the trade of a large and important portion of the country, and many thousand individuals gained their living by participating in that trade. It was not, therefore, reasonable or just for a 1118 joint-stock company to seize on the advantages which had so long been enjoyed by the public; and the power to improve the navigation of the river ought to be vested in commissioners acting for the public benefit, and not for the benefit of private individuals. The debt created for the purposes of improvement ought to be paid off from the proceeds of the tolls, and then the river ought at once to be thrown open. Nothing of the sort, however, was contemplated by the present Bill. But were the interests of the landowners not to be considered? They were decidedly opposed to the undertaking, for in the whole seventy-one miles there were only four miles of assents, and in the whole of the important county of Gloucester there was only one mile assenting. The river, too, was to be raised four feet, and as the beautiful meadows along its banks were at present subject to inundation after rain, the House might form some idea of the damage which would be done were the river raised permanently four feet above its present level. Yet there was no clause in the Bill providing compensation for the injury which would be done; the landowners were to see their meadows continually flooded and their property destroyed, but no compensation was to be afforded them. He would be told that there was a clause providing that if, after the payment of ten per cent. to the subscribers, any surplus remained, then the company were to be permitted to give compensation; but was that sufficient? Would the House act justly to the landowners to leave their interests protected only by so vague and unsatisfactory a clause? It would not; and he hoped, therefore, that the House would not put the landowners to the expense of defending their interests before a Committee.
Colonel Woodallowed, that the river Severn was a beautiful highway, but so was the Thames, and the Thames bad been improved by locks, and a toll had been imposed for the purpose of carrying those improvements into execution; nor had the proprietors on the Thames been subjected to any inconvenience from increasing the depth of the water, and he saw no good reason why there should be any fear for the meadows along the Severn, He had a petition in favour of this Bill to present, and from that petition it was plain, that advantage would arise from the contemplated improvements, for the petitioners prayed that the Bill might pass, as they 1119 would then be enabled to send the Welch coals further into the country.
Alderman Woodopposed the Bill, and explained, that the improvements in the Thames had been effected by a public company, which had borrowed their money at five per cent., and which contemplated the entire abolition of the toll when the debt was paid off. He contended, that great injury would be done to the fisheries on the river, while no compensation was provided for that injury; and he would tell the Irish Members not to be deceived by the prospect of being able to send their oats further up the river than they did at present. He would ask the hon. Member for Brecknockshire (Colonel Wood) whether he was aware that the company contemplated next year, should they succeed with their present Bill, carrying their measures still further, and taking such steps as would have the effect of impeding the traffic along the Welch roads? Did he know, that they proposed cutting across those roads, and was he aware of the impediments which would be thrown in the way of his own tenants, perhaps, by the passage through the bridges of a number of vessels ascending or descending at the same time? He would vote against the second reading.
Mr. Richardssaid, the objection that this was not a public company was applicable to all parties that came before that House on petitions for private Bills. He thought the present company, as they took upon themselves a considerable risk for the public good, were entitled to the thanks of the worthy Alderman who had last spoken. He quite agreed with the observation, that if it could not be shown that the undertaking was for the public good, it ought not to receive the sanction of the House; but the undertaking would be productive of great public advantage, and he therefore trusted the House would allow the parties to proceed with the Bill. It had been said, that this was a plan by which the beautiful meadows along the Severn would be destroyed; but what was the fact? Why, the permanent water-line was two feet six inches below the level of those meadows; yet they were told, that the pounding up of the river was to destroy the beautiful meadows along its course. They would, however, be as dry as at present. Again, the object of the company was not to impede the navigation of the river, but to render its navigation practicable at all times. They proposed to give the public facilities for their trade during 1120 the whole year, which they at present enjoyed only for eight months of the year. That he thought was no slight benefit to the public. Much had been said too about the enormous expense which the public would have to pay; but what was the real truth? Why the amount of toll was only one farthing per ton per mile—10½d. per ton for the whole distance of forty-two miles! Now he would ask who would have his goods delayed for a single day from unwillingness to pay such a sum? This improvement had been called for years, and he hoped the House would send the Bill into Committee, where its details would be fully considered.
§ Mr. Robinsonmaintained, that there were no grounds for calling this measure a monopoly; for the company were willing to undertake a great improvement at their own cost, and that undertaking could not fail of being beneficial to the public. The Severn was only open for navigation for eight months, and they proposed for one farthing per ton to open the navigation for the whole year. Let the House, then, consider what would be the consequence to trade of a dry season, and then let them say whether the contemplated undertaking would not prove highly beneficial to the public. The object was to open up a communication into the heart of a populous manufacturing country; and the expense at which that important object was to be attained certainly could not be complained of with justice. It had been objected that the clause providing compensation to the landowners and others whose property might be injured by the undertaking was not sufficient; but, in the name of the company, he would pledge himself that a clause should be inserted affording the most ample guarantee. He therefore hoped the House would allow the second reading to take place.
§ Mr. Robert Cliveopposed the second reading on account of the injury the measure would inflict on the traders of Salop; and contended, that although it was true that the river was not navigable for the whole year, yet by occasional floods the traders were enabled to carry on their traffic.
Mr. Hopemade a few observations in opposition to the second reading, but the cries of "Divide" were so loud that we are unable to give their import.
§ Sir John Wrottesleysupported the second reading, and observed, that the opposition came from two points—namely, 1121 the inhabitants of Glocester and the traders of Shropshire, both of whom, he contended, would be greatly benefitted by the undertaking. If danger to the landowners was occasioned by the measure, they must indeed be very clumsy engineers.
Captain Winningtonsaid, if he thought any inconvenience or danger would accrue to the landowners from the measure, he should be as ready to oppose it as he was now to advocate it. But this supposition had been completely negatived by the opinions of Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Walker, and several other experienced engineers. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Glocester would consent to withdraw his amendment and permit the Bill to be read a second time.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamexpressed a hope that a little attention would be paid to the opponents of so monstrous a measure as that now under consideration—a measure which went to turn a river into a sea. A measure similar to the present had been brought forward in that House fifty years ago; it was rejected, however, as he trusted the present Bill would be.
§ Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had only one single sentence to offer, which was, that the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was conclusive in favour of the second reading of this Bill. If the measure would convert this river into a great sea, and thus make a new seaport in the very centre of the country, it might be a monstrous measure, but it would be one of great advantage to the commerce of the country.
§ The House divided on the second reading:—Ayes 124; Noes 151;—Majority 27.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Alsager, Captain | Brotherton, J. |
| Bagshaw, J. | Buckingham, J. S. |
| Bailey, J. | Buller, E. |
| Baines, E. | Buller, H. L. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Buxton, T. F. |
| Barneby, J. | Campbell, Sir J. |
| Barron, H. W. | Chalmers, P. |
| Beauclerk, Major | Chetwynd, Captain |
| Beckett, Sir J. | Chichester, A. |
| Bellew, R. M. | Clive, Viscount |
| Bennett, J. | Codrington, Admiral |
| Bentinck, Lord W. | Dalmeny, Lord |
| Bewes, T. | Dillwyn, L. W. |
| Bish, T. | Divett, E. |
| Blake, M. J. | Duncombe, T. |
| Borthwick, P. | Dunlop, J. |
| Bowles, G. R. | Eastnor, Viscount |
| Brady, D. C. | Edwards, J. |
| Bridgeman, H. | Ewart, W. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Ferguson, Sir R. |
| Fergusson, R. C. | Philips, G. R. |
| Fort, J. | Polhill, F. |
| Grey, Sir G. | Ponsonby, hon. W. |
| Guest, J. J. | Potter, R. |
| Handley, H. | Poulter, J. S. |
| Hardy, J. | Power, J. |
| Harland, W. C. | Richards, J. |
| Hawes, B. | Rippon, C. |
| Hector, J. C. | Rundle, J. |
| Hindley, C. | Russell, Lord C. V |
| Hodges, T. L. | Ruthven, E. |
| Holland, E. | Scott, Sir E. D. |
| Hoskins, K. | Scott, J. W. |
| Hotham, Lord | Seale, Colonel |
| Hume, J | Sheppard, T. |
| Hutt, W. | Sinclair, Sir G. |
| James, W. | Smith, A. |
| Kearsley, J. H. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| King, E. B. | Stanley, E. J. |
| Labouchere, H. | Stanley, W. O. |
| Lawson, A. | Stuart, Lord J. |
| Leader, J. T. | Stuart, V. |
| Lemon, Sir C. | Strangways, hon. J. |
| Lewis, D. | Sturt, H. C. |
| Lucas, E. | Talfourd, Sergeant |
| Lushington, Dr. | Thompson, Colonel |
| Lushington, C. | Thorneley, T. |
| Marshall, W. | Tracy, C. H. |
| Marsland, H. | Turner, W. |
| Molesworth, Sir W. | Villiers, C. P. |
| Morgan, C. M. R. | Vivian, J. H. |
| Mosley, Sir O. | Vivian, J. E. |
| Murray, rt. hon. J. A. | Wilbraham, G. |
| Nicholl, Dr. | Wilks, J. |
| O'Brien, C. | Winnington, Sir T. |
| O'Connell, J. | Wood, Colonel T. |
| O'Connell, M. J. | Wrottesley, Sir J. |
| Palmer, Gen. | Wyndham, W. |
| Parker, M. | Wyse, T. |
| Parker, J. | Young, G. F. |
| Parrott, J. | |
| Parry, Sir L. P. J. | TELLERS. |
| Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. | Winnington, H. |
| Philips, M. | Robinson, G. R. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Ainsworth, P. | Campbell, W. F. |
| Alston, R. | Cartwright, W. R. |
| Arbuthnot, hon. H. | Chandos, Marquess of |
| Ashley, hon. H. | Chaplin, Colonel |
| Attwood, T. | Chapman, A. |
| Bagot, hon. W. | Chichester, J. P. B. |
| Barclay, C. | Clerk, Sir G. |
| Baring, H. B. | Clive, hon. R. H. |
| Bateson, Sir R. | Codrington, C. W. |
| Belfast, Earl of | Cole, hon. A. H. |
| Berkeley, hon. C. | Cole, Viscount |
| Bethell, R. | Compton, H. C. |
| Blackburn, I. | Corry, right hon. H. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Cripps, J. |
| Boldero, H. G. | Darlington, Earl of |
| Bradshaw, J. | D'Eyncourt, C. T. |
| Bruce, Lord E. | Duffield, T. |
| Bruce, C. L. C. | Dunbar, G. |
| Bruen, Colonel | Duncombe, hon. W. |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Duncombe, hon. A. |
| Burrell, Sir C. | Eaton, R. J. |
| Egerton, Sir P. | Meynell, Captain |
| Elley, Sir J. | Miles, W. |
| Elphinstone, H. | Miles, P. J. |
| Elwes, J. P. | Miller, W. H. |
| Estcourt, T. | Moreton, hon. A. |
| Estcourt, T. | Neeld, H. J. |
| Farrand, R. | Neeld, J. |
| Fector, J. M. | Norreys, Lord |
| Fielden, W. | Ossulston, Lord |
| Fergus, J. | Pack, C. W. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. A. | Palmer, R. |
| Finch, G. | Pattison, J. |
| Forbes, W. | Pease, J. |
| Forester, hon. G. | Pechell, Captain |
| Gaskell, J. Milnes | Pelham, J. C. |
| Gladstone, T. | Pigot, R. |
| Gladstone, W. E. | Pollington, Viscount |
| Glynne, Sir S. | Powell, Colonel |
| Gordon, R. | Price, S. G. |
| Gordon, hon. Captain | Pringle, A. |
| Goring, H. D. | Roebuck, J. A. |
| Graham, Sir J. | Sandon, Viscount |
| Greene, T. | Sanford, E. A. |
| Grote, G. | Scrope, G. P. |
| Hale, R. B. | Spiers, A. |
| Halford, H. | Stanley, E. |
| Hall, B. | Talbot, C. R. M. |
| Hamilton, Lord C. | Trelawney, Sir W. |
| Hanmer, Sir J. | Trevor, hon. A. |
| Hay, Sir A. L. | Twiss, H. |
| Hayes, Sir E. S. | Tynte, C. J. K. |
| Henniker, Lord | Tyrell, Sir J. T. |
| Herries, rt. hon. J. C. | Vere Sir C. D. |
| Hillsborough, Earl of | Verner, Colonel |
| Hope, H. T. | Vesey, hon. T. |
| Houstoun, G. | Vyvyan, Sir R. |
| Howard, P. H. | Wall, C. C. |
| Inglis, Sir R. H. | Walpole, Lord |
| Jones, T. | Weyland, Major |
| Irton, S. | Whitmore, T. C. |
| Kerrison, Sir E. | Wigney, I. N. |
| Knatchbull, Sir E. | Wilbraham, hon. B. |
| Knight, H. G. | Williams, R. |
| Knightley, Sir C. | Williams, W. A. |
| Lambton, H. | Williams, Sir J. |
| Langton, W. | Williamson, Sir H. |
| Lennox, Lord G. | Wilmot, Sir J. E. |
| Lennox, Lord A. | Wodehouse, E. |
| Leveson, Lord | Wood, Alderman |
| Loch, J. | Wynn, rt. hon. C. W. |
| Lowther, J. | Wynn, Sir W. W. |
| Loshington, S. R. | Young, J. |
| Mackinnon, W. A. | Young, Sir W. |
| Maclean, D. | TELLERS. |
| Mahon, Viscount | Berkeley, Captain |
| Maunsell, T. P. | Strickland, Sir G. |
§ Bill put off for six months.