SECOND READING. (Hansard, 10 June 1879)

COLONEL JERVIS
, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months, said, he regetted that it was his duty to object to the second reading of the Bill. In 1874, a Bill was introduced for the construction of a railway from Ipswich to the sea coast on the east side. That Bill was not approved by Parliament, on the ground that it gave no accommodation whatever to the district through which it was proposed that the line should pass. In 1875, a fresh Bill was brought in, with a new plan; and a railway was to be made which was to give the fullest accommodation to the whole of the district. A number of witnesses were brought up from the County of Suffolk and from the town of Ipswich, including mayors and ex-mayors, solicitors, traders, and others, who gave evidence that the line, as then proposed, would give the fullest accommodation to the district; and on the strength of the evidence given before the Committee, Parliament approved of the Bill. But before the line was completed, it was disputed by an Inspector sent down from the Board of Trade, who found 1544 that no stations were erected on the line; that the accommodation which was to be given to Ipswich was something more than a mile off from where it was to have been; and that the final station was in the middle of an agricultural district, a couple of miles out towards the sea. A deputation then waited upon the Board of Trade. The deputation consisted of the Members for the Eastern Division of Suffolk, the town of Ipswich, the hon. and learned Member for the County of Cambridge (Mr. Rodwell), who thoroughly knew the locality, various mayors and ex-mayors, of Ipswich; and, what was still more striking, it was accompanied by the country rectors of all the parishes, while no other inhabitants besides the rectors were asked to go with the deputation. The Board of Trade stated, in reply to the representations made to them, that they extremely regretted that they had not the power to interfere; that the Act was passed, and that their only power was to see that the line was constructed in a manner consistent with the safety of the public. Beyond that, they had no power whatever. It was also found that the Railway Commissioners had no power to interfere in the case; and, therefore, it was deemed advisable to wait until the Company came forward for additional powers, or to obtain fresh capital. The Company now came to Parliament for that purpose, and he must say that when a Company had taken such extreme liberty with the Forms of the House as to obtain an Act of Parliament under the plea of giving accommodation to the public, and then to prevent any accommodation being given to the district, it became his duty, for that and other reasons which it was not necessary now to enter into, to ask the House to inquire into the matter, and to interfere. He had brought the matter under the notice of the Board of Trade, and they had agreed to undertake, in the event of a clause being inserted in the Bill, to ascertain what stations were required and what accommodation ought to be given to the district. If the promoters of the Bill were willing to accept such a clause, and to allow the matter to be settled by the Board of Trade on behalf of the public, he would not further oppose the second reading of the Bill; but if they refused to accept such a clause, he should certainly divide the House 1545 against the second reading of the Bill. He had felt it his duty to bring the circumstances of the case under the notice of the House. During the 20 years he had been a Member of the House he had never known a similar case. He had appealed to every official of the House, and to some of the most learned counsel who had been in the habit of practising at the Parliamentary Bar upstairs, and they all told him they never remembered a similar case—where a railway had been obtained under the pretence of benefiting the public, but where every attempt had been made to prevent the public from obtaining any accommodation whatever. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

§ MR. RODWELL
said, he should like, as he had been interested in the question before, and as he had attended the deputation to which his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Jervis) had alluded to, to state that he entirely concurred in what his hon. and gallant Friend had stated. While he disclaimed any intention of throwing an obstacle in the way of the passing of the Bill, he thought, on public grounds, that this was a legitimate opportunity for the House of Commons to interpose, and to ask that the accommodation which was promised to the public should be given to them. It was a well-understood rule that when the promoters of a Bill came to Parliament for an extension of time, or for power to increase their capital, they brought the whole of their proceedings under the review of some tribunal. The only tribunal in this case was the House of Commons. The Board of Trade was powerless in the matter, and the Railway Commissioners were equally powerless. Up to the present stage, the promoters of the Bill had defied the public. They were now obliged to ask for fresh powers, and, without going further into details, he thought the House would do well to see that the Company now gave proper accommodation to the public. Nothing could be more reasonable or 1546 more fair, and he could not conceive upon what ground the promoters of the Bill could decline to entertain the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend, that the Board of Trade should be the parties to say what, in the interests of the public, was required. He understood that if the promoters assented to this course, his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw the proposition he had made for the rejection of the Bill. He (Mr. Rodwell) took part in the matter simply upon public grounds. He was well acquainted with the locality, and he knew the line; and he thought it was a great scandal that the public did not possess the accommodation which they so well deserved, which was agreed to be given to them, and on the faith of which the Bill was originally granted.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, the course which had been taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Colonel Jervis) might form a sound and useful precedent, though he hoped that he would not persevere with his Motion to throw out the Bill. It should be well understood by all those who were interested in railway management that when a Company came to that House for an extension of the privileges and powers which Parliament had already granted to them, they must be prepared to submit their conduct generally to the review of Parliament, and to challenge any judgment which Parliament might think fit to exercisers to the way in which they had used their powers up to the present time. But he confessed that, with regard to this particular Bill, he thought the object which the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), had at heart would be best accomplished by allowing the Bill to be read a second time, care being taken in Committee to consider the objections which had been raised. But none the less was it desirable that, where a Railway Company almost avowedly neglected the purposes for which it was created, exception at the proper time should be taken in Parliament against its proceedings. With regard to this particular railway, he understood that it went almost from nowhere to nowhere; that instead of starting from the town of Ipswich, which was a large and important town, and connecting it with the rising watering place of Felixstowe, it started from 1547 a point somewhere about two miles from Ipswich on the main line; that it was there almost entirely unconnected with the train service on the main line; that it proceeded then, at its own sweet will, towards the common which had been graphically described by the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich, passing, at as great a distance as it conveniently could, the town which it proposed to connect with Ipswich—and, in fact, forfeiting all title to be considered a convenient or useful means of traffic for the locality. But more remained behind; for he understood that the Company declined to make any sufficient use of any intermediate stations on the line, and, therefore, they excluded the inhabitants of the district from the advantage which they might derive from the use of intermediate stations. At the present time, therefore, the railway did not answer the purposes for which Parliament originally granted its powers; and it appeared to him a proper course for a Committee to consider how far supervision should be exercised by the Board of Trade, or by the Railway Commissioners, or by any other sufficiently strong public body, to compel the Company to perform a duty which the public had certainly a right to expect at their hands. He thought that, under the circumstances of the case, the best course both for the locality and for the general public would be that the Bill should be read a second time. If the Amendment now before the House were withdrawn, he would undertake that the points to which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harwich had called attention should be considered by the Committee appointed to inquire into the Bill, and he had no doubt they would see that Ipswich and its neighbourhood was dealt with in a manner as satisfactory as that tribunal could carry out. Of course, if his hon. and gallant Friend was afterwards not satisfied with the course taken by the Committee, he would still have a remedy by opposing the third reading of the Bill. In the meanwhile, he hoped the course taken would be such as to satisfy his hon. and gallant Friend, and those whom he represented, that substantial justice would be done to the locality interested.

COLONEL JERVIS
said, that after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, he 1548 begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.