LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.

HC Deb 01 August 1845 vol 82 cc1309-18

Viscount Courtenay

moved the consideration of the Report of the Committee on the London and York Railway.

Mr. Ward

rose, pursuant to notice, to move, that the Bill be recommitted. It was with great pain that he ventured to trouble the House upon the present occasion to reconsider the decision that had been come to with respect to the present measure. It was hardly possible at any time to induce the House to reconsider a decision of any kind, and that difficulty was greatly increased in dealing with the decision of a Committee that had sat for no less than seventy-three days; under such circumstances nothing would have induced him to appeal to the House, except a conviction that he had one of the strongest causes that was ever brought before the House. If the Committee had had time to hear all the parties concerned, nothing would have induced him to have brought forward the subject. He admitted that the Committee had been most persevering in its labours, but it had done great injustice to several parties, and had come to most improper decisions, without hearing facts; and adjudicated upon the rights of parties, without hearing the parties themselves, The Report itself bore evident marks of the pressure which the Committee felt, to get through the task imposed upon it at the present period of the Session. He appeared there to argue the claims of the York and North Midland, the Midland Counties, and the Eastern Counties Lines, which had been decided without those parties having been heard. He was told that it was a difficult matter to dispute with a great trunk line, such as the London and York; but the other lines had a right to consider themselves a great trunk line, and they had so considered themselves. They expected to be allowed to show the Committee that they could effect a communication with York, at a saving of a million and a half. If they could show this, and they could prove that they had al- ready nearly two-thirds of the line constructed, he hoped that the House would see the propriety of recommitting this Bill. They were at first admitted to form a competing line even by the Committee, for in the first instance, when the counsel for the Hertford and Biggleswade, and on a subsequent day Mr. Austin, for the Eastern Counties Company, made an application staling that he should satisfy the Committee that they were a distinct and competing party, and that, if excluded, they should be debarred from examination of witnesses pro formâ, the Committee decided that the Eastern Company's scheme should be admitted into Court, and its counsel be entitled to all the privileges of examining witnesses. [Mr. Darby: Does that extend to the general principle of competing lines?] The hon. Member for Sussex asked him if that extended to the general principle of competing lines? Why, that hon. Member himself said, that they might be considered so, but said that in their examinations they must be sure to confine themselves to what had been alluded to in the first examination. The Committee having thus decided, the Companies he represented expected that they should be considered competing lines in the fullest extent, and when, before the decision had been given on the preamble, the counsel applied to the Committee that they might be allowed to blend the main evidence of the competing lines as against the London and York line, with the object of saving the time of the Committee, the request was complied with. This Resolution was dated the 7th of June, but he found that it was not acted upon throughout; and he begged to call the noble Lord's attention to this fact, that that proposition and the Resolution were materially altered in the Report. [Lord Courtenay: What date do you say?] The 7th of June. Application was afterwards made to the Committee to ascertain what course they would wish to have pursued with regard to the rebutting evidence. He found, on examining the Reports, that the Committee ordered that landholders and the other opponents should be heard after; and he held in his hand a Resolution which was not to be found in this Report. The Resolution passed by the Committee was such as might have been acted on by all parties; but the next was of a very modified character. On applying to the short- hand writer for a copy of it, he found that the Resolution stated, that the landlords were to be heard next in order, but that the Committee would offer no objection to the course of blending the evidence against the London and York; and Mr. Hildyard stated, that he had arranged his case so as to class the rebutting evidence together, and the other competing lines had agreed to that course. This case was decidedly agreed to by the Committee themselves. Now, the first intimation they had of an intention to decide upon the preamble was on the 12th of July; and then the counsel and the parties in support of the three competing lines objected, on the ground that they had not been heard. This objection was overruled by the Committee on the 14th of July. Now this decision they complained of, because they had never been heard. There were great advantages in the line from London to Biggleswade for bringing the manufactures of the north to the river terminus, which would be constructed in the course of the next three months. It was thought that all the parties concerned were judicially entitled to be heard: instead of that, however, a hearing was refused, and the Committee voted that the preamble of the London and York line was proved, in order to shut out all evidence from the other parties. Such was not the case with the Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman opposite was the Chairman. Before that Committee there were three lines submitted between Portsmouth and London. Evidence on all of them was heard; and at last the Committee, after having maturely considered all of them, decided on that line which they thought most conducive to the public interests. In the noble Lord's Committee, the practice was altogether different. On the 16th of July another application was made to the noble Lord by Mr. Talbot, on the part of the Eastern Counties line, to be heard; and the application was overruled by a resolution, which was distinctly opposed to that passed on the 7th of June. Evidence was again tendered on the 9th of July to the Committee, by Mr. Wells, on behalf of the Eastern Counties line, with respect to the river terminus; and again this application was rejected. They did not take one tittle of evidence on the importance of effecting a communication with the Thames at Blackwall, and yet the Committee at- tached the greatest importance to the terminus of the London and York line. When the application was made to be heard, the Chairman told the counsel that it was an extremely proper application, but that the Committee could not entertain it. Even in the Report, as regarded the London and York scheme, it was clear the Committee had heard sufficient rebutting evidence to give it clearly and fully. None of the rebutting evidence of the Direct Northern and Cambridge and Lincoln lines had been heard; and this evidence was necessary, in order that the whole bearing of the entire scheme might be properly sifted and adjudicated upon, and thus nearly the whole of the important part of the project was altogether shutout. If the opposing lines had received fair play, the traffic evidence of the London and York Railway would have been materially altered. This evidence was got up in so absurd and extraordinary a manner, that the noble Lord thought proper to tell the promoters of the London and York line, that the Committee could not receive their evidence as to the coal traffic as it then stood. In consequence of this hint, the amount expected to be derived from the coal traffic was reduced from 300,000l. to 170,000l. per annum. If the competing lines had insisted at an early period of the case on producing rebutting evidence, it would, perhaps, have been differently decided. He would appeal to the House, whether or not the case of the London and York line was ripe for decision at the present time? He contended that the Committee had come to a decision with imperfect data, and with an insufficiency of facts. On Lord Lindsay's estate, the Peterborough line had already been sanctioned, which traversed nearly the whole of his property; and the Committee had decided that for the space of a single mile in the same field the London and York line should cross that railway, and had decided on a line which it was physically impossible to construct, unless another line, which had received the legislative sanction, was altogether abandoned. He thought that the Committee, by the first paragraph of their Report, showed a diffidence in the decision they had come to. They said they must come to a decision, as the Session was so nearly at an end. Not to come to a decision, might be, he admitted, a great evil, but it was a far greater evil that the facts were not fully and completely inquired into. He had a perfect right to ask the House to recommit the Bill and suspend proceedings in the case, if it were only from the fact that important competing companies had not been heard before that Committee. They would have furnished a body of evidence against the project which would be of the utmost importance, but they were precluded doiug so. When the London and York case had closed, an appeal was made to the Chairman that they should be heard by counsel, but the request was not acceded to; and he appealed to any hon. Gentleman present, who had been Chairman of a Committee of that House, if that refusal were not unfair, and contrary to precedent. Besides, the Committee had not been unanimous in their decision, and it was only by the casting vote of the Chairman that the preamble of the Bill was affirmed. Upon these grounds he asked the House to suspend further proceedings on this Bill.

Mr. Hutt

seconded the Motion, and thought the House had good reason to be dissatisfied with the decision of the Committee. As to the proceedings of the Committee, he did not wonder that they felt their physical energies giving way under the overwhelming mass of business before them; it was scarcely to be expected that their strength should keep up against such accumulating matters, and to that circumstance might be, perhaps, attributed their unwillingness to adopt a course more consonant with the regulations of the House. But to whatever cause it was to be attributed, their proceedings were scarcely consistent with the rules of Parliament, or the justice of the case. It was very true that, as yet, they had not concluded their labours, but virtually and effectually they had with regard to the present Bill. The House, when it nominated certain Members to inquire into a case, necessarily required that some report should be presented on each particular Bill, but at the present moment several Bills had been disposed of without a hearing, or the slightest consideration, as much as if they had never appeared before the Committee at all. For these reasons, he considered it his duty to support the Motion of his hon. Friend for the recommittal of the Bill.

Lord Courtenay

said, that as Chairman of the Committee to which those Bills had been entrusted, he might perhaps be excused if he stated to the House the course of proceeding, and as that, and not the peculiar merits of the projects, had been made the chief subject of comment by the hon. Member for Sheffield, he would confine himself as strictly as possible to meeting that particular question. The Report which had been that morning laid before the Members of the House, mentioned the number of Bills which had been referred to the consideration of the Committee. The hon. Member opposite complained of the apologetic tone in which the Report was introduced; if apology were discernible, he could assure the hon. Member that it was not from any misgiving of error or irregularity, but that, impressed with the stupendous charge with which they were entrusted, they wished to evince a sense of that importance, and also show their respect to the House. They, therefore, were not content with giving a mere dry and general detail, but explained the circumstances which led to their decision. He must be permitted now to say that, although upon the merits of the two Bills, the Committee were not unanimous, but divided, in their decision, as respected the course of proceeding throughout their sitting, they were invariably unanimous. Whether, therefore, right or wrong, regular or irregular, these proceedings were adopted in accordance with the decision of the Committee. The hon. Member for Sheffield had stated that an arrangement had been made, and a resolution adopted, wherein they stated their intention of including in one Bill the Sheffield and Lincoln and Tottenham and Farringdon-street Extension. That was perfectly true; and it was on this ground that the Bills thus in eluded, were considered as more or less in competition with each other, either in a direct line north and south, or, laterally, east and west; and subsequent to this arrangement, on a special application, the Hertford and Biggleswade was added to the list by sub-grouping. That preliminary matter being settled, they proceeded to classify the schemes in the order in which they should be heard. The London and York was that taken first, because it was the first in point of fact. Throughout the entire case counsel were let in to cross-examine every witness; and it would be found, on reference to the Report, that one, two, three, four, and five Counsel exercised this right. If any Member had been present in the Committee-room during the seventy or eighty days that the Committee sat upon the line, he would have seen the course adopted, and been enabled to bear witness to the accuracy of his statements. The hon. Member had also referred to the Resolution adopted by the Committee on the Bill; several members of the Committee had expressed a desire of coming to a decision on such parts of the case, as would not inflict injury on other parties who had claims to be heard before the Committee; and, as far as the leading lines were concerned, it was considered necessary and desirable to come to some resolutions on such parts of the scheme as would involve this arrangement of the business. In pursuance with this, application was made before the case of the London and York was gone into, and when an objection was taken to it in respect to certain errors which were alleged to exist in the plans of that scheme, that the whole case between the two great lines should be taken, and that the counsel on behalf of the Direct Northern should state the places at which they proposed to prove the effect of the errors specified to be so great as to render the work impracticable. It was at the same time requested by counsel on the side of the London and York, that the Committee should come to a decision on the merits of that scheme after the termination of the Tottenham and Farringdon-street case. Himself and his hon. Colleagues on the Committee concurred in saying, in answer to the application, that on the Monday following they would give their decision separately on those applications. On the Monday they met, and came to the conclusion that when the cases of the Direct Northern and Farringdon-street Extension lines were closed, they would proceed to consider the merits of the two competing lines before them, for effecting a second trunk railway communication between London and York, viz. that of the London and York Company, and that which consisted of the Cambridge and Lincoln, the Direct Northern, and the Farringdon Extension lines, in conjunction with the Eastern Counties Railway, already executed as far as Cambridge. All were agreed on this Resolution. We were guided by the arguments of the Report of the Board of Trade in excluding that part of the Midland Counties Railway which was considered to be in competition with the London and York line. They considered that it would be exceedingly objectionable to extend further the Midland Counties scheme, considering the circumstances under which that Company had acted. They took that step with due deliberation, subject to the responsibility of that House. They felt justified that the course they took was in conformity with the interests of all parties concerned. An application was made to them on July 16, on behalf of the Eastern Counties and the York and North Midland Companies, to be allowed to present rebutting evidence against the London and York lines. The application was made by Mr. Talbot; and an answer was returned to the effect that the Committee, in the exercise of its discretion, considered the London and York, the Cambridge and Lincoln, the Direct Northern, and the Tottenham and Farringdon Extension, with the existing Cambridge Railway, were the only two schemes that competed inter se as it respected a direct trunk communication from London to York; and thus the Cambridge and Huntingdon line should be taken next in order. These Resolutions were come to, after a due examination of evidence, and a careful consideration of the question. The opposition of Lord Sidney had been referred to, and on that subject he would say a few words. Counsel on behalf of that noble Lord had been heard, witnesses called and subjected to examination and cross-examination; many questions were asked by the Members of the Committee, and a map of the place was used to guide them in their inquiry. In fact, it was not without much care and consideration that the Committee decided, and then not before the case on behalf of the noble Lord had been fully heard. The principle on which the Committee acted was, at every stage of their business, to select such Bills as might be considered competing schemes, and to view them in connexion with each other. The House had entrusted the Committee with a certain discretionary power, and it had been honestly and, he trusted, impartially exercised. That was the resolution they had acted upon. He was not conscious of having omitted any part of his duty as a Member of the Committee; but thought all of them had acted in accordance with precedent, and in conformity with the immense interest involved in the case. He would not say further, than that they had endeavoured to do the best they could, and hoped the House would consider that they had not acted in any way improperly.

Mr. B. Wall

was understood to say, that the Committee would not have done their duty if they had acted upon a different system. He must be allowed to affirm, without the least disrespect to the individual who had complained of breathless haste, that the great railway power was not in existence at the time the Great Western or South Western was before Parliament. He was quite sure the Committee had done right in coming to the decision they had come to, and thought the House would exercise a sound judgment in not agreeing to the Motion.

Mr. Darby

hoped the House would look at what the system of grouping was, before they came to a decision that the Committee had exercised an improper discretion. He believed that the system of grouping was the best that could have been adopted under the circumstances; but you must abandon that system altogether unless you allowed the Committee to deal with the groups. The hon. Member for Sheffield had totally mistaken the principle on which the groups were formed, and that mistake ran through the whole of his speech. A certain number of Bills were referred, and then it was decided which were competing inter se. He was prepared to maintain that the Committee had taken the only course they could take. As far as the Report went on the merits of the line, he held himself responsible for every word in it. He maintained that Lord Lindsay's wish was to be heard more than once on the same point. He believed that on every point the Committee had acted regularly; and if they had been misled, it was in coming to the House for the instructions on which they had acted. If the Committee were not to have the power of deciding which were competent lines, he trusted he might never be placed on a Committee where there were groups of railroads, because he felt that he should have undertaken to do that which was impossible. It would be a condemnation of the system of grouping.

Mr. P. M. Stewart

had no doubt that the Committee on Group X believed they had discharged their duty according to the rules and practice of the House, and in justice to the parties; but the question was, whether the practice of this Committee was consistent with the practice of other Committees? If Group X had acted according to the principle which the House wished the Committee to adopt, then every other Committee had acted wrong. The Committee of which he was a Member did not regroup their Bills, but admitted them as competitors one with another. The competitors of the London and York were virtually put out of court by the Committee adopting the preamble of the Bill promoted by that Company; and he considered it was very hard upon the petitioners that only part of their case was heard when the Committee came to their decision. He gave every credit to the Committee for good intentions, but he certainly thought they had taken a wrong course. With all his predilections for sustaining the Reports of Committees of that House, he must say, that if the Report in question was adopted by the House, then nine-tenths of the Committees which had sat during the Session had been wrong.

Mr. P. Scrope

said, as he had voted against the preamble of the Bill, it might, be inferred that he was not violently opposed to the recommittal of the Bill. With regard to the course of proceeding, the Committees were involved in great difficulty. Eleven different and important railway schemes were committed to them: the map of the country, which was laid before them, looked more like a spider's web than anything else; and every one of the eleven were competing lines, in a greater or less degree, with the London and York line; so that the Committee would have had very great difficulty in grouping the lines. The only fault alleged against the Committee was, that they had not heard rebutting evidence against the London and York line. Now, they had occupied no less than ten days in hearing rebutting evidence against that line from the Cambridge and Lincoln line. The Committee thought enough of time had been devoted to that part of the case, and they were of opinion that the other parties were not likely to bring forward anything that was new. Although he had differed from his Colleagues upon the preamble, he was quite agreed with them in regard to the course of proceeding which was adopted; and he saw no ground for referring the Bill back to the Bill.

Mr. W. R. Collett

had great confidence in the Committee; but he must protest against the decision they had arrived at, and would vote for the recommittal of the Bill.

The House divided on the original Question:—Ayes 78; Noes 19: Majority 59.

Report to be further considered.

Bill to be engrossed.