HC Deb 30 July 1862 vol 168 cc1000-6
MR. C. FORSTER

said, he had to move that, in the case of the Mersey, Irwell, &c. Protection Bill, Standing Orders 72, 174, 181, 182, 190, 210, and 214, be suspended, and that the Bill, as amended in the Committee, be considered and read the third time that day.

MR. BROWN-WESTHEAD

objected that the effect of the proposed suspension would be to prevent parties who had Amendments to propose to the Bill from doing so. The Bill affected public interests, and ought not to be passed through without giving to its opponents an opportunity of expressing their views. The Bill passed the House of Lords on the 26th of May, and that it had been delayed since that time was the fault of the promoters. The Bill was a very important one, and the Standing Orders ought not lightly to be set aside.

MR. MASSEY

observed that the Bill as it now came before them was improved, and he did not think it would be an undue interference with the rules and practices of the House to suspend the Standing Orders at that period of the Session, as proposed. Certainly, if they were not so suspended, the Bill could scarcely pass through that Session.

MR. COBBETT

said, he thought that Standing Orders, like rules of court, ought not to be departed from. He understood that some parties wished to propose Amendments in the Bill, which they had had no possible opportunity of proposing hitherto. Those Amendments were directed against clauses lately introduced, which injuriously affected some interests not previously affected. But what the Motion proposed to do, was to violate the rules of the House in favour of the promoters of the Bill, who, having been unduly dilatory, wished to prevent other parties from protecting themselves from, recent attacks on their interests. The Amendments were on the paper for the following day; and no inconvenience could arise from their being then considered.

MR. DEEDES

said, he would remind the House that a power was delegated to the Standing Orders Committee of deciding in what cases the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; and, if so, surely it was competent for the House itself to exercise such a power. In his view, the present was a case calling for exceptional treatment, the grounds being sufficient, and having arisen from no fault of the promoters.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he believed that the practice of suspending the Standing Orders at the end of the Sessions had in several cases been the cause of inflicting injustice upon private parties. It was the more important that the Standing Orders should not be suspended in the present instance, seeing that the parties who sought to be protected had been excluded by the Standing Orders from bringing forward their case in the Committee of either House.

Motion made, and Question put, "That, in the case of the Mersey, Irwell, &c. Protection Bill, Standing Orders 72, 174, 181, 182, 190, 210, and 214, be suspended."

The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 33: Majority 26.

CAPTAIN GRAY

said, he considered that time ought to be given for the parties whose interests were affected to be heard. The Bill interfered with the rights of his constituents. If it were a general Bill, they would not so much object; but as it stood, those on one side of the stream were affected, while it did not touch those upon the other side. If it were competent for him to move that the Bill be recommitted, he would do so.

MR. COBBETT

said, he wished to propose the insertion of a clause prohibiting, in effect, the Mersey and Irwell Navigation Company, who were the promoters of the Bill, and whose duty it was to keep the stream clear, from redepositing in the river Irwell any refuse which they might remove from the part of the river subject to their jurisdiction, to the damage of the waters below. The Bill gave powers to the company to prevent the deposit in the river of ashes, cinder, and refuse of all kinds, by the millowners along its banks; and the clause which he desired to insert would prohibit the company from throwing back into one part of the river refuse which had been removed by dredging from another.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

complained that the clause, if necessary, had not been proposed in Committee. He explained that the practice was to dredge the shoals, and with the material thus obtained fill up the chasms in the bed, and thus improve the navigation. The company were most anxious to keep the navigation clear, and did all in their power for that purpose. The clause proposed would, in the opinion of Sir J. McNeill, Mr. Power, and other engineers, seriously impede the Commissioners in their efforts; and he trusted the House would not interfere by passing the proposed Amendment.

MR. GEORGE

said, that as a member of the Committee on the Bill, he wished to state that the question had been brought to the attention of the Committee, and a practice was proved to exist on the part of the Commissioners of the Mersey and Irwell Navigation of dredging and casting the refuse in other parts of the stream; and it was his opinion, as well as that of some of the other members of the Committee, that when the Commissioners came for very stringent powers as against others, they should set an example of not casting refuse into the river themselves. And in passing the fourth clause as it stood it was not intended that the Navigation Commissioners should have the power to cast sand, gravel, ashes, or other refuse into the river wherever they chose.

MR. MASSEY

said, he thought, after the explanation which had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. George), it would not be safe to interfere with the decision of a Private Bill Committee.

MR. COBBETT

said, he understood the explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Wexford was in favour of the object of his (Mr. Cobbett's) clause, which proposed to carry out what appeared to be the intention of the Committee.

Clause agreed to.

MR. COBBETT

said, he would then propose a clause depriving the magistrates of jurisdiction when the party proceeded against made a bonâ fide claim to the right to do the act complained of, but without prejudice to the other remedies available by the Navigation Company. He contended that such a clause was necessary, the powers given by the Bill being enormous, summary, highly penal, and extending over a vast district. Every person residing on the banks of the streams would be entirely at the mercy of the Company, and the fines to which he would be liable, if he threw rubbish into the river, were £5 for the first offence, £10 for the second, and £20 for the third.

MR. MASSEY

said, if the clause passed, the whole Bill would become a dead letter. It would enable any party brought before the magistrates to elect that he should not be convicted, and that without requiring him to enter into any engagement to try the question in a superior court.

MR. GEORGE

said, he also agreed that the clause would render the Bill entirely inoperative.

Clause (Jurisdiction of Magistrates) brought up, and read 1°.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 81: Majority 44.

MR. COBBETT

said, he would move the addition of another clause, providing that the Bill should not interfere with owners on the banks of the rivers exercising the rights or privileges which they possessed as between each other. He wished to enable them to make private arrangements with each other in regard to these matters, irrespective of the Company.

MR. GEORGE

said, he saw no reason for the introduction of the clause. The Bill did not interfere with the rights of riparian owners on matters apart from the navigation.

Clause (Reservation of Rights of Riparian Owners) brought up, and read 1°.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.

MR. COBBETT

said, that as the Bill had been originally brought forward in the House of Lords, it would have included all the tributaries of the Mersey and of the Irwell, and would extend altogether over 650 miles of stream. But the House of Lords had confined its operation to those two rivers, so that it would include only 300 miles of stream. In the Committee of the House of Commons, on the other hand, it was made to embrace 500 miles of stream. He thought that in its present shape it was an unfair and a partial measure, and he proposed to restore it to its original condition as it had been introduced into the House of Lords. For that purpose he moved the omission from the third clause of the words "above the junction of the said rivers."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, Clause 3, to leave out the words "above the junction of the said Rivers."

MR. GEORGE

said, the Weaver had been expunged from the Bill, because it was a separate navigation under an independent trust, and because there were very few mills upon it. All the evidence before the Select Committee, which sat for nine days, went to show that the objectionable deposits were made, for the most part, between the bridge at Manchester and the junction of the Mersey and Irwell.

MR. POTTER

remarked, that as a mill-owner on the banks of one of the streams, he would not have said a word against the Bill, but would rather have supported it, if it had been a general one and applied to the whole rivers of the country. He did, however, object to certain parties in that particular district being exempted from the provisions of the Bill, although guilty of the same practice as their neighbours.

Mr. W. EGERTON

said, he should oppose the Amendment.

MR. J. B. SMITH

said, his constituents were unanimously in favour of the Bill.

MR. BROWN-WESTHEAD

said, the manufacturers did not object to being put to some inconvenience and expense for the public good, but they complained of being sacrificed while noble Lords and others who did precisely the same thing were allowed to escape. The Bill was unfair and partial, and it had been properly described by the Lord Chancellor as a discreditable piece of legislation.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 55: Majority 22.

MR. COBBETT

said, he would then propose to strike out words in Clause 4, words the omission of which would give to landholders on the banks power to return into the streams sand, gravel, &c., deposited by such streams during floods.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. COBBETT

said, he would further move an Amendment, to extend the time when the Act was to come into operation from the 5th of April, 1863, to the same day in 1865. As a vast number of the mills had very little ground attached to them, a considerable time must necessarily elapse before the owners could adopt other means for getting rid of the cinders and other refuse than throwing them into the river.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, Clause 13, to leave out the words "sixty-three," in order to insert the words "sixty-five,"—instead thereof.

MR. MASSEY

said, he must object to the alteration. He thought there would be no difficulty in making arrangements for carting away the materials, and he saw no sufficient reason for extending the time for so long a period.

Question, "That the words 'sixty-three' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

(Queen's Consent signified) Bill read 3°.

On Question, "That the Bill as amended do pass,"

MR. COBBETT

said, he would take that occasion to renew his protest against the measure, and his complaint of the way in which it had been promoted. It was no doubt important that the Irwell and Mersey should be kept navigable, but such enormous powers ought not to be conferred on what was almost a private body for that purpose, without giving all the parties interested an ample opportunity of being heard. He objected to measures being introduced in this character, by which they neither received the treatment of public nor of private Bills, and he should therefore take the sense of the House on the Motion now before them.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he also objected to the class of measures known as Hybrid Bills, and would express a hope that some alteration would be made in the practice of Parliament in regard to them.

MR. SPEAKER

explained that the Bill before the House was strictly a private Bill.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill, with the Amendments, do pass."

The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 35: Majority 48.