HC Deb 25 February 1845 vol 77 cc1155-63

House in Committee upon the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill.

On Clause 10, which limits the deviation from the datum line described on sections being proposed,

Colonel Sibthorp

said, he wished to point out the great disregard which had been shown for the rights of owners of land in this Bill. The Bill provided that a deviation might be made of a hundred yards from the projected line. Now a deviation of such an extent might completely destroy the value of a piece of land, the subdivision of which the owner never contemplated when he gave his consent to the line running through his property. There was an appeal to the Board of Trade, but that was, in his opinion, all nonsense.

Mr. Aglionby

said, that when he first came into that House he had sat on many Committees, and had foolishly believed that the railway companies were actuated solely by a public spirit; but he had since then become wiser. He was glad, therefore, that the gallant Officer opposite had brought the rights of the public before the Committee. The railway companies were large and powerful bodies, and could protest themselves: but the landowners, though very powerful in their own way, had not the same means, and were often sufferers. But there was one class whom nobody protected. He meant the public. This Bill was most shamefully negligent of the rights of the people. Before the construction of railways the people possessed their full right to the use of the public ways. There was no right more ancient or better established. But no sooner was a railway projected than it unhesitatingly interfered with every right the public possessed; too often crossing and destroying their ways to the public markets; and, where it did not destroy, very often interfering to a serious extent of inconvenience; and none of those who had charge of these public ways had any power of preventing the interruption. He would be told by the advocates of railways that they were of the greatest public utility, and that minor considerations must give way to them. Why should passengers be put to such inconvenience? Let all ways be put upon the same footing, but he hoped that foot passengers would be equally protected as others were. With the view of giving better protection to them, he proposed to strike out the words "carriage road," and substitute "highway," so as to include footways as well as horse roads.

Lord G. Somerset

could not consent to the proposed addition, which he thought would too much extend the scope of the Act. He by no means intended that au existing railway company coming before Parliament with their own capital and own resources to ask for further powers, should be obliged to obtain a Bill which should contain all the provisions in this Act.

Colonel Sibthorp

entirely disapproved of the constitution of the Board of Trade, and of the powers intrusted to it. He looked upon the Act as a humbug altogether. The public interest was not at all regarded. Footpaths ought to be attended to as well as carriage roads.

Mr. Henley

said, that better provision ought to be made for the preservation of footways, and driftways, and the tracks by which large droves of cattle were accustomed to be driven, and as it was a matter of great public convenience he should divide with the hon. Member for Cockermouth.

The Committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 17, Noes 23: Majority 6.

List of the AYES.
Bentinck, Lord G. Hughes, W. B.
Boldero, H. G. Irton, S.
Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G. Jermyn, E.
Gill, T. McNeill, D.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Martin, C. W.
Halford, Sir H. Newport, Visct.
Somerset, Lord G. Wallace, R.
Thornely, T. TELLERS.
Thornhill, G. Hayter, W. G.
Trotter, J. Entwisle, W.
List of the NOES.
Aldam, W. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Bodkin, W. H. Mitcalfe, H.
Copeland, Ald. Morrison, J.
Craig, W. G. Sibthorp, Col.
Douglas, J. D. S. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Egerton, W. T. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Stanton, W. H.
Hawes, B. Strickland, Sir G.
Henley, J. W. Trelawny, J. S.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Wawn, J. T.
Johnstone, H. TELLERS.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Aglionby, H. A.
Loch, J. Wodehouse, E.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

Upon Clause 11, "power to the owners of adjoining lands to appeal to the Board of Trade against deviation from datum line," being proposed,

Colonel Sibthorp

objected to the obligation upon the companies to advertise in the newspapers notice of their intended deviation being limited to one paper only circulating in the district where such deviation was to be made. Some gentlemen saw one paper and others saw another, and the object of publicity would not be gained. Why should they not give notice in the London papers? He had a great respect for them all, though they did attack him sometimes.

Lord G. Somerset

did not think the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member would effect his own object. Some persons in the country did not see the London papers at all, and of those who did, some saw the Times, others the Chronicle, and others the Standard, in the same way as the hon. and gallant Member had remarked of the provincial papers. Was it necessary to advertise in all?

Mr. Hawes

said, that by Clause 10, it was provided that no deviation should be made by the companies without the consent of the owners and occupiers of the land having been first obtained. Then by Clause 11, the owner of any land affected might appeal to the Board of Trade, who would have the power to set aside the arrangement that had before been made. Now, upon what ground was this power to be given to the Board of Trade? Here was an arrangement guarded by not only the consent of the owners having been first obtained, but by the consent of certain public functionaries, the Trustees or Commissioners, or Justices of the Peace, and yet the Board of Trade was to be invested with power to upset the whole decision. So that any one owner or occupier might re-open the whole question before a secret and irresponsible tribunal.

Lord G. Somerset

thought that if the consent only of the parties owning the land was required, the justice of the case would not be met. This was a most important clause, and its object was to protect small proprietors and residents near the line, who would have no other means of protection, and it was necessary such persons should have the power of appeal.

Mr. Hayter

viewed the clause as a benefit to the public, and adverse to the interest of companies, as it enabled the Board of Trade to prevent a deviation being made, even after a consent had been obtained from owners.

Mr. Tatton Egerton

supported the clause as being a benefit to small proprietors, who would otherwise have no power of protecting themselves, and he thought it right they should have some tribunal to appeal to.

Mr. Gill

thought the clause was too vaguely worded in regard to the situation of the property of those persons to whom this right of appeal was to be given. The words "lying near to the place of such proposed deviation," expressed nothing. "Near" might mean two hundred yards or a mile, or a quarter of a mile. Some definite distance ought to be fixed. It was well known that landowners threw obstacles in the way of railroads, in order to get a high price for the land.

Lord Granville Somerset

said, that the clause had been vaguely worded in this respect on purpose to give the Board of Trade a latitude of discretion in judging as to who were really affected or not by the deviation, and as the subject was decidedly to benefit the smaller class of proprietors and occupiers, he thought it important to effect that object that the Board of Trade should have that discretion or scope for judging.

Mr. Aglionby

thought, that the test which ought to be applied was, whether the land was really or not affected by the deviation, irrespective of its exact distance from the line, and for that purpose he moved to leave out the words in line 15, "lying near to the place of such proposed deviation, and whose lands shall be—"so that the clause would by such amendment stand—"It shall be lawful for the owner of any lands affected thereby, &c., to apply to the Board of Trade," without reference to the situation of the land relatively to the railway.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, that he could not sit there and hear the misrepresentations of the hon. Member for Plymouth as to the small proprietors of land. The hon. Member had said these proprietors had thrown obstacles in the way of railway companies, in order to increase the amount of their compensation. The small landowners were fully entitled to make the most of their property, but he would deny that they had ever resorted to such means as the hon. Member had intimated. He was inclined to retort the charge on railway companies. They inserted advertisements for the purpose of catching and humbugging the public, stating that the holders of their shares would realise 15 per cent. for their money. The small proprietors of land were never guilty of such conduct.

Mr. Gill

said, that the hon. and gallant Officer had entirely mistaken him. His reference had been to the large landed proprietors, and not to the small owners. The question was not whether the place was lying near, but whether it was affected by, the deviation from the original line. He would, therefore, propose to strike out the words "lying near," and substitute the words "prejudicially affected;" and that the prejudice to a property and not its neighbourhood should entitle it to compensation.

Mr. Aglionby

said, that he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Plymouth, for property might be very greatly injured though it was beyond the appointed range of deviation. For instance, a man might build a house commanding a view over the distant country. A railway embankment was raised above the level of the original line, and immediately the house was shut out both from prospect and air. The house which before was worth 200l. a year, would now be hardly worth half that sum. Again, he conceived, that if there were to be appeals, the onus of proof ought to lie on the railway companies, for it was an utter impossibility for a small landed proprietor, who resided one hundred or two hundred miles from London, to come all that distance and be at the expense of bringing his witnesses, and keeping them here during the delay of the Railway Bill before a Committee. Hs hoped, however, they would not conclude this point at the present moment, but would maturely consider it, and that when it was concluded they would substitute the words which the hon. Member for Plymouth had taken from him, "prejudicially affected" for "lying near."

Mr. Entwisle

said, that he thought the constitution of appeals to the Board of Trade was good for the railways themselves. By that means they were saved from falling into the hands of an attorney, who hurried them into litigation and disputes for the sake of running up a bill. For these reasons he thought this cours of appeal would be better for the companies themselves. The hon. Member for Cockermouth thought that the present wording of the clause limited the facility of appeal, and he entirely agreed with him in the observation.

Lord G. Somerset

, conceiving the general feeling of the Committee appeared to be in favour of the amendment, he would not offer any opposition.

Mr. Hawes

objected altogether to the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, and consequently to the range of appeal being extended. If the Board were to have this new, extensive, secret, and irresponsible power given to them, let it be as definite and narrow as possible. He objected to the clause altogether, but would rather retain it as it was, than adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth.

Lord G. Somerset

said, that all that was intended by the clause, was to give relief to parties in cases where it could not otherwise be obtained, and he thought that none better could be proposed than the Board of Trade. The power could not be given to the local magistrates; that was out of the question, and to put it within the jurisdiction of a jury in the courts of law, would involve a much greater expense. This, however, was not the proper time to discuss the general question of the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Fox Maule

did not agree with the noble Lord that the present was not a suitable opportunity for discussing the power to be given to the Board of Trade; for little by little, and clause by clause, they were going on to give powers to that Board. Powers were given not only to the Board of Trade, but powers that were calculated to embarrass the Executive Government of the day — embarrassments that were calculated to lead to the overthrow of any Government. He maintained that the Board of Trade was armed with an irresponsible power. With that Board, as constituted at present, he had no fault to find. It could not be composed of better or more honourable men; but it would be well for Ministers to weigh well the embarrassments they were entailing upon the Executive Government, and the odium to which they would expose it by the course of giving a departmental jurisdiction in matters involving property. It was not for him or any one on his side of the House to say what the tribunal ought to be; but the Government were instituting a dangerous precedent, and if he were not mistaken, not many years, nor even months, would elapse before they would themselves come down to the House to propose an alteration in it.

Mr. Wallace

wanted to know how the complaining parties were to go before the Board of Trade, and who was to bear the expense; for if his hon. Friends in the "land o'cakes" had to come to the Board of Trade in London, and were to pay their own expenses, he believed that the clause would be rendered nugatory, as it would in the case of all poor persons residing at a distance from the metropolis.

Lord G. Somerset

said, that persons at a distance could surely write to the Board of Trade. With regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth (Mr. F. Maule), he must say, that he was quite alive to the evil of mixing up the Executive Government with matters of property. It was an odious power, and one that could only be justified by necessity. That necessity, he contended, however, did now exist. There certainly must be an appeal to some tribunal, and he could not conceive a better one than the Board of Trade. Would the right hon. Gentleman have it decided by the Court of Chancery?

Mr. Aglionby's

Amendment agreed to.

On the question that the clause do pass

Mr. Hawes

wished to ask the noble Lord whether he would object to the insertion at the end of the clause of the words "provided always, that the parties interested may appear by themselves or their agents before the said Board of Trade." He did not, of course, care about the precise words, but he did wish (speaking now without prejudice to any future Motion with regard to the abolition of the tribunal altogether) to know whether words to that effect might not be appended to the clause. What he wanted now to know was, whether the Railway Department of the Board of Trade was to be an open or a secret tribunal; because, if it were to be an open tribunal, of course, a great many of his objections would be removed.

Lord G. Somerset

said, that the question was one of such great importance that it would be quite impossible for him, even if he had a very definite opinion upon the subject, to answer it at once off-hand. Whatever his own opinion was, he might, perhaps, state that the proposal appeared at first sight to have reason on its side. He thought, that the best plan for the hon. Member to adopt, would be to prepare a specific and distinct clause, containing the whole of his opinions with regard to the Board of Trade tribunal, and to bring it before the whole House. There were certainly not a sufficient number of hon. Members then present to discuss satisfactorily a matter of such importance.

Mr. F. Maule

concurred that this was a very important question, and must be fairly raised and fully discussed, if the public were ever to have any confidence in the decisions of the Board of Trade, which could not be done at a morning sitting; he should, therefore, recommend his hon. Friend to give his notice of Motion, and to endeavour to make some arrangement with the Government, by which it might be discussed with as little delay as possible.

Mr. Hawes

said, that he would raise the question on the 47th Clause, and he hoped the noble Lord would give the opportunity for discussing it in a full House. He would in the first place move to omit the 47th Clause, on the ground of objecting to the tribunal of the Board of Trade; and if the noble Lord would give him the benefit of the legal assistance enjoyed by the Government, he (Mr. Hawes) would endeavour to frame a clause which should raise the question. Then two propositions would be before the House. The first, whether this tribunal should be created; and secondly, if so, whether it should be a secret or an open tribunal.

Lord G. Somerset

trusted that the hon. Member would in the meantime consent to let the clause pass pro formâ, and he would promise to consult other authorities upon the subject, and he should then be able to state what course he intended to pursue with reference to this point on Thursday next.

The clause, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed. Committee to sit again.

House adjourned.

The House resumed its sittings at five o'clock.

Back to