SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 March 1877)

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,
in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he did so on the ground that it proposed a serious interference with Mitcham Common. Some nine years ago the House had given the promoters of railway schemes proposing to appropriate portions of the commons near London, a salutary lesson by refusing, in several instances, to read their Bills a second time, and from that day till now there had not been a single proposal of this kind; but either those lessons had been forgotten, or a new generation of railway engineers had sprung up who were not aware of the fact. He asked the House to give railway companies of the present day a similar lesson; and he was sure, if it did so, that nothing would be heard for many years to come of valuable lands near the metropolis, which were used as recreation grounds by the people, being encroached upon in such a way. There were two private Bills before the House this Session proposing to cut up commons in the neighbourhood of London, and also schemes for turning parts of both Mitcham and Barnes Commons into sewage farms. That, he thought, was an additional reason for having recourse to the policy he proposed. In the case of Mitcham Common, it might be said by the promoters of the scheme that the Common was not much fre- 1251 quented; but the railway companies thought differently, for those companies had recently let out their bridges already existing upon the Common to advertising agents, and soon they would be covered with advertisements. What the London, Brighton, and South Coast Company proposed to do was to make a short cut across the Common, which would absorb eight acres of land and inclose about 12 acres more between their lines, and cut them off from the rest of the Common; this would seriously endanger the best part of the Common, if not practically destroy its use. Mitcham Common was only 7½ miles from the centre of London, and was one of the most useful commons within reach of the metropolis. It was very much frequented on holidays by people coming from London. No doubt he might be asked why should not the Bill be sent to a Select Committee? The reason why not was this — Neither a member of the public, nor the Metropolitan Board of Works, as the representative of the public, would have a locus standi before a Select Committee. Mitcham Common was not within the limits of the metropolitan area. Only some one whose property was proposed to be taken would have a locus standi before a Select Committee, and, therefore, any opposition must come from residents in the vicinity, but there were only a small proportion of those who would be affected by the scheme. It might also be said by the company that the present curve was dangerous. He had himself seen express trains rounding it within a few days at a speed of 15 or 20 miles an hour, and he believed that no accident had occurred there since the existence of the line; but if they thought that, surely there were other means of making alterations than by this scheme. If the company would withdraw that portion of the Bill which referred to Mitcham Common, he would not object to the other portions. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.

§ SIR HENRY PEEK,
as Representative of that part of the county, seconded the proposal for the rejection of the scheme, which was opposed by many residents in the neighbourhood. Instead of, as had been alleged, trains being restricted to 15 miles an hour for considerations of safety, double that speed was not infrequent.

§ MR. LAING
explained that the Bill was an omnibus Bill, comprising a variety of small objects, among which was a scheme which the company proposed to carry out at a cost of £150,000, not for their own pecuniary benefit, but for the safety and convenience of the public. The line at that part was at present very dangerous, entering the Common and leaving it by equally sharp curves. It was on a similar curve on the level that accidents were continually occurring. It had been said that several of the residents petitioned against the Bill; but a meeting was held the other day, presided over by a gentleman who, he believed, was opposed to the scheme, and a Petition in favour of the scheme was drawn up and signed by an equally great number as had objected to it. Indeed, he believed that when the matter had been explained to them several of those who had been opposed to the proposal turned completely round. It had been said that the Company refused to hear witnesses against the Bill; but with regard to a Petition which had been lodged by the vicar, churchwardens, and residents of the district praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, he was prepared to pledge himself on behalf of the Company that no opposition would be made to the locus standi of those parties. Under these circumstances, he must protest against the House deciding the question upon a canvas instituted out-of-doors, instead of allowing the Bill to go before a Committee upstairs, by whom it would be decided upon its merits.

§ MR. COWPER - TEMPLE
opposed the second reading of the Bill. He said, railway companies were tempted to take commons in preference to private lands defended by owners. The public who used them for recreation could not appear before a Committee, and could get no redress unless the House would consider the case of the public on the second reading. The convenience sought for the railway was not commensurate with the amount of injury inflicted, and might be secured in another way.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that he should be the last man to alienate a recreation ground 1253 near the metropolis from the public, and though the opposition to the Bill in a certain sense was based upon public grounds, so far it was right; but he confessed that the hon. Gentleman who had proposed the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had not convinced him, or made out a case which would justify the House in proceeding to extremities. The wisest course would be to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee where its merits would be dispassionately discussed. The principle laid down for the rejection of the Bill was a very dangerous one. It was that commons were to be treated as sacro sancti land—a theory which attached to no other description of property in the country; and they were called upon to do for this Common what they would refuse to sanction if it were proposed with reference to churches, schools, or any other kind of public or private property. Moreover, it was to be borne in mind that the necessities of the metropolis were pressing, and that the Railway Company ought to heard in explanation of their position, especially as they urged that they had a good case to submit. The present line was a dangerous one, which it was proposed under the Bill to alter and improve, and the question could be fairly fought out between the gentlemen commoners whose rights were involved and the Railway Company before a Select Committee. They were practically asked to say that they would not allow any metropolitan company to cross any common in the vicinity of London. It was said by the opponents of the Bill that this was a poor man's question; but it seemed to him that those who wished the scheme rejected were mainly the respectable residents. Finally, he hoped the House would refuse to listen to the opposition, because, if this were a new line and its promoters proposed to lay down a sharp curve on the level, such as existed at Mitcham, he would insist upon the clause being taken out of the Bill.

§ MR. FAWCETT
denied that those who opposed the second reading of the Bill wished to lay down any such principle as had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees; and if the House was not to oppose second readings of Bills of this character, its being asked to read Bills a second time was a mere farce. It was said that 1254 the opponents of this Bill held peculiar views. He had listened to hear what those peculiar views were, and he discovered that the public had a valuable right and interest in these commons. That was all they contended for. If this Bill were simply dealing with the property of private persons, he should not for a single moment oppose the measure, but that was not the case here. It was not simply a question of opposition of the 57 private gentlemen-commoners who resided in the neighbourhood, for the Bill affected the whole of the metropolis of the present day and those of all time hereafter, and however magnanimous it was in the Chairman of this Railway Company to offer to give any of these residents permission to be heard by the Select Committee, he maintained that the public had no locus standi before such a Committee, and they, after all, were the parties most directly interested in the rejection of the scheme. He did not wish to throw any obstacles in the way of the Railway Company carrying out any necessary improvement for the benefit of the public, but it had not been shown that if these schemes were rejected the Company could not equally well attain their object by other means. When, however, he came to another consideration, a great deal of light was thrown upon the proposal. The Company proposed to absorb eight and a-half acres of valuable ground near the metropolis, within eight miles of Charing-cross, and what compensation did they offer? Why a paltry £1,000. That, in his opinion, exposed the whole secret of the thing. If the Company had carried their line across the property of private persons they would have to pay as much as 5, 6, or even £7,000 an acre for the ground, and he hoped the House would not encourage the proposal.

§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY
said, he did not see any reason for treating the Bill in an exceptional manner to those generally brought before the House. The Bill proposed to deal with a most objectionable, if not a dangerous level-crossing which was on a common, and that crossing must either be dealt with in the manner proposed or not at all, and the Bill must be discussed with that view. It would be most exceptional if upon a point of the kind urged by the opponents of the Bill they were to refuse it a second reading.

§ Mr. CUBITT
said, he was in the habit of travelling by this railway, and, in the interests of many of his constituents, he felt bound to say that the present arrangements involved considerable danger to travellers. He should vote, therefore, for the second reading, as the question was one which ought to be decided, not by the House, but by a Select Committee.

§ MR. R. SMYTH
observed that there existed at least one case—that of the Northern Railway of Ireland Bill of last Session—in which a Railway Bill had been rejected on second reading.

§ MR. HERMON
must, if there was a division, vote against the second reading, because the Company did not propose to restore any of the ground which they had already taken away by their encroachment on the Common.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
observed that the Northern Railway of Ireland Bill was allowed to go before a Select Committee, and was afterwards rejected on the third reading.

§ MR. R. SMYTH
adhered to his statement that the Irish Bill to which he had alluded was refused a second reading by that House.