SECOND READING. (Hansard, 31 July 1883)

HC Deb 31 July 1883 vol 282 cc1123-32 1123

§ Order for Second Reading read.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE
said, he was very unwilling to intervene between the House and the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, because he was quite sure that the House was anxious to reach that Bill, as, indeed, he was himself. He would not, therefore, detain the House more than for two or three minutes, while he explained the reasons which had induced him to put down his Notice of opposition to the Bill. The House would remember that this Bill was opposed last Session, on the second reading, by the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel), and on the third reading by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). It was then referred to an Hybrid Committee. He understood that the conditions of every Hybrid Committee were such, that every question could be taken notice of by the Committee, without the necessity of the persons opposing the Bill appearing before the Standing Order Com- 1124 mittee to obtain a locus standi. It appeared to him (Viscount Folkestone) that a Bill going before a Committee of that sort would have all its provisions duly weighed and considered; and he had certainly supposed that the Tolling and Rating Clauses in particular would receive careful consideration. After the Bill had passed the Hybrid Committee to which he referred, it was opposed on the third reading; but it was eventually passed by the House with certain Rating and Toll Clauses inserted in it. But, to his astonishment, the Company came before the House this year, and asked the House, having already obtained the permission of the House of Lords, to sanction higher tolls than those which were asked for last Session. That certainly appeared to him to be a somewhat startling proposition. The Bill had passed, after certain opposition to it, with certain tolls allowed by the Committee to which it was referred; and yet, strange to say, the very next Session the Company promoting it came to the House and asked for an increase of those tolls. It must be borne in mind what sort of a Bill it was. It was a sort of Navigation Bill for a combined railway and canal; and the House were now told that the tolls inserted in the Bill last year were inserted by inadvertence. That appeared to him to be a somewhat extraordinary circumstance. He could not understand how Gentlemen who presumed to be business men, having charge of a largo measure of this kind, could have allowed Toll Clauses to be inserted in the Bill, so low that it would be utterly impossible for them to pay the Railway Company. If that fact were true, it appeared to him that there could not have been anyone of fair business capacity in charge of the Bill. He was told that the person who drafted the Bill took the Model Clause, and inserted the Toll Clauses that were laid down for country railways, which did not require so much capital for making them as a line of this sort, which ran through the heart of the Metropolis. He was further told that this fact was not found out last year until after the Bill had passed through Committee, and that the mistake had arisen solely through inadvertence. The person who was responsible for the inadvertence went, he believed, to the Office of the Chairman of Committees 1125 in "another place," and endeavoured to get the Bill re-committed, so as to have the Toll Clauses altered; but it was found to be impossible, and he was advised that the only course that could be taken would be to go to Parliament this year for another Bill, in which there should be embodied an enhancement of the tolls. That was the question the House had to deal with now; and, curious as it appeared to be, it was, nevertheless, the fact that the tolls the Company were now authorized to charge had really got into the Bill through inadvertence, and it would be impossible for the Company to carry on the line without an enhancement of tolls. He would not trouble the House by going into any details upon the matter. He had brought it forward in order to show the House what the facts were, and especially to call attention to the circumstance that the Railway Company was coming up now for an enhancement of tolls, although the Act by which the tolls were fixed was only passed last year. He desired, by the action he was now taking, to call the attention of the Board of Trade, in particular, to the facts of the case. Only this year a Standing Order had been passed requiring the Board of Trade to make a Report in regard to any Rating or Toll Clauses inserted in these Bills. He believed the Board of Trade was now required to present a Report in regard to every new Railway Bill, and every Bill which asked for further powers; but, generally speaking, so far, the Board of Trade had employed a stereotyped phrase stating— That the Bill did not appear to authorize any tolls that were heavier than those which had been authorized for a like undertaking in former years. Now, he hoped the Board of Trade would take very particular cognizance of the facts of this case, and that, when the Bill went before a Committee, it would report to the Committee what the real facts were, and whether, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, the inadvertence was one which should be rectified or not. If the Board of Trade would do that, he had no doubt the question would be fully considered by the Committee, and that their decision would give complete satisfaction to the House. Under those circumstances, he did not propose to move the Amendment 1126 of which he had given Notice; but he thought the Bill ought to be permitted to proceed.

§ MR. MONK
said, that when the noble Viscount the Member for South Wilts (Viscount Folkestone) rose to address the House, he (Mr. Monk) had been under the impression that he intended to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months, seeing that the noble Viscount had put an Amendment upon the Paper to that effect. He (Mr. Monk) proposed to imitate the noble Lord in one respect—namely, in being as brief as possible in the statement he had to make. The history of this Railway Company was a remarkable one. The Company came into existence in the year 1882, and had now been in existence for some nine months. One of the objects of the Company was to absorb the Regent's Canal; and, in the opinion of many hon. Members who opposed the Bill who were able to form a judgment upon the matter, that object was one which would seriously interfere with the water communication of this country. The subject was considered by Parliament last year. The Bill was opposed on the second reading, and also on the third reading; and the advocates of the measure made out what was considered to be a favourable case, their case being that the poor workmen who resided in the neighbourhood of London would be conveyed at fabulously small fares by the new railway, and that the tolls charged by the new Railway Company should not be higher than those demanded on the Regent's Canal. The House was quite struck by the generosity of the Company, who came forward to ask leave to make the now Railway, and the Bill was passed by a very large majority. Then, as the noble Viscount told the House, before the Act had been in operation three months, the Company came again to Parliament, or rather gave Notice for two new Bills. Ono of those Bills had already passed both Houses of Parliament, and the other was the "Various Powers" Bill, asking Parliament to increase every one of the tolls, in the teeth of what happened when the Company obtained their Act last year. He (Mr. Monk) would tell the promoters at once that if they would withdraw one of the clauses of the Bill he would withdraw his opposition to it, and would not move 1127 its rejection. The clause he asked them to withdraw was Clause 5 of the Bill, which proposed that the cost of the carriage of coal should be raised from 1¼d. to 1½d. per mile; that all other goods in Class I. should be raised from 4d. to 11d. per ton; that the charge for goods in Class II. should be raised from 1½d. to 2d.; in Class III., from 2d. to 3d.; in Class IV. from 2½d. to 4d; and in Class V. from 4d. to 5d. The increase of tolls contained in that clause was the ground, and the only ground, on which he should ask the House to reject the Bill. The noble Viscount the Member for South Wilts, in his remarks upon the Bill, informed the House that the scale of tolls, on the strength of which the Act of last Session was passed, and in reference to which an hon. Friend of his, who opposed the rejection of the third reading last year, waxed quite eloquent, when he spoke of the advantages the poor of London would derive from the passing of the Bill, in being able to travel more cheaply, and in having their goods conveyed on the same terms as by the Canal, had been found inadequate to remunerate this new Railway Company. The noble Viscount said that that scale of charges had been introduced by more inadvertence. But it was in consequence of that very scale of charges that the Bill passed, against a very strong opposition raised to it last year. He had himself presented numerous Petitions against the absorption of the great Canals of the country by Railway Companies. The promises of the promoters last year were, however, most profuse, and it was upon those promises that they obtained their Bill. A Circular had now been issued and delivered to hon. Members, informing them that the scale of charges inserted in the Bill last year was inserted through inadvertence and error, the words used in the Circular being "for inadvertence, and without sufficient consideration having been given to the subject." He would ask the House if it was likely that the astute gentlemen who financed the Company would not have given sufficient consideration to the amount of tolls proposed to be charged in the Bill? He declined to accept this excuse, although the noble Viscount had accepted it. He refused to accept the explanation, and he thought the House of Commons ought to require a 1128 much more satisfactory explanation of the matter, before they gave the Company power to raise their tolls one-fourth, and even one-third, above the amount at which they were fixed by the Act passed last Session. There was another important matter which he must not omit to mention. Section 39 of the Act of last year contained a provision that the Company should keep and maintain the railway thoroughly. He had opposed the Bill last year, because he felt certain that the Railway Company would neglect the Canal, and he wished to state to the House what the present state of a portion of the Canal which had been purchased by the Railway Company was. He referred to its condition in the parish of Marylebone, and he would ask the attention of his hon. Friends the Members for Marylebone to this statement. Dr. Winter Bligh had presented a Report, in which he stated that dead bodies of animals were left floating about the Canal, and that there was a poisonous and offensive deposit of mud three feet in depth; the water of the Canal was five or six times more impure than the water of the Thames; it was most offensive to smell, and it exuded the poisonous gases which accompanied decomposition. With cholera at our doors, was that a state in which the Regent's Canal should be left? Notwithstanding, the House was asked to give powers to the Company to increase its tolls, while it was neglecting one of its first duties. He had said that be would be very brief in making his objections to this measure. He thought he had made one a strong case against the Company; and he had already stated that, if they would withdraw Clause 5 of the Bill, he would withdraw his opposition to the measure. He objected altogether to a Bill of that kind going before a Committee as an unopposed measure. Such a Committee would be presided over by the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means; but he would not be assisted by an ordinary Private Bill Committee, to consider and inquire into the matters involved. If it were even proposed that the Bill should go before a Hybrid Committee, he would not move the rejection of the measure; but, as that would not be the case, he would move that the Bill be read the third time upon that day three months.

1129

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

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

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, that he was not at all surprised that the noble Viscount the Member for South Wilts (Viscount Folkestone) and his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had called attention to the provisions of this Bill, which were certainly very exceptional; but, at the same time, his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was somewhat inconsistent in his opposition to the Bill, because he expressed himself as perfectly willing to withdraw his Amendment, if the Company would withhold Clause 5; and yet he said that the insanitary condition of the Canal was so bad that the Company had not taken sufficient precautions to prevent the spread of cholera. Now, he (Mr. Chamberlain) must say that the withdrawal of Clause 5 would have no effect upon the sanitary condition of the Canal.

§ MR. MONK
said, he hoped he might be allowed to say that the sanitary condition of the Canal, unfortunately, had nothing to do with the present Bill; and, therefore, he could not make that a ground for rejecting the measure. He opposed the Bill on account of the increase of tolls which it involved.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, it was, no doubt, open to the remarks which had been made, both by the noble Viscount and his hon. Friend, that the Company, having obtained their Bill last year, with a particular Schedule of tolls, were now coming forward, 12 months later, with a Bill seeking to increase those tolls by 25, 30, and 50 per cent. Now, the circumstances of the case were briefly these—The undertaking of the Company was a very important one, involving the expenditure of some millions of money; but the success of it would do something to relieve the congestion of the traffic in some of the streets of the Metropolis, and would also provide a better access to the Docks. It was, therefore, an undertaking in the success of which the public were interested. The Company alleged, and he believed truthfully, that owing to the bad advice they received last year they 1130 had inserted in the Bill a Schedule of tolls that was altogether unremunerative, and much less than had been allowed for similar untertakings in the Metropolis, but that they only found out their mistake when it was too late to remedy it last year. Under these circumstances, they came to the House of Lords this year to ask for an alteration of the rates. The Board of Trade had made a Report on the matter, in which they called attention to the proposed alterations, and pointed out that the rates maintained last year were less, on the whole, than those which had been allowed to similar undertakings, although, no doubt, they were considerably higher than the rates allowed in the case of country railways. On the merits of the case, he did think the rates now proposed were such as would not be likely to be rejected by the Committee, if they had been included in the Bill in the first instance. The Report of the Board of Trade went on to say that it was unfortunate that, in a case which had been so much contested, provisions should be asked for to increase the rates, almost immediately after the Bill fixing those rates had received the sanction of Parliament. If it was the impression of the House, as it certainly was of the Board of Trade, that those rates were such as would have been allowed in the original Bill of the Company, if the Company had not been precluded, by inadvertence, from altering the rates, he thought it was a case in which the House might allow the second reading of the Bill to pass, with a view of having the case settled by the Committee to which the Bill would naturally be referred. The Report of the Board of Trade which was laid before the Lords' Committee would be submitted to the Commons' Committee; and he hoped that, under the circumstances, his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would withdraw his Amendment.

MAJOR DICKSON
said, he thought it was unfair for the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) to endeavour to prejudice the Bill by the statement he had made in reference to the sanitary condition of the Canal. He (Major Dickson) did not think the Canal was better nor worse than it had been for the last 50 years. The only reason which induced him to take part in the debate 1131 was that he might state that he had authority for assuring the House that the Schedule of rates inserted last year was inserted entirely from inadvertence, and that it was simply for the purpose of correcting this error that the present Bill had been introduced. He therefore appealed to the House to read the Bill a second time, and allow it to be considered by a Committee upstairs.

§ MR. HICKS
said, that, having been one of those who had joined in a strong opposition to the Bill last year, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the facts of the ease. In the first place, this Company, instead of being a Metropolitan Company, was part of the Great Western Railway Company; and, therefore, it was in exactly the same position as any of the great railways in the Metropolis. In the second place, when the Great Western Railway Company came before the House last year to obtain possession of the last link of the great canal system of the country, they did so, not on the ground that they were going to carry goods, but that they were going to carry passengers; but now, having got possession of the Canal under such representations, they came before the House to ask for increased tolls for carrying goods.

§ SIR JOSEPH BAILEY
said, he could understand the objection, if the Company were now asking the House for an increase of tolls upon the Canal; but, as a matter of fact, the increase was asked for upon the railway on account of the inadvertence committed last year. As Chairman of the Committee which sat upon the Bill last year, he should certainly support the second reading.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he had supported the hon. Member for Cambridge-shire (Mr. Hicks) in his opposition to the original Bill of this Railway Company. It now turned 'out that the objections urged against the measure were very well founded, and not only so, but the House were in this position—that they were unable to discuss the merits of this most important question, because it was impossible to deal with Private Bill legislation in the House itself, except to the detriment of the Public Business of the country. He had simply risen to protest against this system, by which all the substantial interests of the 1132 country were sacrificed to the demon of over-centralization. They were told that there was no time to discuss the question, except to the detriment of the real interests of the country; and year after year important questions of this kind were scamped, simply that they might keep up the rights of a Central Chamber of legislation, which was totally inadequate to do the Business of the country.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Main Question put, and agreed to.

§ Bill read a second time, and committed.