EAST KENT RAILWAY BILL.

HC Deb 22 May 1855 vol 138 cc876-83

Order of the Day for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

MR. JAMES MACGREGOR rose to move that the third reading of this Bill be postponed until Monday the 4th day of June next; that the minutes of the evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill he laid before this House; and that the said evidence be printed at the expense of the parties. He should have made this Motion when the Bill was considered if he had had the Report of the Select Committee on the Bill; but that Report was not circulated until after the Bill had been considered and ordered to be read a third time. When it was circulated he found that the Select Committee had made a special report to the House, recommending that "under the peculiar circumstances of the case" the 136th Standing Order should be repealed, so far as the East Kent Railway Bill was concerned. The Committee added that they had been led to that decision, "by the conviction of the paramount necessity, in a national point of view, of continuous railway communication between the metropolis, Deptford, and Woolwich, and the dockyard and arsenals at Chatham;" and that they had restricted the application of the money impounded under the Standing Order to the construction of a bridge over the Medway, at Rochester. This was not the first time that they had heard of the importance of continuous railway communication between the metropolis and the dockyards and arsenals on the Thames and at Chatham. The very able report on Kentish schemes of railway, published by the Marquess of Dalhousie, in 1845, set forth the importance of such a communication in unmistakeable terms. It showed to demonstration that it would be highly conducive to the national interests if a continuous line of railway were constructed between the metropolis and the dockyards and arsenals on the Thames and at Chatham; but it recommended, at the same time, that the working of the line should be entrusted to the South Eastern Company, which in 1845 had already expended several millions of money in the construction of railways in Kent. Sir, that company proceeded bonâ fide to endeavour to obtain powers from Parliament for that purpose. Their Bills, however, had failed in 1846, on the Standing Orders; and in 1847 the House of Lords were influenced by the Duke of Wellington on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. Rice) to refer it to the Railway Commissioners, who detained it so long that the company withdrew it; and since then the state of the money market had been such as to render proceeding with the works impossible; but the company were, and always had been, willing to complete them. In the report published by the Marquess of Dalhousie in 1845, it was stated that the South Eastern Company, besides completing the railway in North Kent, would also, for the public interests and without the prospect of remuneration, construct a line from Hastings to Ashford, and complete the communication to Deal—the very lines which, according to the Duke of Wellington, were of so much importance with regard to the national defences. Moreover, the company offered to pledge the whole revenue of their existing line for the completion of all cross-lines undertaken by them within a reasonable period. They did complete those railways, with the fact before them that they would prove unremunerative, and fail to yield a dividend to the shareholders. But the impatience of the gentlemen of the county of Kent, in the face of difficulties which had hindered a wealthy company like the South Eastern from proceeding, had in 1853 applied for an Act for the construction of the railway now under consideration; and in spite of every warning of the inadequacy of their means, they had persisted, and the result was now seen. What then is the case? The company admit that they have complied with no one of the conditions of their Act; but they ask the House to release their deposit money, and for other privileges. Their Bill is read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee. That Committee reports in favour of the Bill, and authorises the liberation of the money deposited with the Court of Chancery and the consequent abrogation of the Standing Order, which impounds 10 per cent of the capital of a projected railway as a guarantee for the bonâ fides of the undertaking and of its promoters. But it also appeared that the Government itself had lent its influence to obtain the infraction of the Standing Order. The Admiralty had made a report, expressing a wish for the completion of the bridge over the Medway, at Rochester, and recommending the House to realise the 50,550l. deposited with the Court of Chancery, and to allow it to be applied to the construction of the bridge in question. What he maintained was this—that if it be necessary for the Government to assist in the completion of the East Kent Railway for national purposes, the proper company for them to negotiate with was the South Eastern Railway Company, which had expended no less a sum than 12,000,000l. in the construction of unremunerative lines in the district. As an independent Member of the House, no longer connected with the South Eastern Company, having only the interests of the public in view, he said, that the conduct of the Government in dealing with a company in such a state of embarrassment that it has not been able to comply with one condition of its Act, was neither wise nor politic; and he contended that in a matter of such great national importance, if the Government was to negotiate at all, it should negotiate with a company whose capital and resources were of such an extent as to afford the best security for the performance of its engagements.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon Monday the 4th day of June next."

MR. RICE

could assure the hon. Gentleman, that with regard to the principle of this Bill he was not prepared either to affirm it or otherwise. He was in favour of the Bill only in so far as it promoted a direct railway communication between London and Dovor. The hon. Gentleman has talked of the impatience of the gentlemen of Kent inducing them to come forward in 1853 with a line of their own; he (Mr. Rice) supported that line as a step towards a direct line from the metropolis to Dovor; and, indeed, he repeatedly told the promoters that, the line would be of no use unless it were carried on to Dovor. The hon. Gentleman has also spoken of the bonâ fides of the proceedings of the South Eastern Company. Now, he recollected perfectly well, that in 1848 it was proposed by an independent company to construct a line to Dovor, and he had always regarded the rejection of that Bill as a most unfortunate circumstance. It was thrown out at the instance of the South Eastern Company, who brought forward a rival project, which he believed, however, they never had the slightest intention to carry into effect. He had no hostility to the South Eastern Company. He wished them to afford every accommodation they could to the county of Kent, and having spent so much money in the district, he thought it would be desirable to see the railway communication in their hands, provided they adopted a more direct line, for he thought they could construct and manage it better than any other parties. But, in the absence of any such scheme, he was prepared to support the East Kent line on public grounds, with the understanding that it is to be carried on to Dovor.

MR. LUSHINGTON

said, that so long as the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. MacGregor) was chairman of the South Eastern Company, he had never lost any opportunity of opposing any Bill which had for its object the extension of railway communication in Kent; and when the hon. Gentleman came down here to say, that in opposing the passing of this Bill he had no other than a public object in view, he was obliged to look at his antecedents, and at his past connection with railways in Kent. It was well known that he had uniformly opposed the contemplated extension, and when he stated that the South Eastern Company had pledged itself to complete the railway communication in Kent, and that the Government ought to have negotiated with that company, and not with the landowners of the district, he could not help observing that the South Eastern Company has, on every occasion, eluded its obligations in that respect. When the Bill of the South Eastern Company was so suddenly withdrawn in 1847, it was understood that the Bill was to be taken up at the same stage in the House of Lords in the Session of 1848; but the hon. Gentleman, from that day to this, had never re-introduced the measure. Under these circumstances the East Kent Company's Bill was passed in 1853. That company had experienced great difficulties in the carrying out of its project, and it now came to Parliament to ask for the release of the money deposited in the Court of Chancery, in order to enable it to complete the construction of I the bridge over the Medway at Rochester, I which it was compelled to make within a certain time. The Bill for that purpose was taken before the Standing Orders Committee. It passed that Committee, It was then referred to a Select Committee of this House, and that Committee had reported in favour of their application. The hon. Gentleman, however, now moved, that the third reading of the Bill should be postponed till the 4th of June, which was, in fact, till after Whitsuntide. It was important that the House should know that there was another Bill coming before the Standing Orders Committee this day for an extension from Canterbury to Dovor, and he had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman thought, if he can get the East Kent Bill postponed till after Whitsuntide, it will be of some use to him in raising a further opposition to the Canterbury and Dovor Bill. He hoped that the House, for the public reasons he had stated, will reject the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. H. ADAIR

As Chairman of the Select Committee to whom the East Kent Bill was referred, he must trouble the House with a few observations. He thought the Motion of the hon. Member for Sandwich was a very judicious and prudent one, because the House, before passing the Bill, should have an opportunity of seeing the printed evidence. He was of that opinion, because the question now raised was a very important one, and it was a question, moreover, which the House alone was able to decide. This was the first application that had been made to suspend this portion of the Standing Orders of the House. The whole object of the Bill was to release a sum of money which the House of Commons had judged it desirable should be held impounded to enforce the completion of a certain railway, the plans of which have been deposited in Parliament. Now, he thought that was a question of such importance that the House ought to be called upon to express an opinion as to the circumstances under which such a deviation from the usual practice of the House should be allowed. The object of the 136th Standing Order, was to ensure to the public the completion of lines of railway. He had no doubt that the Government were very anxious that the bridge over the Medway at Rochester should be constructed; he had not the slightest doubt that they wish their dockyards and arsenals to be brought into immediate communication with the metropolis; but still it was not shown to his satisfaction in the Committee that the promoters of this Bill were unable to complete the bridge at Rochester without the assistance of the Government. They had raised only an insignificant portion of the capital which they were authorised to raise under the provisions of the Act of 1853; they had laid out little or no money upon the construction of the bridge at Rochester; and, therefore, it was for them to consider whether, under the circumstances, they should agree to the proposed deviation from the usual practice of this House, amounting, in fact, to the abrogation of a Standing Order, which heretofore had been found to work beneficially, and which he was quite sure had, at all events, prevented the passing of many crude and ill-devised schemes of railway extension. I think, moreover, that the parties should not be called upon to pay for the printing of the evidence, but that the expense should be borne by Parliament, and that the House should at once deal with the question, and for the guidance of its Select Committees, should lay down under what circumstance, if any, the 136th Standing Order should be dispensed with.

MR. RICH

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford had been in his place, he would have told the House that the object of the Standing Order which it has now proposed to repeal was to secure that those who brought forward railway schemes had the requisite means for carrying out their projects, and that that object has been attained up to the present moment. Now, however, certain parties come forward and ask Parliament to abrogate that rule, and to establish what he might venture to call a very bad and dangerous precedent. If the promoters of the East Kent Railway had exerted themselves to carry out the objects of the Act of 1853—if they had exercised all the due diligence to fulfil their covenants—then, perhaps, they would have been entitled to ask the House to consider whether or not it should relax the Standing Order with the view of enabling them to execute their engagements; but it was notorious that they have not complied with the conditions of their Act, and he thought it would not be fair or just to extend an unusual indulgence to a company placed in such circumstances. The company had, however, disregarded every one of their covenants; and was that a state of things in which any company should be allowed to come before this House and ask to have a Standing Order relaxed, which was specially meant to enforce the fulfilment of contracts? If the House would have a little patience, and wait until the evidence was printed, they would find ample reason to suspect why no calls were made after the month of September, 1853, and why the call made at that time was not paid up. These have been what are called "bubble schemes." When the evidence is printed he was afraid the House would find it might have to apply to the East Kent Railway an epithet which he would not now use. It would find, for example, that of the whole capital to be raised by the company, one individual in London was liable to the amount of 100,00l.; that a stock-broking firm was engaged for the sum of 80,000l.; and that the contractor who was to make the railway was engaged by himself or his agents to the amount of 72,000l. The Chairman of the Select Committee having declared his opinion that the evidence should be printed before the House came to a decision, he thought it would be an act of injustice to the county of Kent, as well as to the other railway companies in the district, and a violation of its own duty, if the House were to pass this Bill without seeing the evidence upon which the opinion of the Chairman and of the Committee was founded.

SIR EDWARD DERING

opposed the Amendment.

MR. FITZROY

said, that the question before the House was a very simple one. Two propositions had been made by the hon. Member for Sandwich, both of which appear to him to be rather novel in character, and certainly most objectionable in principle. The first was, that this House, instead of referring private Bills to a small body upstairs, who would be able to take evidence and consider the matter dispassionately, should itself deal with such concerns and decide them according to the chance attendance of Members in this room. Such would be the result if the House, after exposing Members to the inconvenience and labour of attending a Committee upstairs, were to set aside their Report either against or in favour of a private Bill as of no value, and then proceed, as now proposed, to reverse their decision altogether. The Motion of the hon. Member, if it were carried, would lead to no practical end, for no one would trouble himself to read the evidence if it were printed? He hoped that the House would abide by the Report of the Select Committee, and decline to take such matters into its own hands.

After a few words from Mr. SPOONER, Mr. GREEN, and Mr. HENLEY,

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

The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 21: Majority 78.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 3°; Clause added.

Bill passed.