HC Deb 05 July 1883 vol 281 cc421-43

Lords Amendments considered.

Amendments, as far as Clause 68A, agreed to.

Clause 68A read a second time.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS,

in moving to amend the clause by adding the words— Provided always, That this section shall not apply to, or in any way affect, the foreshore, or any lands gained or reclaimed from the foreshore south-west of Crossens Channel, situate within the said township of North Meols. said, the question he desired to raise formed the sequel to a matter which came before the House recently in reference to the sale of the foreshore of Southport to the riparian owners. If the clause inserted by the House of Lords were passed as it stood, it would, as far as Southport was concerned, bring the question to a fatal termination. He did not propose to touch upon the merits of the dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Corporation of South-port for several reasons. First, he held in his hand a letter from the Duchy of Lancaster, in which they said that they had had nothing whatever to do with the introduction of the clause which had been inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords; and, that being so, the Duchy was not prepared to take any part in the matter, either in favour or adversely. But he did not propose to introduce any question as between the Duchy and the Corporation of Southport for another and more important reason—namely, that the whole question as between the two bodies, the riparian owners and the Corporation of Southport, was in the hands of the Chancellor of the Duchy, who had promised, and was carrying out his promise, to use his good offices with a view of bringing the matter to a settlement. Therefore, while the matter was pending between the Corporation of Southport, the ri- parian owners, and the Duchy, and while it was possible that an arrangement might be arrived at which he hoped would lead to a settlement, he did not think it would be wise to introduce any contentious matter. He would only allude to certain simple facts to show the connection between the South-port foreshore and the Ribble Navigation Bill. As the House was probably aware, the amount of foreshore which, was going to be sold to the riparian owners amounted to 9,000 acres. This amount was divided into two portions by a stream of considerable extent called Crossens Channel. That on the North-East of the Channel was the largest part, containing upwards of 5,000 acres, and with that part the Amendment he proposed to insert did not interfere in any way. The important part was that on the South and West of Crossens Channel, which comprised the whole of the foreshore of Southport. In other words, the borough of Southport extended right up to the Crossens Channel, and the whole of the foreshore covered by that space was necessary to the inhabitants of Southport, in order to give them access to the sea. Indeed, the whole of those 4,000 acres, with the exception of about 600, were, at the present moment, included in the borough boundary, and the whole of it, including the 600 acres, was directly in front of the borough. Since the year 1880, the Corporation of Southport had been in communication with the Duchy for the sale of its rights over these 4,000 acres, and the negotiations were carried on up to the month of April last, when negotiations were entered into and a sale partly completed with the landowners. He had no intention of entering into any dispute as to the Duchy. The Duchy considered that the negotiations were at an end, as far as the Corporation of Southport were concerned; but the Corporation did not so consider them at an end. The Duchy considered the sale to have been practically completed; the Corporation submitted that as the Seal of the Duchy had not been affixed the sale was really not completed. But, be that as it might, it would be unwise and unnecessary to introduce any dispute of this kind into the matter now before the House, which was quite upon another point. There had been communications in which the Chancellor of the Duchy had offered his good offices—communications from the Duchy to the Corporation, offering his mediation and arbitration. That offer, on the basis laid down, for various reasons had been declined. He hold in his hand a letter from the Duchy, dated the 29th of June—quite recently—asking the Corporation of Southport to reconsider the question of arbitration, and to bring the matter before the Town Council. This letter had not yet been laid before the Southport Town Council; but it would be placed before them on Tuesday next. Then, on the other hand, there was a counter-offer from the Corporation to the landowners. The landowners gave £15,000 for the whole 9,000 acres, and the Corporation offered the whole of the purchase money—£15,000—for the smaller part—the 4,000 acres lying in front of their borough. To that offer there had been no official reply, so that the House would see there was an offer and a counter-offer still pending, and on that ground it would not be wise to drag the Duchy in any way into the discussion. But he would respectfully ask the House to consider what would hap-pen if this clause were passed. It would give an absolutely statutory title to the two landowners in question; and there-fore the good offices of the Duchy would be of no avail, because it would be impossible that they could exorcise any of the powers they had now, seeing that the foreshore would have gone absolutely into the ownership of the two riparian proprietors. This state of affairs had been brought about by what he would venture to term a side wind. It had been brought about by a clause introduced into the Bill by the House of Lords. This year the Kibble Navigation Company—which was really the Corporation of the borough of Preston—had introduced a Bill which, among other things, was to improve the navigation of the River Ribble. Southport was in the Estuary of the Ribble, and Preston was 14 miles off up the River. Among other things, it was proposed to build training walls and a large embankment in the Estuary, and the effect of these works would be to reclaim the foreshore for a considerable distance from these training walls, seeing that even at present the water was very shallow over a great stretch. In the House of Lords the representatives of Southport were not allowed to oppose the Bill on the ground that they had no locus standi, and he wished particularly to state that their locus standi was refused on this ground—that the works of the Ribble Navigation Company were not likely to affect the borough of Southport or the foreshore of Southport. This clause consequently had been introduced into the Bill without the Corporation having the right to be heard against it, although it would give all the foreshore when reclaimed to the riparian owners. Now, Southport had no objection to the operation of those works so far as the immense tract of foreshore on the North-Eastern side of Crossens Channel went; but they did object to have their own foreshore handed over in the manner contemplated by this clause. If it was the case, as the promoters of the Bill alleged, that Southport would not be affected by these Ribble Navigation Works, and that there would be no accretion or reclamation of their foreshore; if that really were so, then the Amendment would do no harm, and all those who were of that opinion ought to vote for it, because it had been very carefully drawn, and with studied moderation, only for the purpose of saving that part of the foreshore which was in front of Southport. But, unfortunately, nearly all the scientific witnesses and the best engineers declared that the accretions would go beyond Crossens Channel and affect the foreshore in front of South-port; and Sir Frederick Bramwoll went so far as to say that it would so reclaim the foreshore in front of South-port, as eventually to make Southport an inland town. Now, that was a very important consideration, seeing that the foreshore varied from one mile to two and a-half miles before it reached the Channel, and then beyond that were six miles of sand at low water. It was, therefore, very important that this should not happen, because Southport would have its whole character destroyed if what Sir Frederick Bramwell and other eminent engineers declared would happen should do so. But that was not all. In the clause inserted in the Lords, the two riparian landowners had not only got a statutory right given to them over all the accretions, which were the result of the works of the Ribble Navigation Company; but they positively had a right given to them to all reclamations by any other means, so that any reclamations which might take place from any cause whatsoever would belong to them. The only object of his Amendment was to save the foreshore of Southport, and to put it in precisely the same position it was in now. It did not confer any rights upon Southport; but it left the matter open, so that Southport might have the advantage of the good offices which the Chancellor of the Duchy was now exercising in the matter. Nor was it antagonistic to the interests of the town of Preston. No interference was asked for with that part of the foreshore on the North side of the Crossens Channel or otherwise outside their own limit, and all that immense tract would remain just as open to the operation of the Preston works as now. If the House would allow him, he thought he could not do better than read a letter just received from the Corporation of Southport on this important point and signed by the Town Clerk. The letter stated— A report is being industriously circulated to the effect that the Amendment contemplated to the Lords Amendments in this Bill is directed against the Corporation of Preston. Such a report is entirely contrary to the fact. This was the important part of the letter— The promoters of this Navigation Bill have never pretended that it was necessary for them to acquire, reclaim, or in any way deal with any foreshore in front or comprised within the limits of our own borough. Had they done so, there is no doubt that we shall have to be allowed a locus standi in the House of Lords. On the contrary, the Lords Committee threw us out on the ground that we were not affected by the work. What we object to is the Corporation of Preston coming into the borough of Southport without notice and handing over to owners whose interests are opposed to those of the inhabitants a foreshore which, in the opinion of the Corporation of Southport, it is desirable should be in their hands, and which is not and cannot be contended is in any way necessary for the purpose of the promoters of the Bill. That letter settled the question as to any injury done by the works contemplated by the borough of Preston. No doubt, Preston relied on the reclamation of land to recoup themselves, to a great extent, for the money they laid out; but, seeing that they would have the whole of the land on the North side of the Channel, which constituted by far the major part, and that they further contended that no land would be reclaimed in front of the Southport foreshore, he thought they had no reason to complain. A circular had been sent out by the representatives of the landowners. He was told that the landowners themselves did not wish to appear in the matter, but only through the name and medium of their agents; but, seeing the part they were taking in reference to the borough of Southport, he thought the responsibility should be thrown on Messrs. Hesketh and Scaris-brick for the hard manner in which they were dealing with the borough of South-port. The letter stated the facts; but, for the reason he had given, as affecting the Duchy, he did not propose to touch that part of the communication. The letter went on to say— The landowners have been in possession of this foreshore from time immemorial. That has not been disputed by the Duchy itself. It has been disputed by Southport, and disputed more strongly than by anyone else by the Corporation of Preston during the passage of the Bill through the Commons, and there is no doubt of this—that the borough of Southport was willing to buy the rights of the Duchy, subject to any lawsuit the landowners might think proper to bring forward. But if any proof were wanted as to that, it is given in the Report of the Proceedings in the House of Commons. [Cries of "Divide!"] He would not keep the House long, but would confine his remarks within the simplest possible compass; and as the Bill affected the well-being, the prosperity, and the very life of a town of 40,000 or 50,000 people, he hardly thought the House would be of opinion that he was trespassing upon their indulgence. The counsel for the Preston Corporation stated in the Committee Room of the House of Commons that the Duchy had sold these rights to them; and there was no doubt that there was an arrangement in the House of Commons by which the rights of the Duchy of Lancaster were to be sold to the Corporation of Preston. That was afterwards altered, and the rights of the Duchy were sold to the riparian owners. There was another point also stated—namely, that the riparian owners were willing to sell the foreshore in front of the Promenade of Southport for a small consideration. Now, that statement was altogether evasive, because what the riparian owners really offered to sell was a small piece—less than 100 acres out of 4,000; and that 100 coupled with such conditions that no Corporation, having the interests of the borough at heart, could possibly agree to. He knew it would be con- tended by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) that some time ago the Corporation of Southport admitted the rights of the riparian owners, by paying them for a small piece of land. That took place as long ago as 1876, when the Corporation bought a small piece of land, of 120 acres, from the Duchy for a sum of £340, whereupon the landowners put in a claim of £20,000 for their rights in connection with it, which they ultimately reduced to £7,000. If that argument was to be used, he would ask the House to consider the danger in which the Corporation of Southport was placed. If the landowners, for a small piece of land, 120 acres in extent, with their defective claim and disputed title, asked £20,000, although the Duchy were willing to sell it for £340, what would they not be likely to compel the Corporation of Southport to pay for 4,000 acres, if they had an undisputed title? He would not occupy the House longer; but he would simply point out that this was a national question, as well as a local one. It was a national question, because all the open spaces in the country, and particularly the foreshores—that was the part lying between high and low water mark—ought to be preserved for the people—he would not say without proper consideration for all existing rights—but preserved and placed in the hands of the boroughs for the benefit of the people who lived in front of the foreshores. It was a local question also, because Southport was one of the most growing towns in the North of England. It was the great health resort for a district which comprised 4,000,000 inhabitants, and it had been described as the sanito-rium of that part of the country. He was informed that no less than 20 municipal boroughs had passed resolutions—many of them boroughs in Lancashire—praying that Parliament would help South-port in this matter; and, besides these corporate bodies, there had been Petitions from no less than 40 local bodies, making altogether 60 representative bodies which had passed resolutions upon the question in favour of the action of Southport. Besides that, there had been a Memorial sent to the Prime Minister, signed by 62 Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, for the question was not looked upon as being in any respect a Party one. He believed—in fact, he might emphatically state—from what he had heard from hon. Members on both sides, that their sympathies were entirely in favour of the release of South-port from the false position in which it had been placed by the Amendment inserted by the House of Lords. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir P. Assheton Cross) was not in his place, because he had openly expressed strong sympathy with the Corporation in the position in which it stood. There was one other point he wished to refer to. A paper—which he held in his hand—had been circulated by the Ribble Navigation Commissioners, appealing to the House of Commons, on the ground that the clause had not yet been passed by both Houses of Parliament, and asking them to resist what they called "an insidious attempt" to upset the conclusion arrived at by a Committee of the House of Commons, as well as by a Committee of the House of Lords. Now, that was not a true statement of facts. This clause was introduced in the House of Lords. As the Bill left the House of Commons, it was in a different position altogether, the difference being that, when the measure left the Committee of the Commons, the whole of the foreshore was vested in the borough of Preston, with a right of pre-emption to any landowner who would have to prove his title; and the effect of the Amendment introduced by the Lords was, that two landowners were named by name, and an absolute title given to them. He was sure there would be no harm done to the borough of Preston, or to the Ribble Navigation Company, by the proposal which he made, because the Bill would simply go back to the House of Lords to have the clause amended, and the Corporation of Southport were advised that the Lords had introduced this Amendment under a misapprehension, and upon a statement that the rights of Southport would not be affected by it. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That this section shall not apply to or in any way affect the foreshore or any lands gained or reclaimed from the foreshore south-west of Crossens Channel, situate within the said township of North Meols."—(Mr. Jesse Callings.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. ECROYD

said, he was quite sure that no public body in the country felt a stronger interest in the welfare of the great community of Southport, and in everything that would affect the well-being of the place as a health resort, than the Corporation and the inhabitants of the neighbouring town of Preston. It was, therefore, quite needless that he should disclaim on their behalf the slightest disposition to inflict, directly or indirectly, the smallest injury on Southport. The difficulty he found in replying to the observations of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Gollings), who had introduced the Amendment, was that his statements were almost entirely extraneous to the question before the House. In the first place, he proposed to occupy as little of the time of the House as possible by refraining from entering upon matters which were really not relevant to the point at issue. The first great point of the hon. Member's speech, as to whether it was desirable that Southport should acquire those rights in the foreshore which were legally vested in the lords of the manor, was a question on which the decision of the House this afternoon would have no influence whatever. Everybody would, no doubt, be very happy to see South-port in full possession of all rights to the foreshore, which in future might affect it as a place of health resort. But Southport must obtain them by legal methods; in fact, by the only method open to those who wished to obtain rights of more or less value which were vested in other people. The facts of the case at the present moment were that, by whatever process it might have been arrived at, the rights to the foreshore of the Estuary of the Ribble were vested in the lords of the manor. It would have been a very pleasant matter for the Corporation of Southport to find that they were possessed of the whole right to the foreshore; and, in the same way, it was desirable for them, if possible, to become possessors of those rights, and thus become the lords of the manor themselves. But such was not the case. His contention was that nothing contained in the Ribble Navigation Bill, or in the Amendments introduced into it by the House of Lords, did, in the smallest degree, affect the question of the rights of the ownership of the foreshore. As to the question of title, there was no doubt that there had been a dispute as to the ownership of the foreshore; but that dispute had not been between the Corporation of Preston and the Corporation of Southport on the one hand, and the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian owners on the other, but simply a dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian owners; and at no time, and under no circumstances, had the Corporation of South-port been able to assert the smallest claim to those rights. They had been passive spectators of the dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian owners, and the dispute had been ended by the sale of all the rights of the Duchy to the riparian owners, making them completely and conclusively the owners of the foreshore. They could not go behind that fact by any change which the Lords could make. In regard to the Amendment which had been introduced by the Lords, that Amendment did not, in the slightest degree, touch the rights of ownership. He should be unreasonable if he were to occupy the time of the House on an occasion of that kind by replying in detail to the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich, and reading aloud the clauses contained in Acts of times past affecting Preston and Southport; but in all of them, on every occasion, the Corporations of those towns had entirely disclaimed any right to the foreshore. Preston found itself at the present moment excluded from all right to the foreshore, not only by clauses in Acts of Parliament, but by clauses introduced into deeds for the purchase of small plots of land from the lords of the manor. The same thing had been done in the case of Southport for other purposes, and this fact utterly cut away all possibility on the part of that Corporation of establishing any claim whatever to the foreshore. The next point had reference to any possible damage to the interests of Southport by the execution of the works of the Ribble Navigation; and in regard to that matter he might say that the decision arrived at by the House that day would in no respect affect the carrying out the works of the Ribble Navigation. If these terrible consequences to the well-being, prosperity, and actual life of this com- munity of 40,000 persons were to be brought about by the execution of the Ribble Navigation Works, these works would, nevertheless, be executed in precisely the same manner, whether the House accepted or rejected the Amendment, because the Amendment did not affect the works at all, but only dealt with a matter of trivial importance—namely, whether the owners of the manor and foreshore should pay some small pecuniary acknowledgment to the Corporation of Preston in respect of any incidental advantages that would accrue to them in the increased value of their land by the execution of these works. It would neither confirm nor shake the ownership of the foreshore, nor alter the time or manner of carrying out the works of the Ribble Navigation, by anything that was done that day. When he said that he thought he had said enough to show that there was no real ground upon which the Corporation of Southport could ask the House to interfere in the matter in order to go behind the established rights of the lords of the manor as owners of the foreshore, and to enter upon ground in regard to which there had already been a distinct decision by a Committee of the House of Lords, that the Corporation of South-port had no locus standi whatever, because Southport possessed no possible rights. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would arrive at the conclusion that they ought to agree with the Lords' Amendment, and to reject that of the hon. Member for Ipswich.

MR. LEAKE

said, he had listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) but he thought they were entirely beside the Amendment before the House. The Corporation of Preston, who were the promoters of this Bill, had got rid of the locus standi of the Corporation of South-port by denying that any land would be reclaimed in front of the borough of Southport, and then by stating that they did not propose to make a rent charge for any land reclaimed in front of that borough on the Corporation of Southport, but on the lords of the manor. They also opposed the locus standi of the Corporation of Southport by offering to make deviations in their own training walls, in order to avoid interfering with the outlet of the sewage of Southport. Now, in the reclamation of the land which was anticipated to arise from the execution of these works, and for which a rent charge was to be made, the outlet of the sewage of Southport must, undoubtedly, be interfered with. The reclamation itself was of an unknown and uncertain character, and it could not be said that the sewage of Southport was in no danger from it. The hon. Member who had just spoken said that Preston had a great interest in South-port; but Preston had a greater interest in itself, and, in all human affairs, the Corporation of Preston would take care of themselves first, and of their neighbour Southport afterwards. What did the Corporation of Southport want? They had no desire to destroy this Bill, or to prevent the improvement of the Ribble Navigation. They did not seek to claim rights over the foreshore. Those rights were truly said to be vested ma-norially in the lords of the manor, who had legal manorial rights, and the Corporation of Southport did not seek to interfere with those legal manorial rights. But they asked the House to avoid being betrayed into giving rights over the foreshore which did not now exist, by putting a clause into the Preston Act which would give statutory rights to the owners of the manorial rights—rights which were not enjoyed at the present moment, and which were entirely opposed to the interests of Southport. The Corporation of Southport were at this moment in friendly negotiation with the lords of the manor, under the auspices of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. At present the lords of the manor, very naturally, stood upon their manorial rights; but why should Parliament give them stronger rights on which to stand during the pending negotiations by conferring upon them statutory rights? He humbly submitted that Parliament ought not to do so. It was said that the Corporation of Preston objected to give up the rent charge they would obtain from the land reclaimed by their operations—a certain rent which would be obtained from the land which might be reclaimed from the sea in the neighbourhood of Southport. Now, Southport had no interest in throwing up land between her own town and the sea; whereas Preston had thus an interest in creating as much land as possible between Southport and the sea. In considering the interests of Southport, the fact should not be overlooked that the inhabitants of Southport had converted barren sand hills into one of the most valuable properties in Lancashire; and that fact ought to overweigh the policy of preserving ancient manorial rights, and especially of extending them by a Bide 'wind, so as to infringe the growing rights of the inhabitants of Southport. He thought the argument ought not to be pressed that the Corporation of Southport had no interest in this land; but they ought to be, as they had made themselves in regard to these barren sand hills, the absolute dispensers of the future fortunes of the inhabitants of the borough of Southport. On this simple ground, and with no desire to make any assault on the rights of property, he and other hon. Members were there that day anxious to interpose between the inhabitants of Southport and a new claim, which would be, in the highest degree, detrimental to their interests. He willingly supported the Proviso moved by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings).

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he could not help thinking it was a great pity that the time of the House should be taken up in a discussion of this kind, under circumstances which rendered it quite impossible for hon. Members to come to a conclusion on the points which had been brought forward by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. Before he said a few words in regard to the position of the Ribble Navigation Bill and the town of Preston, he wished to deal with a matter to which the hon. Member who had just spoken had referred. The first point brought forward by the hon. Member was that the Corporation of Southport, when the question of their locus standi was fought in the House of Lords, were deprived of that locus standi, because it was said that no land of theirs would be reclaimed. Now, that was an entire misapprehension. The reason why the Corporation of Southport were not allowed a locus standi in the House of Lords was that they could not show they had any interest in the foreshore of Southport. They were allowed a locus standi in the House of Commons, because, as the Bill stood when it was before that House, the scheme would to some extent have interfered with the outlet of the sewage of Southport. They also claimed to be heard on the ground of having some interest in the foreshore; but that claim was disallowed. The Bill was carried through a Committee of the House of Commons, and, in the end, a clause was introduced defining the rights of the Corporation of Preston, of the lords of the manor, and of the Duchy of Lancaster, in any lands that might be reclaimed by the works to be carried out by the Corporation of Preston. That clause was, however, so framed that the Corporation of Southport were entirely excluded from its operation. If, then, the Corporation of Southport claimed any interest in the foreshore, the proper time to assert that claim was when the Bill was read a third time in the House of Commons. That was their opportunity; but they had not availed themselves of it. The Bill went to the House of Lords, and the only change made there was a slight modification of the mode in which the rights of the Corporation of Preston and the lords of the manor were defined. The Corporation of Southport, therefore, were in as good a position for bringing forward a complaint that their rights had been disregarded by the House of Commons as to ask for a reconsideration of the treatment which their claims had met with in the House of Lords. It had been suggested that land in front of the borough of Southport might be reclaimed by carrying into effect the Ribble Navigation Scheme, and that the town might be injured by the use made of it. The answer to that was that, if it were the case, the people of South-port had the power of protecting themselves, because they had the option of purchasing the whole of the foreshore in front of the town at a nominal price from the lords of the manor, upon the sole condition that no buildings should be placed upon it. He did not think it would be right to weary the House by going into details which could not be understood; and he would, therefore, say no more, except to urge that the House would do well to assert the principle that when Corporations and Companies came before Parliament to obtain sanction for great schemes of public importance, and when they had carried their Bills through in a regular way, and had dealt with the claims of all persons whom the Standing Orders required that they should take notice of, the decision of the two Houses of Par- liament to which the Bill had been referred should be upheld. He trusted that the House would support the Standing Orders, which had hitherto worked beneficially in protecting the rights of private individuals, and that they would not accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ipswich.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he had no wish to enter into any question between the borough of Preston and the borough of Southport; but he desired to explain, in a few words, why, upon public grounds, he should support the Amendment. He thought that this question of foreshores was of great public interest; indeed, the interest the public had in the foreshores of the country was so great that proposals for dealing with them would be best brought forward, not in Private, but in Public Bills. He held that all the foreshores were public property, and that the commoners had a right of access to them. The manorial owners, and so forth, who held so many of the common rights of the people, should be prohibited from preventing the access of the public to all the foreshores round the coast. He, for one, always strongly objected to any measure that would interfere with the rights and interests of the people in the foreshores; and the House of Commons ought to be especially watchful to prevent the abrogation of the public right to common land. It had been said that in this case there was an indisputable right on the part of the lords of the manor to the ownership of the foreshore; but he had seen a good deal of correspondence on that subject, from which it appeared that there was anything but an indisputable right. Both the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the lords of the manor claimed rights to the foreshore, and they seemed to have been disputed rights. It was now, however, proposed to insert this clause in a Private Bill in order to clear away this difficulty, and to give statutory rights to the lords of the manor which they did not now possess. Under these circumstances, and upon public grounds, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich.

MR. GORST

said, that nothing could possibly be more unfortunate than the account of the Bill which had just been given by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). The Bill did not give anybody any right to any foreshore at all, and much less did it cut off the right of access of the commoners and the people to the sea shore. There was no provision of the hind contained in the Bill; but the clause which had been put in by the House of Lords was simply a clause giving the Corporation of Preston a claim to certain royalties from the people who owned the foreshore, in consequence of the improvement of their property likely to be effected by the works of the Corporation. It was a simple clause to oblige persons who received the benefit of the works to pay for that benefit in the shape of a royalty. The only effect of the Amendment would be that, on this particular part of the foreshore, the people who happened to own the foreshore would get the benefit of the works undertaken for the improvement of the navigation of the Ribble without paying for it. It would do no good whatever to the locality; it would only do good to the people who happened to own the foreshore on that part of the coast. The riparian owners would have the advantage of the execution of the works of the Preston Corporation without paying for it; and for that reason he should certainly vote against the Amendment.

MR. SLAGG

said, the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken seemed to be of opinion that the Bill would give to the riparian owners absolute proprietary rights over this foreshore. That was a very serious matter. They had merely a manorial right at the present time—a right of an exceedingly shadowy character. He differed entirely from the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) that this manorial right was equal to a proprietary right. It could not be a proprietary right of a very sufficient character, inasmuch as it had already been a subject of litigation and dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Corporation of Southport of a very complex nature. The whole foreshore question was open to legal argument; and a claim of proprietorship, based upon a lawsuit, appeared to him to be not of a very stable character. It was perfectly true that an ownership had been acknowledged to this extent—that, on the sale of some of the disputed property, payments had been made by the Corporation of Southport and others; but those payments had been made not as a necessary acknowledgment of proprietary rights, but, as in many other cases, as a sort of black mail for the purpose of avoiding litigation. What would this clause do? It would remove that claim out of the shadowy region of legal dispute into the solid form of a proprietary right. Like the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he was speaking entirely in the public interests; he had no personal interest in the question whatever, and he might say that his chief locus standi in the matter consisted in this—that his own Corporation of the borough of Manchester had petitioned the House of Commons against the clause on the ground that there were millions of working people in Lancashire who were interested in the question, seeing that Southport was a place of sanitary resort, and the favourite place at the seaside to which they could go and enjoy themselves. It was of the greatest consequence to those persons that the sea should be left open to them; and this clause, if passed, might place it in the power of certain landowners to build property, possibly to the extent of a new town, between the borough of Southport and the sea. He could not conceive a question of graver public importance. He was pleased to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) declare that, whatever course the House took in regard to this clause, it would make no difference whatever to the Corporation of Preston. He should be sorry, for one, to take any action that would militate against the interests of Preston; he was very much interested in the progress, advancement, and everything that tended to improve the position of Preston; but he was satisfied that if the House passed the Bill as it now stood, it would, without benefiting Preston, inflict a serious injury upon the town of Southport.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, the House was anxious, naturally, to divide on the question, and he thought the main points had been already so clearly explained both by his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) and by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that he did not think it would be necessary to go back upon them or attempt to deal with them. He only rose now to point out that an expression which the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had made use of—namely, that certain payments had been levied as a sort of black mail upon the Corporation of Southport in other cases—was one that was not really borne out by the facts of the case. If they looked back to the Acts passed in former years, such as the Southport Improvement Act, which was the Act of 1871, they would find in Section 213 a declaration that nothing contained in the Act was in any manner to injure, prejudice, or in any other way affect the rights of property and so forth in respect of the shore or the bed of the sea, which were reported to belong to, or were exercised and enjoyed by, the Trustees of the Scarisbrick Estate. The Act of 1876 incorporated the same provision, and in 1878, in a conveyance to the Corporation of a portion of the land to the north of the town, there was a provision that nothing therein contained should be held to give to the Corporation or their assigns any right to, or interest in, the soil or bed of the foreshore of the sea. Then it was said that the lords of the manor desired to levy black mail, and to shut out from the people of Southport their enjoyment of the sea, which was the very life of the town. He believed he was justified in saying that the riparian owners had in all respects submitted themselves in the most entire and open way to the arbitration which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had proposed, and they were perfectly willing to give, at a merely nominal price, the whole extent of the foreshore in front of the town. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No!] That was what he was informed; but, of course, with the usual reservation that such land was not to be built upon. Therefore, as far as the sea was concerned, that question was completely answered. He did not rise so much for the purpose of going into these matters as to express a hope that the debate would not be allowed to conclude without a few words from the Chancellor of the Duchy to say how he viewed the question. Of course, he could understand that his right hon. Friend had a delicate duty to discharge in respect of the matter, seeing that he was holding out the prospect of arbitration with the lords of the manor on the one side and the Corporation of South- port on the other. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Duchy would be able to tell the House that it was his intention to support the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, and to reject the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ipswich.

MR. DODSON

said, his right hon. and gallant Friend who had just sat down had appealed to him to express to the House his opinion in regard to the Amendment which had been moved to the clause inserted by the House of Lords in the Ribble Navigation Bill. Placed, as he was, in the position of having offered to mediate or bring about an arbitration between the two parties concerned—namely, the riparian owners and the Corporation of Southport, he should not have wished to take any part that might seem to be adverse to one party or the other; but he would candidly express his opinion, as he was called upon to do so; and he thought he could do so in a manner that would not be adverse to one party or the other. Before he went on to state what his views were, he wished to correct an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and from the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg). The position was simply this. The title to this particular foreshore was in dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian proprietors, and the Duchy settled the question by selling their claim to the parties who claimed adversely to them. That, he thought, would be regarded by those who were disposed to take a dispassionate view of the question as a very reasonable way of settling the difficulty. [Cries of "No!"] He ventured to think that it was, and most hon. Gentlemen would be glad to follow such an example, if they could do so, in any case in which they were personally concerned. But, then, his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) said, in effect—"You are thereby taking the foreshore away from the public, and placing it under private control." That was an absolute and entire mistake. The negotiations between the Duchy and the riparian owners did not affect one jot or tittle of the rights of the public over the foreshore. The law was strictly this—no owner, not even the Crown, whatever his title might be, could deal with the foreshore either to build upon it, enclose upon it, reclaim it, exclude the public from it, or exercise any new right over it, unless he obtained an Act of Parliament for that purpose. No transaction between the Duchy and the riparian proprietors conferred such a right upon the riparian proprietors; and this Ribble Navigation Bill conferred upon them no such power, or, indeed, any power whatever, in regard to this foreshore. The Bill provided for the contingency of reclamation arising from the navigation works which, under its authority, might hereafter be constructed by the Corporation of Preston; and it provided generally that such reclamations should vest in the Corporation of Preston. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No!] As regarded the foreshore generally, it provided that any reclamations should vest in the Corporation of Preston. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: NO!] He said "Yes!" but subject to certain paymonts to be made to the adjoining proprietors. In regard to this particular part of the foreshore—namely, that within the Manor of North Meols—which the House was now dealing with, the Bill provided conversely that any reclamations upon it should vest in the riparian proprietors, subject to certain payments to be made by them to the Corporation of Preston. How did that affect Southport, whichever way it was? In neither case would the reclamations on the foreshore be vested in the Corporation of Southport. In the one case it vested in the Corporation of Preston, subject to a payment to the owners; in the other case, it vested in the owners, subject to a payment to the Corporation of Preston. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich were carried it would vest the last-named reclamation in the Corporation of Preston, with a right of pre-emption on the part of the riparian owners. He did not see how that could benefit the Corporation of Southport. And now let him say one word as to the clause in regard to the manner in which it affected the public, and its bearing upon the mediation or arbitration which he was endeavouring to bring about. The whole basis and raison d'être of the mediation he had offered, and the arbitration he had proposed, was that the riparian proprietors were the owners of the foreshore, within the limits of the manor; and his mediation or arbitration was offered as to the terms upon which the Corporation of Southport should be allowed to acquire that foreshore, or some part of it, from those who were the owners of it. Such being the case, his mediation or arbitration was not at all affected by the allegation that in consequence of this Bill the title of the owners of this foreshore was a little better or a little worse. The position of the Duchy was this. The riparian owners owned the foreshore, and were legally the rightful owners of it, subject to the rights of the public which had always existed over it; and it was on that basis exclusively that his mediation and arbitration was to take place. That being the case, he did not feel in any way called upon to do otherwise than support the Ribble Navigation Bill, as it had been approved by Parliament. In doing so, he was not of opinion that he would injure the position of the Corporation of Southport, nor would the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich improve it; nor would that Amendment at all influence the basis of the arbitration, which rested on the assumption that the riparian proprietors were the rightful owners of the foreshore.

MR. RAIKES

said, he should not have supposed, at a time when they were told that Parliament was so un-precedently overtasked in the performance of its ordinary duties, that the House would have been invited to try a very difficult question of private title. He thought that considerable ingenuity had been exercised in finding a peg on which to hang a debate upon the question of the Southport foreshore; and, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy, the House would perceive that the matter raised by the Amendment was entirely different from the questions which the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to mediate upon between the Town Council of Southport and the riparian owners. The question, as put by the right hon. Gentleman, and by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), appeared to be simply this—whether the Amendment introduced in the Bill by the House of Lords, which vested a portion of the reclaimed land in the riparian owners, subject to the rights of the Corporation of Preston to receive certain payments, was to stand, or whether it was to revert, as far as the foreshore was concerned, back to the arrangement made when the Bill was in the House of Commons, by which the reclaimed land was to vest in the Corporation of Preston, subject to certain rights which might accrue to the riparian owners. His hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) disclaimed any wish to obtain any advantage for the town of Preston at the expense of the riparian owners; and the promoters of the Bill had acted loyally by the agreement entered into when the Bill was before a Committee of the House of Lords; but if the House were to pass the present Amendment, it seemed to him that they would be taking advantage of the fact of an alteration which was scarcely more than one of a verbal character which had been made in the House of Lords with the consent of the Committee of that House, and with that of the only parties who were qualified to appear before that Committee, in order to re-open a question which the Committee of the House of Commons was precluded, owing to the rules of locus standi, from entertaining when the Bill was before them. Now, was that a dignified mode of proceeding? He ventured to think that, if they were to re-try all these questions of great detail, they would be placed in a position of extreme difficulty, for this was a question which could hardly be made intelligible to any Member without a map. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion, although he made a most elaborate speech, did not pretend to give more than the briefest outline of the case; and after the Bill had been carefully considered by Committees of both Houses, were they now to re-open it on the floor of the House of Commons, and to pronounce an opinion upon a matter in regard to which Committees of both Houses had arrived at a careful conclusion upon evidence and data which was accessible to them, but which was not accessible to Members of that House?

MR. CHEETHAM

said, he rose to correct a mis-statement which had been made by the junior Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), and which had been repeated by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley), to the effect that an offer was made by the lords of the manor, at a nominal price, of the whole of the foreshore to the Corporation of Southport. Now, the offer made had reference only to a small portion of the foreshore immediately opposite the Promenade; but the borough of Southport extended in a north-easterly direction considerably beyond that point; and if the offer was to be of any use, it ought to cover the whole of the 4,000 acres in dispute. He spoke on this matter from an intimate personal knowledge of Southport; and his conviction was that the acquisition of this portion of the foreshore was of the most vital consequence to the borough. It was of the utmost importance that the borough should be in a position to develop freely and readily in 'a seaward direction, and it could alone do that by becoming the proprietor of this foreshore. It was said that there was little difference made in the position of Southport by the operation of this clause; but there was this difference—that the clause inserted in the Commons vested the reclaimed land in the Corporation of Preston, with a right of pre-emption to the owners of the ancient freeholds who could show a title to the foreshore. If Southport, therefore, through the good offices of the Chancellor of the Duchy, acquired that right, it would have obtained a right of pre-emption from the Corporation of Preston. Under the clause inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords that position was altogether reversed. The reclaimed land was vested in the lords of the manor, and to that extent the Bill gave a Parliamentary title, to the prejudice of the town of Southport. He believed that the position of South-port would be very seriously prejudiced if this clause were adopted, and the Corporation of Southport had to deal with the riparian owners instead of the Corporation of Preston.

MR. TOMLINSON

rose to explain, as the statement he had made had been disputed.

MR. SPEAKER

ruled that the hon. Member, having already addressed the House, was out of Order.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 173: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 166.)

Clause 68A agreed to.

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.