SECOND READING.

HC Deb 21 March 1882 vol 267 cc1418-28

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

begged to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months. It was a Bill which sought, by incorporating the Railway Clauses Act of 1845, to convert an old tramway, which ran for five or six miles within three or four feet of a much-used turnpike road, into a first-class locomotive line. The questions raised by the Bill had twice been before the Court of Chancery, and once before a Committee of the House of Commons in 1878. The owners of the line at that time put locomotives on to the line—locomotives which purported to be noiseless, but which were not so, and several accidents occurred. The County Roads Board took action in the Court of Chancery against the owners, and obtained an injunction to restrain the use of these engines. In 1880 the owners of the line, a limited Company, came to Parliament for powers to convert it into a railroad. The case of the promoters was fully investigated by a Committee upstairs; and without calling upon the opponents to give evidence, the Committee came to the conclusion that they would reject the Bill. In 1881—lastyear—the County Roads Board took action again. He might say that the promoters of the line continued to work locomotives upon it. In consequence, the County Roads Board, in 188l, being in charge of the road, proceeded by action again in the Court of Chancery, and the Court of Chancery laid down certain conditions of a stringent character. The conditions provided in what manner the locomotives were to be used. They certainly permitted the use of locomotives; but an arrangement was made by which the locomotives were to be of such a character that they would really do no harm to the traffic upon the turnpike road. The fire-boxes were to be closed in; the ash-pans were to be closed in also, and the Court of Chancery laid down the speed at which these locomotives were to run. They were not to go at a greater speed than four miles an hour within the town, and 10 miles an hour along the line of road outside the town. That system had been worked from May last, nearly a year, to the satisfaction of everyone, and a large number of people had been carried upon this tramway—he thought something like 400,000. There was no desire on the part of the public that any change should be made in the present mode of working the line. The Corporation of Swansea were Petitioners against the Bill, the Harbour Trustees of Swansea also petitioned against it, and the County Roads Board had again lodged a Petition against it. If the present Bill passed, by the incorporation of the Railway Clauses Act of 1845, the owners of the line would have the power of converting it into a first-class railway running for five miles within a few feet of a turnpike road. Well, beyond that, the Bill took power to obtain possession of 10 acres of land. The line ran immediately adjoining a common, which was much used by the public, and which overlooked the Bay of Swansea. The promoters of the Bill had not in any way scheduled any land which they desired to take; but they simply proposed in the Bill to take power to buy 10 acres of land, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, which would enable them to obtain land by agreement with various easements. But as this was common land it became very difficult to know how the power of purchasing the land, and whether from the lord of the manor or not, would be used; and therefore the exercise of these powers by the Company would impose upon the commoners a very serious lawsuit before they would be able to determine in whose possession this land really was. At present it was in possession of the public, and the public had the benefit of this common land. The Corporation of Swansea and the local authorities were desirous that the public should continue to have the benefit of this common land. If the Railway Clauses Act were incorporated in the Bill a further mischief would occur. The Board of Trade would very soon, he thought, be compelled to enforce the fencing in of this railroad, which ran for five miles along one of the most beautiful bays in the United Kingdom; and if that were done there would be a paling or fence erected, probably 15 or 20 feet in height, which would shut out the public both from the use of the common, from all access to the bay, and, in point of fact, from all view of it. He thought these were broad and public grounds why, on the present occasion, he should do that which he had never done before in the whole course of his Parliamentary career—namely, oppose this Private Bill upon the second reading. As he had stated, the question had been twice before the Court of Chancery and once before a Committee of the House of Commons, and on each occasion the decision had been against it. Upon these grounds he ventured to oppose the Bill upon the second reading, so as to prevent the great expense to which the public must be put in opposing it in Committee. The County Roads Board had already been put to a very serious expense in opposing the Company. The Corporation, the Harbour Trustees, and other public bodies, besides various private individuals who were interested in preserving the common land and to continue to use the road they had always used without having their lives endangered, had also been put to expense. He thought these were grounds which would warrant the House in taking what he admitted to be a very strong course—rejecting a Private Bill on the second reading. There was, however, another point, and it was this. The promoters of the Bill had opposed ths locus standi of all their opponents, or, at any rate, of a large number of them, on the ground that they were merely seeking to incorporate the Railway Clauses Act in an existing Act of Parliament. The contention of the promoters was that the Petitioners against the Bill had no locus standi at all upon such a question. It therefore amounted to this—that the public, and the representatives of the public, were to sit quietly by and see all this mischief done, and all the evils incurred, which he had already detailed to the House, and they were to take no steps to prevent it. He felt himself justified, therefore, in appealing to the House to reject the Bill upon the second reading. If the owners of the tramway desired any further powers than they already possessed, let them come to Parliament again with a Bill stating in a straightforward manner what powers they really desired, and then they might be fairly met; but to attempt to obtain these powers by a side-wind, by merely incorporating an old Act of Parliament in this way, was a course which ought not to be permitted by the House; and, under these circumstances, he asked the House to reject the Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Hussey Vivian.)

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

MR. DILLWYN

said, he thought that he ought, to say a few words in regard to the Bill, as he had the honour to be the Representative of the Borough of Swansea in that House, and it was necessary that he should explain why he intended to support the Motion which had just been submitted by his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), notwithstanding the fact that his (Mr. Dillwyn's) name appeared upon the back of the Bill. Now, he took it that whenever a Member was asked to put his name on the back of a Bill, it was merely an official act, which amounted to a guarantee of the good faith and bona fides of the Gentlemen who brought it in. The Gentlemen who brought in this Bill were most respectable; and if the measure were in itself a good measure, he could have no hesitation in guaranteeing the good faith of those who brought it in. And that was what lie took to be indicated by his having put his name upon the back of the Bill. He now desired to say a word or two in regard to the merits of the case. He had listened very attentively to the statement which had been made by his hon. Friend. He (Mr. Dillwyn) was in no way personally interested in the matter, as he lived two or three miles higher up; but he was bound to say that the Bill, if it were passed by Par- liament, would be a great invasion of the public rights. He had known this line for more than 60 years. In the first instance it was a horse tramway; but that was at a time when no such thing as the power of steam had been dreamt of, and there were no locomotives passing along it. It was a mere tramway line, as described by his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian). Of late the use of steam power had been sanctioned upon it; but the locomotives were worked under very stringent conditions. The present Bill, however, proposed to convert the line into a bonâ fide railway. The dimensions of the line had been by degrees growing larger and larger, until it was now running literally neck and neck with the public road. It was only separated from the high road by a very short distance; and he could not but conceive that the use of steam upon it, without any controlling conditions, would be highly dangerous to the public. The line, as it at present stood, was worked admirably and satisfactorily; but, nevertheless, well as it was worked, the use of steam upon it even now involved some danger and some obstruction to the public who desired to have access to the sea shore. If it became a large railroad, it would certainly create a serious obstruction to the public over the whole of Swansea Bay, because at present this was the direction in which the people of Swansea and Mumbles approached the shore, and the privileges now enjoyed by the public would be seriously curtailed. There were other grounds of opposition to the Bill, into which he would not enter, because they had already been stated by his hon. Friend. He had simply thought it right to explain what he knew in regard to the merits of the case, as the Representative of the district in which the line was situated; and he felt bound to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He did so simply upon public grounds, believing that he could not conscientiously support it in the interests of those he represented.

MR. TOTTENHAM

remarked that, having been a Member of the Committee upstairs to whom the Bill was referred in 1880, he desired to say a few words. His attention had been drawn to the similarity between the objectionable features of the present Bill and that which was before the Committee in 1880. The main object of the measure appeared to be to convert an existing tramway into a first-class railway, running alongside, and practically on the high road. It was opposed by almost every person connected with the district in 1880—by the county authorities, and by various Bail way Companies, by the landowners, by the harbour authorities, and apparently by everybody who had any interest in the district. He thought that, as a general rule, Bills of this kind ought to be referred to a Committee upstairs, and that it was a bad principle to throw them out on the second reading without sending them upstairs; but he was bound to say that the Bill of 1880 contained most objectionable features, and as similar objectionable provisions were included in the present Bill, he thought the House ought not to allow it to receive a second reading.

MR. MONTAGUE GUEST

said, he was not acquainted with the proposals contained in this particular Bill; but he found that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), notwithstanding the fact that his name was upon the back of it, intended to oppose it, and he thought that very few Members of the House would be found to support it. He only wished to say that the public in the West of England had suffered from the very same kind of thing. He was acquainted with a case where a railway ran for three miles alongside a turnpike road, and he had often experienced the greatest inconvenience in consequence. It was exceedingly dangerous for anyone to be riding or driving along the high road, as a train might come up quite unexpectedly, and occasion the greatest danger and inconvenience to persons in charge of young and fresh horses. He hoped the House would agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), and reject the Bill, with a view to securing the safety and convenience of the general public.

MR. ROBERTSON

wished to say a word or two before the House came to a decision. He had very carefully read the Bill and the provisions which it contained, and he did not think that any of those provisions bore out the observations which had been made in regard to them. He did not think that the incor- poration of the Lands Clauses Act and the Railway Clauses Act of 1845 necessarily involved all the mischievous effect which the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) alleged the Bill would have. He thought that the effect which the incorporation of those clauses would produce was a matter which might fairly be left to the consideration of a Committee upstairs. In regard to the special case dealt with by the Bill, there was one fact which he thought ought to be brought under the attention of the House—namely, that this was not a case of a tramway or railway which sought to come to a public high road, but the case of a tramway which existed previously to the formation of the road. In point of fact it was the case of a tramway running alongside of a road, which road had been made and houses built upon it solely because the tramway existed there. It was not the case of a new railroad being constructed upon a piece of land where there already existed a road. The original Tramway Act was passed about 75 years ago, and the tramway, after having met with various accidents in the course of its history, at length became a very useful public highway, carrying, as the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) told them, about 400,000 passengers last year between the towns of Swansea and Oystermouth. It was very important, in regard to the public interests, that the persons who owned this railway should now obtain the sanction of Parliament, not to the making of a new line, but to the improvement of the existing line; and they found that it was impossible for them, under their present Act, to deal with the question of rates and other matters without obtaining the incorporation of these two Public Acts. The object of the Bill was not to make a new locomotive railway. The railway was a locomotive railway already, and it carried the public along this line by locomotive power. [Mr. HUSSEY VIVIAN: Yes; noiselessly.] The Company were empowered to use noiseless locomotives; but he believed that, nevertheless, they did make a good deal of noise. He thought it would be very unwise for the House, upon a mere ex parte statement, to reject a Bill which he believed capable of being made of great public utility to the whole of this district. He had known the place for a good many years, and he had travelled by this very tramway. The mere fact that it carried 400,000 persons in the course of the year out of that not very nice place—Swansea—to Oystermouth on the coast was a proof of the advantage it conferred upon the public. [Mr. DILLWYN: Oh!] Perhaps his hon. Friend, who lived some distance out of Swansea, might think that it was a very nice place; but those who lived in the town and were subjected to the fumes sent forth from its chimneys certainly wished to have a cheap and ready means of being carried away to Oyster-mouth and other parts of the coast. The provisions of the present Bill were not the same as those of the Bill of last year. Last year the Company sought for compulsory powers to take land, and they were opposed chiefly by the Duke of Beaufort, because they asked for compulsory powers over his land. They sought for no compulsory powers this year; but all they asked for was that they might have the power of purchasing land by agreement. In regard to the common laud which had been spoken of, it had existed there ever since the tramway or railway was formed, and the Company sought for no new powers with regard to it by the present Bill. It was only by the consent of the owners that they could take any land at all; and he did not think it was an unreasonable thing for a Company to ask to be allowed to purchase additional land, when it was intended to devote it to the convenience of the public. He begged to support the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.

MR. BRYCE

said, he wished, in reply to the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Robertson) in regard to the common land, to point out to the House the way in which this Bill would interfere with the enjoyment of this common land by the inhabitants of Swansea. The common was situated between the existing road used by the Tramway Company and the line of the London and North-Western Railway Company. Of course, it could not be got at by way of the London and North-Western Railway, because that railway was fenced off; but it could be got at from the public road by crossing the existing tramway. But if the present Bill was passed, the tramway would be turned into a railway; and they all knew that sooner or later the Board of Trade would insist upon the line being fenced in as a regular railway. In that case the common would become unapproachable, and the inhabitants of Swansea would lose the enjoyment of this valuable tract of common land. On these grounds he hoped the House would reject the Bill.

MR. W. HOLMS

said, that having been a Member of the Committee which inquired into the question of using steam power on tramways, they came to the conclusion that such a line as this, which was one of a number of tramway schemes submitted to them, and was the case of an ordinary locomotive running upon a line for several miles alongside a turnpike road, was objectionable, and that in such a case the use of an ordinary locomotive would be dangerous to the public. The Committee did not object to a noiseless locomotive travelling along the road at a moderate speed, with its fire-box so sheltered that the horses on the road were not likely to take fright. If the Company only proposed to ask for such powers he had no doubt that the House would grant them; but in this case the Company wanted something more—they wanted to run ordinary locomotives on this line. He believed that would be dangerous to the public; and, therefore, he should oppose the second reading of the Bill.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he could not help thinking that the propriety of preserving the common for the people was only brought forward as a sort of makeweight. The real point was the objection which carriage-folk had to the use of locomotives near roads. Now, he felt very strongly indeed that until they had steam power on every main road in England they would never have proper communication between the towns and country districts. Under these circumstances, he should oppose the unusual course which had been taken by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) in moving the rejection of the Bill on the second reading.

MR. O'SHEA

said, he had no acquaintance with this particular tramway; but in France he had seen a similar tramway running through the streets of Rouen, and it was worked without any danger or inconvenience to the public. No accident had occurred either to horses or to children. He had been on the Committee last year which considered the question of the use of steam in connection with tramways, and the professional witnesses who were examined gave strong evidence in regard to its utility and safety. Since then he had, as he had already stated, seen one of these tramway locomotives running along the streets, and he was not aware that any accident had ever occurred.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Clare County (Mr. O'Shea) had reference to something quite distinct from the question now before the House. It was not a question of establishing a tramway similar to the tramways in Rouen—with which he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was quite familiar; but the object of the Bill was to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the conversion of an old tramway road into a railroad with the use of ordinary locomotives upon it. He could conceive nothing more objectionable than such a conversion. An hon. Member who had spoken in defence of the Bill (Mr. Robertson) said that the public highway had come to the tramway. That was quite correct; but the public highway did not come to a railway, and what the promoters of the Bill now sought was to convert this tramway into a railway. The consequence would then be that they would have a common high road carried alongside, not of a tramway, but of a tramroad converted into a railway with ordinary steam locomotives running over it. He could conceive nothing more objectionable than to allow, by a side-wind—for this was in reality a Parliamentary sidewind—a tramway to be made into a railroad between two important districts, and to carry it alongside a public high road. Personally, he knew nothing of this district; but it was for the public interests that every hon. Member should carefully consider every proposal of this nature that was submitted to the House. It would be most objectionable in principle to allow, under cover of a Private Bill, the incorporation of Public Acts which would effect a great radical change in the character of the property affected by it. If this tramway was in the position of a tract of country in regard to which it was desired, for the first time, to construct a railroad, all interests being compensated, and there being no public danger, he would have nothing to say in opposition to the introduction of an independent Railway Bill; but the present case was very different in every respect, and he hoped the House would reject the Bill.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 161: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 54.)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.