THIRD READING.

HC Deb 25 April 1884 vol 287 cc605-46

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that in consequence of certain incidents which transpired on a recent occasion it would, perhaps, be as well that he should state to the House, at the opening of the remarks he was about to make with regard to this question, that it was in no shape or form tinged with the colour of Party. He might mention, as an evidence of that, that among the chief opponents of the measure who had taken a very large part in promoting Petitions and otherwise expressing an opinion against the scheme were, in the first place, the Chairman of the Stockton Liberal Association, and another chief opponent, who employed something like 1,000 hands, was, he was told, a former President of the same Association. He mentioned that fact so as to clear the ground entirely in regard to the district to which he was about to refer, lest the House might be induced to believe that the measure partook somewhat of a Party character. The merits of the scheme, to which he wished to draw the attention of the House, were very clearly set forth in the official Report of the Inspector of the Board of Trade, Colonel Yolland. Colonel Yolland said— I do not gather, from the statements which the engineer laid before me, that there is any specific want on the part of the public that will he satisfied by the construction of this short piece of railway, but that it is proposed as a speculation, as the means of utilizing a small portion of unoccupied ground in Stockton Carrs; and provided the public safety is not unnecessarily endangered by the construction of this work, there would probably be no objection to its being sanctioned. But two level crossings of public roads in the town of South Stockton are proposed to be constructed on this short portion of railway. Colonel Yolland went on to say— In my opinion, other means of reaching this piece of unoccupied land at Stockton Carrs should be found. The number of persons killed at level crossings of different kinds on railways in the year 1883 was 78, and 51 were injured, and these numbers were in excess of the numbers killed and injured at similar level crossings on the average of the previous eight years. He would beg the attention of the Home Secretary, who was responsible for the lives of Her Majesty's subjects, and also of the President of the Board of Trade, to these statements. Colonel Yolland concluded by saying— I therefore recommend that the proposed level crossings may not he allowed, as they appear to me to be entirely unnecessary. Now, that was the Report of Colonel Yolland; and he had read it to the House, because he thought it better that a statement of that kind should emanate from an impartial authority, and not from one who, like himself, had had his attention called to it by persons locally interested in the merits of the scheme. Now, with regard to the level crossings to which Colonel Yolland referred, he himself (Mr. J. Lowther) had taken a recent opportunity of inspecting the ground in question. He had gone down to this place, and he had been enabled to judge for himself. He had visited it at a time when a portion of the working men who must necessarily pass over the tract of ground where these level crossings were proposed to be constructed were returning to their work from their dinner. He was, therefore, in a position to assure the House that a very large number of workmen would be daily compelled to pass over these level crossings, and that very considerable inconvenience, if not, as Colonel Yolland suggested, actual danger must arise. Statistics were not usually very acceptable to the House, and he only proposed to inflict a very few upon it; but he thought it right to mention that observations had been taken on a given day, and it was found that the piece of ground proposed by the Bill to be occupied by these crossings was traversed in one day by 309 vehicles and by 12,594 foot passengers. In addition to a traffic of that kind, there were no inconsiderable number of the rising generation playing about, who were the inhabitants of the neighbouring houses, and he left the House to judge how far it might or might not constitute an augmented danger. He might also inform the House that there had for some time past been a strong local feeling in South Stockton against level crossings as a general principle. But there had been what might be called a very formidable agitation locally set on foot against these particular level crossings. It was only fair to mention that among the most active opponents of these crossings was one of the gentlemen who had appeared before the Chairman of Ways and Means the other day in order to state his approval of the scheme. Mr. Walker held a position upon the Local Board as Chairman of the Paving Committee, and he had taken a very active part against these level crossings; but he seemed to have become enlisted in favour of those proposed by the present Bill. He hoped the House would allow him (Mr. Lowther) to place before them as briefly as he could the extraordinary, unparalleled, and he hoped he might say for-ever-after unexampled, history of this scheme. The Board of Health of South Stockton consisted of 15 members; and when the proposal was made before the Board that the Bill should be approved there were seven members who voted for the scheme and six against it. There were, he was told, 14 members present; but one gentleman, who was a promoter of the Bill as well as being a member of the Board, had the good taste to abstain from voting on that occasion. He thought the House would fully appreciate the good taste displayed by this gentleman in not voting in a matter in which he was personally interested. The question was raised before the Board on a second occasion, when a virtual attempt was made to rescind the vote previously arrived at. It appeared on that occasion that eight voted for the scheme and seven against it; but among those who voted for it he regretted to find the name of Mr. Promoter Breckon, the gentleman whose self-denying ordinance on the previous occasion he had felt it his duty to commend. Thus the approval of the Bill was carried by a majority of one, that one being a promoter, who happened to possess a seat upon the Local Board. Public opinion in Stockton had not been idle during that time. A requisition was got up at a public meeting of the inhabitants, at which the chair was taken by the Chairman of the Local Board of Health. At that meeting a resolution was passed in the following terms: — That this meeting regrets the action taken by the Local Board of South Stockton in assenting to the Bill of the proposed South Stockton Carrs' Railway, thereby approving of a level crossing being made through the public thoroughfare. A second resolution was also passed— That this meeting respectfully recommends the Local Board to reconsider their decision, and strongly urges the importance of opposing the measure in Parliament. These resolutions were signed, on the part of the meeting, by Mr. John Watson, the Chairman of the Local Board of Health. The effect of the passing of these resolutions did not appear to be absolutely nil, because he found that on the next occasion that the matter came before the Board it was proposed that the Bill, as amended in a manner he would afterwards describe, should be approved by the Board. Against that proposal he found there was a majority of one, the form of amendment being that the amended Bill be referred to a certain Committee—[Mr. DODDS: No.] At any rate, the Board declined to sanction the scheme at that time; but after it became the lot of certain members of the Board of Health to vacate their seats under the Act of Parliament a new election was held to fill up the vacancies. He would not trouble the House by going in full detail into the result of those elections, as he was anxious to save the time of the House; but it brought matters to this point-that he now held in his hand a Petition, signed by a majority of the legally-elected members of the Local Board of Health, praying the House not to give its consent to this Bill.

MR. DODDS

rose to a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was about to read to the House a Petition signed by certain members of the South Stockton Local Board of Health. Now, the point of Order he desired to raise was this—whether, having regard to the Standing Orders of the House, it was competent for any hon. Member to read a Petition with reference to a Private Bill which had not been presented to the House in the ordinary way—namely, by being deposited in the Private" Bill Office of the House?

MR. GUY DAWNAY

This is the third reading of the Bill, and no other opportunity can be afforded for bringing a Petition before the House.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that in order to enable the Speaker to rule upon that point, he must inform him of the fact that the Petition was one which had been signed by a majority of the legally-elected members of the Stockton Board of Health, praying the House to decline to give its assent to the third reading of the Bill. It was obvious, therefore, that this was not a Petition praying to be heard by counsel and witnesses in the usual manner, but was totally distinct from the ordinary procedure in respect of Private Bills.

MR. SPEAKER

I understand that the Petition has not been presented to the House.

MR. J. LOWTHER

I am about to present it now.

MR. DODDS

It cannot be presented to this House except in the ordinary way—namely, through the Private Bill Office.

MR. SPEAKER

It appears to me that this is not the time to present the Petition, and that, technically, the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to road it. But the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to state, generally, the substance of what passed.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, his only object in alluding to the Petition, or in taking any other steps in regard to the Bill, was to place the House of Commons in full possession of the facts of the case, in order to allow the House, without prejudice to one side or the other, to decide the question on its merits. Following the instructions of Mr. Speaker, he would confine himself to the statement that this was a Petition signed by eight gentlemen out of 15 constituting the Stockton Local Board of Health, immediately after a popular election which had produced a change in the composition of that Body, and the Petition requested the House to decline to give its assent to the third reading of the Bill. The Board of Health had taken other steps to make its opinion known; and he thought it right, after the interruption which had just occurred, that he should, in defence of the Local Board, state how it came about that they took the unusual form of making their wishes known to Parliament by signing a Peti- tion for presentation to the House on the part of the majority. As soon as the new elections had terminated, a requisition was forwarded by certain members of the South Stockton Local Board, requesting that a meeting of the Board should be convened, at which formal action was to be taken in the direction of rescinding the previous Resolution to which he had referred. This requisition was addressed to the clerk of the Board, and he (Mr. J. Lowther) held in his hand the answer which was sent to the requisitionists by the clerk of the Board. He saw that it was dated, "South Stockton Local Board, Clerk's Office, Stockton-on-Tees, April 1884," and there was in the margin of the letter the following words in print:— "Clerk, Joseph Dodds, M.P." It would appear that the attempt to suppress the opinion of the legally elected representatives of the ratepayers of South Stockton which had just been made in that House, was attempted likewise on a previous occasion; for he found that the Gentleman who was described as "Joseph Dodds, M.P.," and who signed the Circular as clerk to the Board, sent the following reply to the requisitionists, who were simply seeking, in a regular manner, to obtain the decision of the Local Government Board of Health on the subject. The latter acknowledged the receipt of the communication from the Local Board. It went on to say— It is not legally competent to the Board to proceed in the manner indicated in their requisition. I shall, however, send out notices for a special meeting as requested. He would not trouble the House with details of the special meeting that was held. He would only point out that, owing to some technicality in connection with the bye-laws of the Local Board of Health, it was found that it would not be practicable to rescind the previous Resolution without certain definite steps in the way of notice being taken, and also that, a certain proportion of the members must be present, and that the majority for rescinding the Resolution already passed must be one of two-thirds. In consequence of that difficulty, the Local Board of Health had been driven to an expression of their views in a somewhat unusual manner; but, at any rate, they did pass a Resolution in the following terms:— That, in the opinion of this Board, the Resolution passed in favour of the Stockton Carrs Railway Bill should be rescinded, and that legal steps should be taken to rescind such Resolution as soon as may be convenient. There voted for that Resolution eight, and six against it. He was told that the gentleman who abstained on the first occasion, on the ground of his connection with the promotion of the scheme, voted amongst the minority; but that was a detail into which it was not necessary to enter. The fact was that the Local Board of Health of South Stockton, as now constituted, had, by a majority of eight against six, declared against this scheme. He had already referred to the measures which had been taken locally for expressing the opinion of the ratepayers and their representatives. He had omitted, however, to state that in addition to being signed by the majority of the Local Board of Health to which he had referred, and in addition to the Resolution of the Local Board, steps Lad been taken to express the local opinion. In passing, he might remark that his hon. Friend the Member for the North Riding (Mr. Guy Dawnay) had had forwarded to him several Petitions, largely signed by working men employed at the works situated in the vicinity of these level crossings, which working men would have to pass such level crossings several times in the course of the day. There had been, as he had already stated, other means adopted to give expression to the local opinion. Some of the large manufacturers, including the Chairman and ex-Chairman of the political Body to which he had already referred, had presented a Petition to Parliament in a regular manner, asking for leave to be heard by counsel and witnesses against the second reading of the Bill. They were refused that privilege by the Standing Order, or Locus Standi Tribunal. He did not presume to express any opinion upon the action of that Tribunal. From his knowledge of the Gentlemen who composed it, he had no doubt they arrived at a thoroughly just and honest conclusion. They disallowed the Petition, and the Bill became what was technically known as an unopposed Bill. The House would be aware that unopposed Bills went before the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means. Of course, it would be presumptuous in him to say anything as to the competency of the Chairman of Ways and Means to conduct an inquiry in regard to any Private Bill introduced into Parliament; but he would take the liberty of saying this—that it would not be possible to find any Gentleman more thoroughly capable of conducting an inquiry into the merits of any Bill, if he had only the means afforded him of conducting an impartial inquiry. He (Mr. J. Lowther) would only say of his own knowledge, as the result of inquiry, that the hon. Baronet who now filled that Office not only exerted himself the same as his Predecessors in times past to discharge the duties imposed upon him with efficiency, but that he had, notwithstanding the considerable demands upon his own time and health, gone very much more closely into the details of unopposed Private Bills than was formerly the case. But what were the means which the Chairman of Ways and Means had at his disposal for sifting the merits of unopposed Private Bills? The hon. Gentleman had to be dependent upon such evidence as might be forthcoming at the instance of the promoters of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not have the advantage of hearing witnesses, except from one side; and he had not the advantage of hearing those witnesses cross-examined by counsel. The hon. Gentleman, in fact, had to discharge duties somewhat analogous to those which were performed by a Grand Jury. He had to hear ex parte statements, and arrive at the best conclusion he could upon the very slender information presented to him. That being the case, the hon. Baronet must have been largely dependent upon gentlemen who represented the promoters of the Bill. What did he find? The hon. Baronet, who, as he (Mr. J. Lowther) had said just now, was exceedingly desirous of forming, after the fullest inquiry which was available to him, a comprehensive judgment upon the issue submitted to him, had one engineer called before him. This engineer was a gentleman about whom he could say nothing beyond this, which was, that he was one of the actual promoters of the Bill, and that he had devoted his attention throughout his life not to railway matters at all, but to matters connected with water. He was a river engineer, who had not, he (Mr. J. Lowther) believed, attained any great mark in his profession; but, of course, that was a matter with which the House had no concern. It was, however, right that he should point out that he was not, in any shape or form, a gentleman capable of expressing the opinion of an expert upon a railway matter. [Sir ARTHUR OTWAY: Who is he?] The gentleman to whom he referred was Mr. John Fowler. The hon. Baronet had asked for the name; and he might tell the House that although the name of this gentleman was "John Fowler," he must not be confounded with the eminent engineer of that name. He was a gentleman of local celebrity only, and the hon. Baronet, in his desire to obtain full information, had actually had palmed upon him a gentleman who was not a railway engineer at all. It was just as right that they should consult an occulist for the tooth-ache as to employ a water engineer upon questions of railway construction. [Mr. HOPWOOD: Oh!] He begged the hon. and learned Member's pardon; this was a matter which involved not only very great local, but general importance; and he should endeavour to compress his remarks as much as possible. He did not regard the interruptions of the hon. Member as anything personal, because the hon. Member almost invariably interrupted every hon. Member who addressed the House. In addition to the water engineer he had referred to, another witness, apparently, was the solicitor to the Bill, who, as had been mentioned the other day, was the son of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). He did not, however, attach much importance to that fact in connection with the matter he was referring to. One other gentleman was, he believed, examined— namely, the Chairman of the Paving Committee, who was, he understood, a potter by calling, and in no shape or form could be qualified to speak with authority upon an engineering question. But if the hon. Baronet had been enabled to avail himself of the expert evidence, which would have been forthcoming if there had been an opportunity of seeking for it, he might have had before him a civil engineer of considerable eminence, a partner of the eminent Mr. Fowler, not the obscure gentleman to whom he had already referred, but the well-known Mr. Fowler. He referred to Mr. Baker, the civil engineer, who had told the Chairman of the Local Board of Health that he would have been only too glad to give evidence before a Committee. The Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Local Board of Health was also a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, as also was the Chairman of the Committee of Works. The hon. Baronet, with the slender information at his command, did, as he (Mr. J. Lowther) was sure he always would do, the best he could under the circumstances. The hon. Baronet had inserted into the Bill certain provisions, among others that no train was to pass over these level crossings at a greater speed than three miles an hour; that a red flag should be exhibited in front of a coming train; and that a foot-bridge, 6 feet in width, should be erected over each crossing. The hon. Baronet further provided that there should be a close time during which no train should be run, whether preceded by a flag or travelling at any rate of speed whatever. Those hours the hon. Baronet had fixed according to such local information as had been presented to him by one side. The hon. Baronet had naturally selected those hours which he thought would be most convenient to all parties concerned; and the hours he had selected were between 11.30 A.M. and 1.30 P.M. Now, this was one of the dangers of an inquiry of this kind, conducted with limited means of information as those which were at the command of the hon. Baronet; because, as a matter of fact, while one of the large firms employing some 1,000 hands who would have to cross over this ground fixed the dinner hour at from 12 to 1, another firm also employing 1,000 hands fixed the dinner hour at from 1 to 2. Hon. Members would see that it was the intention of the hon. Baronet to insert a close time during which working men were passing to and fro for their dinner; but that intention had been defeated by the absence of information which might have been forthcoming if the Bill had been opposed in the ordinary way. It had been urged that the House would do well to allow the Bill to pass—although it had been condemned by the official Inspector of the Board of Trade, and notwithstanding the fact that it had been denounced by the inhabitants in public meeting assembled, and protested against by the majority of the Local Board of Health, and that the employers of labour were strongly opposed to it—because there was still room in what was technically called "another place" for these unfortunate omissions to be repaired. Hon. Members, however, would perhaps be surprised to hear that under the bye-laws of the Local Board of Health of South Stockton it would be practically impossible for the Local Board to obtain a locus standi before the House of Lords; because the rescinding of the Resolution approving of the Bill, although now agreed to by a majority of the Board, required, according to the bye-laws, that a majority of two-thirds must take part in rescinding of it, and that an equal number of members must be present at the rescinding as were present at the time it was passed. He need not point out to the House that, although the majority were willing to rescind the Resolution, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the necessary quorum. This was a case, therefore. in which the House must be prepared to undertake its own duty, without casting on the shoulders of the House of Lords the responsibility of remedying any omission of its own. Although most unwilling to refer in any way to personal matters, he felt that he should not be discharging his duty to the House if he were to omit to point out that this Bill had been promoted by most unusual means. He was not going to refer to the painful incidents which took place on the last occasion that this Bill was before the House. The House dealt according to its judgment with what then transpired, and he had no desire to reopen that unfortunate issue; but he thought it right to draw the attention of the House to a certain Standing Order which he feared had been in spirit, at all events, somewhat infringed upon during the passage of the Bill. The Standing Order to which he referred was No. 436. First of all, by a Resolution of February, 1830, it was laid down that it was contrary to the law and usage of Parliament that any Member of the House should be permitted to engage, by himself or any partner, in the management of a Private Bill, before that or the other House of Parliament, for pecuniary reward. As he had said just now, it was the spirit of the Standing Order and not the letter which he wished to draw the attention of the House to. The other day it was mentioned that a Circular had been sent out referring to the fact that a near relative of an hon. Member of that House was employed as the solicitor to this Bill. The House treated that matter as being a parental excess of zeal, and as not being a wilful evasion of the Standing Order, and it accepted the apology of the hon. Member for the issue of that unfortunate Circular. But what were the real facts in connection with the Circular? He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) was in a position to say how far he (Mr. J. Lowther) was rightly informed; but he understood that the solicitor for this Bill was a partner engaged with the hon. Member, generally speaking, in professional business; that they occupied the same office, and that they employed a common staff of clerks. Well, the genealogical and domestic personal matters of interest which occupied the attention of the House a short time ago—namely, the fact that these two gentlemen who lived under the same domestic roof stood in the relation of father and son, was, in his mind, a secondary matter; but what, in his judgment, the House ought to consider was, whether it was in accordance with the spirit of the Standing Order that one member of a professional firm should, in his individual capacity, become a solicitor for a Private Bill; while another member of the same firm should also, in his individual capacity, constitute himself a Parliamentary guardian of the Bill of which his partner was solicitor? That was the real issue. The House, the other day, took a lenient view of the indiscretion of the hon. Gentleman; and he could assure the House that had the hon. Member profited by the somewhat sharp lesson which was read to him on. that occasion— although the benevolent intervention of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) somewhat modified the censure of the House—if he thought the hon. Gentleman had taken that lesson to heart, and was prepared to abstain from the practice of which complaint had been made, he (Mr. J. Lowther) would not have referred again to the un- pleasant incident. But what were the facts of the case? He was indebted to an hon. Gentleman opposite for having placed him in possession of a document which showed that, notwithstanding that expression of opinion on the part of the House, another Circular had been distributed by the hon. Gentleman himself, and that the hon. Gentleman was found, as late as yesterday afternoon, in the Lobby of the House performing functions which were usually assigned to sandwich-board men. The hon. Member was engaged, with profuse liberality, in distributing Circulars which, although they omitted to mention the matter of domestic and genealogical interest to which he had referred, at any rate urged the passage of this Bill. He might go further, and he spoke within the recollection and knowledge of many hon. Gentlemen when he said that during the proceedings of the House yesterday the hon. Gentleman actually came within the Bar and distributed to hon. Members on his own side of the House a Circular of the kind to which he (Mr. J. Lowther) had referred. He must seriously ask the House to consider where this sort of thing was to stop. If the hon. Member denied the accuracy of what he said, of course he would not proceed to dwell further upon it; but as it occurred for the most part within his own personal observation, and he had the authority of others in corroboration of what he said, he thought it his duty to point out to the House that if one partner in a practising firm was to be allowed to place his own individual name, in his individual capacity as distinguished from his partner, on the back of a Private Bill as solicitor, and another member of the same firm, in his individual capacity as a Member of that House, was to be allowed to stand in the Lobby and distribute Circulars, and invite the support of the hon. Members to whom the Circulars were given—and he thought hon. Members would corroborate him as to the accuracy of what he said—there was no knowing where such a system would end. He had thought it right to mention the matter, because the hon. Member for Stockton occupied in respect to Private Bills a somewhat unique position, which ought to place him in a different category from that occupied by other Members of that House. The hon. Member—and, no doubt, it was a most praiseworthy act on his part—had for some time afforded assistance to the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) in taking charge of Private Bills in a quasi-semi-official capacity: and it was for the House to consider seriously how far it was right that proceedings of this kind ought to be supposed, in any shape or form, to command the approval of the House. He had only now to move that the Bill be read a third time upon that day six months.

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. J. Lowther.)

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

MR. DODDS

said, he had hoped that the circumstances which had occurred in that House a fortnight ago would have disposed of the personal question, raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, and that he (Mr. Dodds) would have been permitted on this occasion to address himself to the Question before the House, whether or not the Bill should be allowed to pass. But, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it was incumbent upon him to repeat, which he did without the slightest hesitation, reservation, or equivocation of any sort or kind, that he had not the slightest interest in this matter in any shape or form. He was neither a share holder in the undertaking, nor was he interested in the land to be taken by the Bill or in the land to be benefited by the Bill, nor in any of the works to be constructed upon it; whilst, in regard to professional matters, long before he had a son old enough to join him in his Profession, when he became a Member of that House, under the advice of distinguished counsel—a Member of the House, of two members of his own Profession, both then and one still a Member of this House, and of Parliamentary agents—he made an arrangement with regard to his business which absolutely precluded him from receiving, in any shape or form, any share whatever of pecuniary reward in regard to any business connected with Parliamentary practice of any sort or kind. So strictly had he acted upon, that arrange- ment, that during the 16 years he had been in Parliament he had not received one single farthing in connection with Parliamentary business. When, in course of time, his son became a partner with him in general matters, the necessary arrangements and deeds were entered into which expressly excluded him from all share in any business connected with Parliament; and during the whole of the time which had since elapsed, so strictly had he adhered to 'the rule which he had laid down before entering Parliament, and in regard to which he had some hesitation originally in accepting the invitation sent to him to become a candidate, that, as he had said, he had not received on any occasion during the 16 years he had been a Member of Parliament one single farthing, even for travelling expenses or personal expenses of any description. But during the whole of that time he had taken an active part in every local measure which affected his own immediate district; and whether his son happened to be the solicitor for or in opposition to a Bill had not, in the slightest degree, affected the course he had pursued. He had felt it his duty, since the constituency of Stockton conferred upon him the honour of reposing its confidence in him, to forward every measure that was likely to promote the interest of that district; and he appealed to the town of Stockton, and especially to South Stockton, to endorse the action he had taken in regard to this and other matters from time to time. As a matter of fact, he knew very well that South Stockton had endorsed what he had done and what he was now doing in this particular matter. The right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) had referred to the distribution of reasons in favour of this Bill; but he had not referred, nor did he refer on a former occasion, to the fact that he, or someone behind him who was pulling the wires, had also issued a Circular. He hesitated not to say that there had been what was technically called a "whip" quite as vigorous on the other side as the action which had been taken by those who were in favour of the Bill, except that the right hon. Gentlemen had not the good fortune he (Mr. Dodds) possessed of having a son who was capable of taking charge of a Bill in Parliament. If he had, possibly the right hon. Gentleman might even have gone as far as he (Mr. Dodds) had done; because, in all other respects, the right hon. Gentleman had certainly gone the whole length with him. The right hon. Gentleman had referred, as the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had done on a former occasion, most unnecessarily, and he thought most ungenerously, to his having taken a part, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), in conducting the Private Business of the House. Why had he done that? Before he came into the House he had had considerable Parliamentary experience and practice with regard to Private Bills. He knew a considerable number of Parliamentary agents; and he would undertake to say that there was not a single Parliamentary agent who was engaged in transacting the Private Business of the House who would not himself as soon place that Private Business in his (Mr. Dodds's) hands as in those of any other Member of the House. He had not intended to refer in any way whatever to the personal part of the question; but the right hon. Member having referred to it had given him this opportunity of making a disavowal, which he ventured to think most hon. Gentlemen would accept as being perfectly and strictly accurate in every particular. He was sure that those who knew him would do so, and the right hon. Gentleman himself ought to do so. He had, on more than one occasion, received a tribute of thanks recording the sense of the town and district for the services he had rendered, not only in connection with public affairs, but in connection with Private Bills. In regard to the Stockton Carrs Railway Bill, the right hon. Gentleman, in the Circular he bad caused to be issued on that as on a former occasion, had quoted the expression of Colonel Yolland that the railway was not required except for speculative purposes. The right hon. Gentleman might have added another circumstance which was an undoubted fact — namely, that Colonel Yolland at the time he made the Report referred to had not seen the place at all. He had seen nothing beyond the deposited plans and certain statements which were put before him, which included a statement made on behalf of the Petitions against the Bill, and was of a most exaggerated, and, in most respects, of a most erroneous character. Colonel Tolland, in his Report, simply quoted the allegations put forward in the statement. In mentioning what had occurred before the Chairman of Ways and Means, the right hon. Gentleman might have mentioned what had since occurred before Colonel Yolland, which was far more in favour of the Bill than anything the right hon. Gentleman had shown in a contrary direction. It was said that this railway was a very short one, and that it was merely intended to utilize a few acres of land. The first part of that statement was true. It was a very short railway, indeed; but it was not quite as short as it seemed, because, as a matter of fact, it was an elongation of an existing branch railway connected with the main line of the Stockton and Darlington Railway, which now formed part of the North-Eastern system. As a matter of fact, it formed the missing link between the main line of railway and the Stockton Carrs district; and perhaps he might be allowed to explain of what the district consisted. It was not merely, as had been stated, a few acres of land that were in question; but if hon. Members would carefully study the plans that had been circulated and which had been deposited, they would see that the district to which this line was to give access included three very important works. The first was a bone mill for the preparation of bones for agricultural purposes and for the manufacture of artificial manures. The next was an oil and seed cake mill; and both of these works had been established some time ago by some of the leading agriculturists in the North of England for the purpose of supplying themselves with artificial manures and oil-cakes for their own consumption. From these mills there went out every year some 4,000 or 5,000 tons of artificial manures and oil-cakes. In the next place, there existed one of the largest flour mills in the North of England, and perhaps he might say one of the largest in the United Kingdom. In. that flour mill there were manufactured every year from 150,000 to 200,000 sacks of flour; and there were employed in the conveyance of this manufactured article to the other side of the river some 20 rolleys, which travelled from 20,000 to 25,000 times across the river in the course of the year. The whole of this traffic was now taken through the streets of South Stockton at a cost of something like £1,300 a-year. If this railway were made available for the purposes of these works, a saving might be effected of nearly the whole of the amount of the present cost. The rates originally inserted in the Bill had been found somewhat excessive; and by an arrangement with the Board of Trade, the Chairman of Ways and Means had struck them, out in favour of more reasonable rates, which had received the sanction of the Board of Trade or of the Railway Commissioners. The result would be that the charges would be virtually merged in the rates charged by the North-Eastern, Railway Company. The North-Eastern Railway Company conveyed nearly the whole of the traffic to distant places, and the consequence would be a saving of nearly the whole of the rates now charged. The district in question had a frontage of something like three-fourths of a mile upon the River Tees, embracing some of the best water adapted for vessels of the largest class, the whole of which was at present practically useless. Then, in addition, there was land belonging to the promoters of the Bill, out of which six acres had been, sold and appropriated for an iron ship-building yard, which would be commenced the moment it was ascertained that the Bill would go on. There were other proprietors of land in the neighbourhood who were prepared to utilize their property; so that instead of the benefits conferred by the Bill being confined to a small tract of land, they were practically extended to a very large district. He had no hesitation in saying that if the Bill passed, and the desired railway were constructed, it would afford employment in a very short time to 1,500 or 2,000 men; and, surely, that was a most desirable object for such a town as Stockton. Of course, it was not so desirable to the gentlemen in whose interest the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) opposed the Bill, who already possessed their own level crossings and desired to prevent other persons from having the same advantages. At the present moment the rateable value of South Stockton was about £40,000 a-year. He believed the land of which they had heard so much was rated at £50 a-year; but, upon the most moderate computation, if this Bill were passed it would contribute to the rates of Stockton hereafter upon a rateable value of something like £5,000. If that were really so—and he believed it was— the result would be the reduction of the rates to the extent of 12½ per cent, or one-eighth of the present amount. There would also be taken out of the streets of Stockton an enormous amount of traffic which now passed through it day by day, and there would be much less danger to life from these level crossings than there was at present from the existing traffic. Another reason in favour of the Bill was the enormous amount of work it would afford in the district, whore work was very badly wanted just now. The right hon. Gentleman had taken especial care not to refer to the fact that he had been put in motion by the principals of the firm of Head, Wrightson, & Co., who were the chief opponents of the Bill, and who had induced three other firms to join with them who were in much the same position as themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had not informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was brought forward by the Chairman of the Constitutional Association at Stockton, who, if reports were correct, was to be his (Mr. Dodds's) antagonist at the next General Election for Stockton. That gentleman was a neighbour and friend of his, and Lad been a client for many years, and he thought he was a client even at the present time. He was of opinion, however, that that gentleman had never taken a more unwise step towards gaining a seat on the Benches opposite than he had done in getting up this opposition. ["Question!"] Surely this was the Question after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated; and he would repeat that this gentleman had never taken a less wise step for gaining a seat in that House than he had now done. ["Oh!"] Well, that was his opinion, at all events, and he was entitled to express it. That gentleman had a level crossing of his own over an adjoining street, called Hanover Street, which was just as much used as any level crossing ever established in Stockton. That level crossing, to his certain knowledge, was used long before Mr. Wrightson became connected with the works there, and all Mr. Wrightson's traffic passed over it, yet there had never been the smallest objection to it, although there had been, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, a great objection generally to level crossings, the result of which was that on the main line they had been done away with. He asserted shortly, plainly, and distinctly, that the opposition to this Bill emanated from gentlemen who had a personal interest in the matter. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] He (Mr. Dodds) said "Yes;" and it was got up for no other purpose. If hon. Members would look at a map of the district they would see that the gentlemen who were opposing the Bill had their own level crossings to give them access to the main line of railway, and they would not be one whit the worse in regard to crossing the line in future than they were at the present time. In the case of two of the opponents of the Bill, their works were situate beyond level crossings, and the working men employed by them had to cross the line every day. But had there been a single loss of life? He was afraid that the district had not been altogether free from loss of life, and everyone deplored it; but that loss of life had never occurred on a siding of this kind, which was practically only a works siding, and not a level crossing at all. He had done all he could to get rid of level crossings in Stockton, and he had succeeded to a large extent, and he hoped to succeed still further. But he had never attempted to get rid of the level crossing of his friend Mr. Wright-son, because he knew that it was absolutely required for the enormous works in the district, and that without similar crossings it would be impossible to carry on the works connected with the land affected by the present Bill. He had already referred to the Report of the Board of Trade, and he had said that Colonel Yolland, before he made his Report, had never seen the place at all. Colonel Yolland made his Report without having visited the locality; but even taking Colonel Yolland's own Report, and dealing with the words which the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) had read, what were the facts of the case? Colonel Yolland said it might be a matter of speculation; but as long as the public were effectually protected that was not a matter of much consequence. The question was, what provisions were laid down for the protection of the public? The right hon. Gentleman, with that candour for which he was so eminently distinguished, had called attention to what the Chairman of Ways and Means had done for the protection of the public in order to give effect to the requirements of the Board of Trade; but the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt fairly with the House, because he had quoted a little bit, and a little bit only, and the right hon. Gentleman must have known that he was only quoting partially what the Chairman of Ways and Means had done in the matter. Now, what was it that his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means had done? The hon. Gentleman had provided, in the first place, at the expense of the promoters, and in redemption of a pledge made by them to the Board of Trade and to the Local Board, that the rate of speed should not exceed three miles an hour. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: I said so.] If the right hon. Gentleman would restrain his impatience, he was about to say what it was that the right hon. Gentleman had said, and what he had not said. In addition to limiting the rate of speed in approaching the level crossing to three miles an hour at the most, in addition to such a moderate rate of speed, which one would almost think was impossible to cause an accident, every engine was to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, made that statement; but he did not state that, under the general Act, provision was made for gates and gate-keepers. Then came the climax of the right hon. Gentleman's candour, fairness, and honesty towards the House. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted a clause which he (Mr. Dodds) held in his hand in order to show how impossible it was for the Chairman of Ways and Means to deal with the question from want of local knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman illustrated his point of view by showing that the Chairman of Ways and Means had inserted a clause in the Bill to provide that the level crossings should be closed between the hours of 11.130 A.M. and 1.30 P.M., because it was assumed that during those periods working men would be passing to and fro to dinner. Now, was it fair on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to omit to State the whole of the provision? He would not read the words of the clause, but he would give the substance, and the whole of the provision was that between half-past 5 and half-past 6 in the morning there should be no traffic whatever over the crossing; that between half-past 7 and 9 there should be no traffic; that between half-past 11 and half-past 1, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, there should be no traffic; and that between half-past 4 and 6, also, no traffic should be allowed to pass over it.

MR. J. LOWTHER

I beg the hon. Member's pardon, I only referred to the dinner hour.

MR. DODDS

said, he was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman had only quoted the provision which applied to the dinner hour; but the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that there was something more than that; and if he would restrain his impatience for a short time he (Mr. Dodds) would tell him what it was. There was also a provision that the crossing should be closed to traffic between such other hours as the Local Board might, from time to time, determine, not being more than two hours at any one time, nor seven hours in any one day. So that the clause itself, which the Chairman of Ways and Means had taken care to insert, made provision that the Local Board might alter the hours from time to time, so as to suit the dinner hours of the workmen. This showed that the Chairman of Ways and Means knew perfectly well what was necessary to be done, and that he had done it. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the history of this matter, and, as usual, he had only quoted so much of the history of it as suited his own purposes. He (Mr. Dodds) hoped the House would permit him, as shortly as he could, to tell him the remainder. The right hon. Gentleman had not told the House that among the persons who opposed the Bill when it was originally framed were three gentleman—his friend Mr. Wrightson, Mr. Wrightson's manager, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Watson, Chairman of the Board—all of whom were the members of opposing firms; so that one-half of the opposition had a direct interest in the matter. What happened next? There was a public meeting convened to denounce the Bill. It was called, at a very short notice, by Mr. Watson, one of the petitioning firms; and care was taken to pack it. Indeed, if ever there was a packed meeting this was one. As soon as the doors were opened the room was filled by the employés of the petitioning firms. Up got Mr. Wrightson, and proposed a Resolution, and undoubtedly the working men of that firm voted very unanimously in favour of it. What happened? The matter went back to the Local Board. He (Mr. Dodds) happened to be present at the time the Local Board sat; but the Resolution passed at the meeting was so absurd that the Board took no notice of it, but stuck to their own Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman said that since then there had been a new election. Well, what happened then? The opponents selected their own men; two of them were cordial disciples of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and were acceptable men in every way. With those two gentlemen was put forward another of the leading employers in South Stockton. Thus, three of the best men who could be selected were put forward as candidates. Well, what happened? Two of the candidates were elected, but the third was totally defeated. He was told that an analysis of the votes showed that 3,000 more were given in favour of those candidates who supported the Bill than were given in favour of those who opposed it, notwithstanding that a system of open voting papers prevailed, which could easily be manipulated—as he was told they had been on this occasion—by persons going about among the working men. The right hon. Gentleman had brought a charge against him (Mr. Dodds) because his son was the solicitor for the Bill. Now, he (Mr. Dodds) had referred to Mr. Wrightson, and he thought he (Mr. Dodds) would have been justified in directing the same language against the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire as he had brought against him (Mr. Dodds), and with more propriety, the right hon. Gentleman being, he believed, a partner with Mr. Wrightson in the newspaper which he (Mr. Dodds) held in his hand—a great Constitutional organ. Mr. Wrightson was Chairman of the Constitutional Association; and he (Mr. Dodds) was surprised to read in a report contained in this newspaper, in reference to an occasion when the bye-laws had been used in order to perpetrate a little job, that the ratepayers were quietly in- vited to pass the whole thing over. He wished the House to remember that this was a mere siding across a road over which there was no traffic at all, except to the works situated on this piece of land. He had presented, in a legitimate way, two Petitions in favour of the Bill, and one was from persons who were the owners of land in the Carrs district, and nearly all the owners and occupiers of the houses in the street across which the level crossing would pass had also petitioned in favour of the Bill, on the ground that it would be of the greatest advantage to the entire district. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Petition was about to be presented from a number of workmen employed in the existing works. If he (Mr. Dodds) were permitted to read a statement which had been sent to him from the men employed in those works, it would be found that most of them had been coerced into signing that Petition. He held one of those statements in his hand; but he would not go into it at that moment. ["Read!"] He promised the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Guy Dawnay) that when he had presented his Petition in the proper manner, and it had become the property of the House, he would hear something more of it, possibly in connection with a Breach of Privilege. He (Mr. Dodds) had presented Petitions from owners and occupiers in South Stockton, and those Petitions had been presented in the ordinary way of Private Bill Petitions to the House. They were signed by 1,896 out of 2,300 ratepayers, so that, practically, four-fifths of the owners and occupiers of property in South Stockton had petitioned the House in favour of the Bill. He was quite certain that at this moment nine out of ten were in. favour of it; and if the Bill went forward and went to "another place," which, thank God! they had, the promoters of the measure would be able to satisfy the House of Lords that they had the full support of the people of South Stockton. He would throw out this challenge to the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Guy Dawnay)—that if they would take the sense of the people of South Stockton, by ballot upon this Bill, they would find that at least three-fourths would declare "aye" in favour of it, and desire, as he now desired, that the House should pass the third reading of it.

MR. PEMBERTON

trusted the House would believe that he had no political feeling in the matter, and would allow him to explain the reasons why the Bill had been treated by the Court of Referees as an unopposed Bill, and had decided against the claim of the Petitioners to be heard. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) had said that there were some Petitions against the Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was incorrect in that assertion, because he (Mr. Pemberton) was sure, from his own recollection of the facts, that there was only one Petition presented. According to the practice of the House, it was important to consider whether a Petition was, in reality, a Petition from one individual, or from one individual representing a particular interest or class; because it was the rule of the House that no one individual was entitled to be heard against a Private Bill unless he had some special interest in the matter different from that which was common to all the inhabitants of the district affected by the Bill. If he had no interest other than that of the rest of the inhabitants, then his interest was covered by that of the rest of the inhabitants; and on occasions like the present his interests were supposed to be represented by the Local Board. The Local Board represented the whole of the ratepayers of the district, and one private individual having no interest distinct from theirs was not, according to the practice of the House, entitled to be heard. He observed that the Petition was signed by more than one person; but his recollection of the case was that one Petitioner only appeared. The Petitioner argued the case himself, and, it was upon that point—namely, the practice of the House itself, and upon the consideration that the Petitioner was represented by the Local Board, that the Court of Locus Standi disallowed the Petition; and the consequence was that the Bill was treated as an unopposed Bill, and went before the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Chairman of Ways and Means. In taking that course the Court of Locus Standi did nothing beyond following the usual practice of the House; but in taking it they were certainly influenced by the statement that the Local Board of the district were in favour of the Bill, and had petitioned in favour of it. They were not told, as they were now, that the decision of the Local Board was obtained by a majority of one, and that one, as they were now given to understand, one of the promoters of the Bill.

MR. DODDS

said, that was not so. The gentleman in question did not vote in the first instance, although he did so afterwards.

MR. PEMBERTON

said, he understood that the Resolution in favour of the Bill was carried by a majority of one, and that this gentleman, who was one of the promoters of the Bill, voted.

MR. DODDS

said, the hon. Member was mistaken. As a matter of fact, the gentleman in question did not vote until afterwards.

MR. PEMBERTON

said, he did not think that the time when the gentleman voted was of much importance. The Court of Locus Standi were, undoubtedly, led to believe that the Local Board representing the district were in favour of the Bill. He thought if they had been informed of the circumstances of the case, although he would not say that their decision would have been altered, they certainly would have considered the matter more minutely, and further inquiry would have been made. He would not say that the result would have been otherwise; but he certainly did think that the Court had not been fairly treated when they were told that the Local Board were in favour of the Bill. As to the immediate question before the House, he could not help feeling that it was really one which ought, in the ordinary way, to have been discussed by a Select Committee of the House. He had the greatest possible respect for the abilities of the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means, and for the care and attention which he paid to these unopposed Bills; but he thought it must be obvious to hon. Members, without making themselves partizans of either one side or the other, that this was a case on which a great deal might be said on both sides, and that it was one in regard to which it was unfortunate that the House had been left without the guidance of a Select Committee in the ordinary way. No doubt, his hon. Friend had witnesses before him; but they were witnesses on one side only, and he had not the advantage of hearing counsel, or of having the witnesses cross-examined. It was, consequently, clear that the inquiry before his hon. Friend, however ably conducted, could not possibly have exhausted the question in the same way that it would have been exhausted, if it had been considered by an ordinary Select Committee of the House. Under those circumstances, and in the absence of a full and proper inquiry, he could not help thinking that it would be unsafe for the House to pass the Bill in its present state.

MR. GUY DAWNAY

expressed a hope that hon. Members would dismiss from their minds the curious and unpleasant circumstances with which a former reference to the Bill was connected, and that the question would be decided on its own merits alone. Hon. Members naturally felt impatient at having so much of their time, and the time of the House, taken up by the consideration of a Private Bill; but they had just heard the reasons why the Bill had ever come to them for the third reading at all, which it was certain it would not have done if it had been opposed in the usual way before a Railway Bill Committee. He was quite certain that no Committee would have dreamed of sanctioning the perpetration of such an outrage, if he might say so, as the construction of a level crossing in one of the principal streets of a large and important town, and that, too, a street which was daily traversed by more than 3,000 foot-passengers and 300 horses and carts. And if these works were carried out, as the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) hoped they would be by this Bill, there would be an addition of some 6,000 more foot-passengers over this road every day. The hon. Member for Stockton said that the people of South Stockton fully endorsed his action in the matter, and the hon. Member had attempted to make light of the statements of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) as to the real feeling of the inhabitants. He (Mr. Guy Dawnay) would say, in the first place, that on February 13 a fact occcured which he did not think the hon. Member had alluded to at all——namely, that the Local Board, by a majority of one, passed a vote to rescind the approval they had previously given. The hon. Member had made some allusion to the Petition which he (Mr. Guy Dawnay) had now the honour of pre- senting to the House. He was not quite aware whether that was the proper or formal way of doing so; and, therefore, he would present it in the usual way afterwards. The hon. Member for Stockton had made some remarks as to the manner in which the signatures to this Petition had been obtained. Let him tell the hon. Member that his opinion of Yorkshiremen was far better and far higher than to induce him to suppose that they would allow themselves to be coerced by their employers into signing anything. There might, however, be a few cases in which women in Yorkshire had been coerced; and he held in his hand a letter from Mr. David Thomas, in which the writer informed him that a person named Wells had called at his house with a Petition in favour of the Stockton Carrs Railway Bill, and had induced his wife to sign it without having obtained his (Mr. Thomas's) consent to it. Mr. Thomas subsequently saw Mr. Wells, and asked him if he had his (Thomas's) name to the Petition? The reply was, "Yes, I have." Mr. Thomas complained of the signature having been obtained in the way it had been. Mr. Thomas went on to say— He told me he would scratch it out if I wished. I said that I did; but whether he did scratch it out or not I do not know. Now, he (Mr. Guy Dawnay) had visited Stockton in order that he might form, au opinion himself as to the proposed works; and he thought that if any hon. Member had made a similar inspection he would have returned as keen an opponent of the Bill, and quite as ready to condemn it, as himself. The facts were these. It was proposed to construct a line on a piece of waste land adjoining the river Tees, which had been offered for sale at a low price on account of the difficulties of obtaining cheap access to it. It had been bought by some acute speculators, who saw the possibility of being able to rush this scheme through the Local Board and through Parliament, and who were ready to sacrifice the daily comfort of the artizans of Stockton, and to endanger the lives of the inhabitants, for the sole purpose of saving some little extra expense. A level crossing was altogether unnecessary, and any competent engineer in the world would have said at once that there were various other means of gaining access to the land in question besides that which had been adopted. Even in a less busy centre of manufacturing industry than South Stockton, and a street less crowded by artizans hurrying to and from their work than. Trafalgar Street, the construction of a level crossing ought to be regarded as inadmissible. The hon. Member for Stockton had referred to a regulation inserted in the Bill to prevent the running of trains from 11.30 in the morning until 1.30 in the afternoon; but the hon. Member knew very well that in one of the large works in the neighbourhood the dinner hour was from 12 to 1, while in another it was from 1 to 2. Whatever order any future Board might make, they certainly could not undertake to stop the trains during all those times in the evening, in the case of overtime work, when workmen would be crossing the line. Allusions had been made to the level crossing which now existed at the works of Head, Wrightson, & Co.; but the hon. Member for Stockton knew well that few foot-passengers ever went over that crossing at all. It was made 41 years ago, when the country was comparatively open, and it was the only level crossing, as the hon. Gentleman well knew, which the Local Board of South Stockton had not thought it necessary to make considerable sacrifices in order to abolish. He believed that the North-Eastern Railway Company had spent a very considerable amount of money—£100,000 at least—in getting rid of level crossings on their railway system; and the hon. Member for Stockton would hardly deny that he had himself lately advised the Corporation of Stockton to expend £2,000 in order to do away with the level crossing at Oxbridge Lane. The son of the hon. Member had gone as a deputation to the North-Eastern Company in order to arrange for its abolition. The hon. Member also knew of another level crossing in Stockton, at a place called Mill Street Lane, where numerous accidents had occurred. Only at the end of January last a girl was run over and killed, and at the Hartburne Crossing there were two other fatal accidents in the month of December. He would only, therefore, say that if the House did sanction the third reading of the Bill the responsibility of all the fatal accidents which were certain to ensue would rest on those hon. Members who voted for it. He had not the slightest interest in the passing of the Bill or in its not passing; and the hon. Member for Stockton would acquit him of any feeling of personal antagonism towards himself. He would only say that the Bill was opposed just as strongly by members of the Radical Party in South Stockton, who were political opponents of his own, as it was by Conservatives. As a matter of fact, he was shown over the ground the other day by a keen political opponent. He opposed the Bill only upon one ground, and it was upon that ground that he asked the House to oppose it also. The reason was that to give the sanction of the House to it would be to perpetrate a great wrong upon the population of an important and increasing manufacturing town, that it would seriously impede the trade and traffic of the district, while it would also endanger human life, and would license one of the most unnecessary, one of the most selfish, and one of the most iniquitous schemes that, in the way of Private Bill Legislation, had ever been presented to the House.

SIR ARTHUR OTWAY

said, he thought that it was much to be regretted that an ordinary Motion for the third reading of a Private Bill should have been accompanied by a discussion of so excited a character as to be calculated to obscure the real merits of the question, before the House. Into none of the incidents which had been mentioned did he mean to enter. They were perfectly new to him, and he had never heard of any of these circumstances until he had heard them mentioned in that House. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) enabled the House to understand without difficulty how the matter stood. It appeared that a heated controversy was going on in this district. The right hon. Gentleman represented one party there; whereas the hon. Member for Stockton sympathized with the other. There was, consequently, an unmistakable difference between them. The right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire represented certain gentlemen who were already in possession of considerable advantages in the way of railway communication, and it was not altogether surprising that they should be somewhat averse to other gentlemen residing there, who had the sympathies of the hon. Member for Stockton, procuring the same facilities. He (Sir Arthur Otway) proposed to confine himself simply to one point in the matter in which he felt himself most concerned; and he did not intend to allow himself to be at all angry even in regard to the some what un usual language which had been used by the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat. The hon. Gentleman had accused him of perpetrating a job which was a gross outrage.

MR. GUY DAWNAY

No, no.

SIR ARTHUR OTWAY

said, it must be so, seeing that he was responsible for the Bill.

MR. GUY DAWNAY

wished to explain what it was that he had said. What he said was that the construction of a level crossing in one of the principal streets of a large town was an outrage.

SIR ARTHUR OTWAY

said, the Bill had also been stigmatized as one of the greatest impositions which had ever been attempted to be palmed off upon the House; but probably the right hon. Gentleman who made that statement did not mean to impute that he (Sir Arthur Otway) was the perpetrator of that imposition. Now, what was the case as regarded this crossing? The House would scarcely suppose, after all the heated expressions they had heard, that it had only come before him in the very innocent garb of an unopposed Bill. When he found that to be the case, he was bound to entertain the opinion that there were no persons who were at all opposed to it. He was there simply to adjust certain matters of detail upon a question which he naturally believed to be in accordance with the views of the people of the locality. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire had made some comments upon the conduct of business before the Chairman of Ways and Means, which he (Sir Arthur Otway) would like to refer to on another occasion; but he would not do so now, as the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were of a general character. No doubt, a great responsibility was thrown upon any Member of the House who filled the position which he filled; and in consequence of that responsibility he felt himself obliged to go very thoroughly into every measure submitted to him, and to dispose of it in the best way lie possibly, could. When this scheme was first brought before him as an unopposed Bill, he made an inquiry into it, and said there were two things he would not consent to—one was the making of this level crossing, unless it could be rendered perfectly safe; and the other was that the promoters of the Bill must show that there would be great public advantage to the people of the neighbourhood in making it. He accordingly adjourned the Committee and the consideration of the Bill for, he thought, a week or 10 days; and, in the meantime, he instituted an inquiry into the plans. Probably hon. Members had not had as much experience of level crossings as he had. There was no matter in which he had concerned himself more than in that of providing for the safety of the travelling public, and especially the safety of persons who had to pass level crossings. People were constantly killed on these level crossings. The House must not, however, suppose that fatal accidents often occurred on level crossings such as these; but they occurred on the level crossings upon the main lines of railway which hon. Members travelled over when they went to visit their constituents; and they were generally caused by trains running at a very high rate of speed, and were inflicted upon persons who had neglected to use ordinary precautions. In regard to level crossings of this character, he had no hesitation in saying that a well guarded level crossing was the safest way by which a person could pass over such a railway as this. He would undertake to say, after the precautions established by this Bill in regard to this small line of railway, that it would be almost impossible for any accident to occur, and people might pass and repass this level crossing with perfect safety. As he had said, he adjourned the Committee for a week or 10 days, and in the interval he was furnished with further plans and evidence which satisfied him upon these points. When the Committee reassembled, evidence was given to him of the desire of the persons living in the neighbourhood that this railway should be constructed, and of its public utility, very much in the form which had been described by his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton. With regard to the level crossings, he was not so satisfied, and he required some further evidence to be given. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire had devoted a portion of his time in disparaging the evidence of Mr. Robert Fowler.

MR. J. LOWTHER

begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. All he had said was that engineering evidence was given only on behalf of the promoters, and that the only engineer examined was not a railway engineer at all.

SIR. ARTHUR OTWAY

said, he did not know what the experience of Mr. Fowler was; but that gentleman appeared to him to understand fully the questions upon which he spoke, and, at any rate, there was no other evidence produced. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: Hear, hear!] It was established to his (Sir Arthur Otway's) satisfaction that the railway could not be made except by means of a level crossing, and that there was no possibility of making a bridge. That being so, he determined that the level crossing should be made, but only under conditions which would make it absolutely safe. Now, what were those conditions? He wanted to know how it was possible for an accident to occur upon a railway when an engine was only allowed to pass at a speed of less than that at which a man walked; when it was to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag; and when it was only to work at times when there were very few people about? And that was not all. A bridge would have to be constructed, by which foot-passengers would be able to cross the line. Therefore, the only question was that of the vehicular traffic, and that was provided for by the speed at which the engine was alone allowed to proceed, and by the locking of the gates by the watchmen who would have to look after them. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that, as far as any arrangements could be made, perfect safety had been secured. He knew of no other mode by which a level crossing could be made safe; and he did not think that any danger could arise to any man passing a level crossing under these circumstances. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire if he was acquainted with the town of Middles-borough? In Middlesborough there were more than a dozen of these level crossings upon eight or nine intercepted lines of railway, crossed by thousands of people every day, and he was informed that there had never been a single accident, not with standing the fact that the crossings to which he referred were unprotected, or, at any rate, not protected as these would be. There was only one other matter to which he thought it was necessary he should refer. He had endeavoured to obtain information as to the hours during which the workmen were generally about, in order that restrictions might be imposed upon the passing of trains during those hours. He certainly thought sufficient precautions were taken, because power was given to the Local Board at any time to vary the hours specified in the Bill.

MR. GUY DAWNAY

Subject to the condition of the crossing only being closed for two hours at a time.

SIR ARTHUR OTWAY

said, that if the persons who objected to the Bill thought the workmen would not be sufficiently protected by the hours now fixed, they could have those hours extended. Under these circumstances, he must say he thought it would be most unwise if the House were to defeat a measure which was calculated to confer great public benefit upon the district for which it was designed. After the explanations which had been given, he trusted the House would not reject the Bill on the third reading. If there were strong objections to the measure, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire could show that those objections were as generally entertained as he asserted they were, the Bill had to go to "another place," and the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in bringing his views before the Committee of the House of Lords. For his own part, he (Sir Arthur Otway) had no hesitation in saying, separating himself altogether from questions with which he had no concern of any kind, that as far as the protection of the public against danger from level crossings was concerned, it was in this case as complete as any protection could possibly be. If that were so, the objection raised against the Bill was not, he thought, a sufficient one to induce the House to reject the Bill now on the third reading.

MR. GILES

said, he merely rose for the purpose of saying a few words in behalf of a gentleman who had been rather hardly dealt with by the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther). He referred to Mr. Fowler, the engineer. It was quite true that Mr. Fowler, who was connected with this Bill, was not Mr. John Fowler, the eminent railway engineer; nevertheless, the Mr. John Fowler referred to was a man of the highest ability, who had been the means of conferring great advantages upon the district in connection with the River Tees. Mr. Fowler, by the works he had carried out, had increased the depth of water up to Middles borough from 3 feet to 18 feet. He (Mr. Giles) would, therefore. say, without knowing anything in regard to this railway, that if a man was eminent enough to be able to do that which Mr. Fowler had done in regard to the River Tees up to Middlesborough, he would be quite willing to take his opinion on the merits of this little railway scheme. Being an engineer himself, he (Mr. Giles) would like to add that there were many cases in which, if they prohibited level crossings, they would find it necessary to prohibit railways altogether, and they would be unable to carry on the traffic of the country. There were main lines of railway upon which trains ran over level crossings at an express speed of 60 miles an hour. Of course, it was not desirable to have level crossings if they could possibly be avoided; but on a line of light traffic like this, he doubted whether the works could be carried out without the level crossings. He thought he need scarcely add that he was not in any way interested in the promotion of this Bill.

MR. A. PEASE

said, he had inspected the place, and he was in favour of the scheme now under the consideration of the House. He had been almost inclined to believe that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Guy Dawnay) could hardly have visited it himself when he said that it crossed the main street of the town. Those who knew anything of Stockton knew that the main street of South Stockton was a street which led from the bridge to the Cleveland district.

MR. GUY DAWNAY

remarked, that what he had said was "a main street."

MR. A. PEASE

thought the hon. Gentleman was mistaken, because the street in which it was proposed to construct these level crossings had no through traffic upon it at all. It was only a street which led down to the river, and it was passed over by working men and carts going in and out of the works. In regard to the Bill, he believed the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) had spoken in the interests of his constituents. If there had been a railway communicating with Stockton Carrs, there would long ago have been thousands of men employed in the. locality; and it was only because there was no railway communication that manufacturing works had not been developed there. He had no doubt that the construction of this railway would be of the greatest public advantage; and he had reason to believe that as soon as this Bill was passed there would be another extensive shipyard built. He had very little doubt that the construction of this railway communication would result in a very few years in a large increase in the rateable value of South Stockton, and that it would also be of great convenience and importance to Stockton itself. With regard to the level crossing at Head, Wrightson, & Co.'s Works, which had been alluded to, it was a crossing which was entirely unprotected, and the whole of the working men had to pass it in going to their homes. He could not, therefore, imagine how it was that the gentlemen representing these works were opponents of this scheme, seeing that they had sidings of their own which placed the public in much greater danger than anything this scheme would do. The ground of their opposition to the Bill certainly appeared to be somewhat remarkable. He hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a third time.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

said, he had been particularly struck by what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton), who was a Member of the Locus Standi Committee. It certainly appeared to him (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), after what they had heard, that it was not desirable for the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) to continue to give what, no doubt, had been valuable services in aid of the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster). He regretted that the hon. Baronet was not present; but considering the position which the hon. Member for Stockton held with regard to railways, and also the active part he took with regard to Private Bill Legisla- tion, it was quite possible that a Bill might be brought forward in which his action in aid of the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall might be regarded with some suspicion, He did not suggest for a moment that anything improper had happened; but he thought it was desirable that the action of every Member who assisted in Private Bill Legislation should be entirely free from suspicion. The success of the Private Bill Legislation of the House must depend very materially upon the manner and character of those Members who, like the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall and the right hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means, undertook the conduct of it. Therefore, he would venture to say—and he had no doubt it was what many hon. Members felt who did not say it—that it was not desirable that such a state of things as that which now prevailed should continue. He hoped the hon. Member for Stockton would see that, under all the circumstances, it was not desirable that his services in aid of the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall should be continued.

MR. BIGGAR

wished to make one remark upon the statement of the Chairman of Ways and Means—namely, that the representations made to the hon. Baronet in regard to this Bill were entirely of an ex parte character, and the value of ex parte evidence in a contested question appeared to him to be exceedingly slight. He had no doubt that the promoters of the Bill had supplied to the hon. Baronet a list of all the Petitions presented in favour of it, and had also given full information in regard to the gentlemen who voted for it in the Local Board of Health, and that they naturally made out the best case they could; but, at the same time, they would naturally avoid saying anything which would at all appear favourable as to the views entertained by the other side. He entirely failed to see the value of the services which were rendered by the Chairman of Ways and Means under such circumstances. He had heard the defence of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds); but the hon. Member had entirely avoided all reference to what seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) to be the most important part of the case—namely, the distribution of Circulars on the part of the hon. Gentleman in support of the Bill, not only in the Lobby of the House, where it was customary for the clerks of Parliamentary agents and messengers to distribute Circulars, but actually—for the statement of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) had not been contradicted—within the Bar of the House. If such a course were to be countenanced, and hon. Members were to continue the distribution of bills in favour of particular schemes, he thought there ought to be a Resolution on the part of the House allowing professional men to take a professional part in opposing Private Bills. At present, the House enforced a Rule to prevent that; but it was preposterous to carry such a Regulation, and then to allow Members to come down to the House and distribute Circulars with regard to schemes which were disputed as to their merits. He thought the practice was a very objectionable one; and he trusted the House would set its face against it. In the next place, he hoped the House would only consent to sanction the construction of level crossings under very peculiarcircumstances—such, for instance, as their construction across a road where there was a very trifling amount of traffic, and where there was no risk of endangering the public safety. In this case the hon. Member for Stockton had himself pointed out that there was a large population in the neighbourhood of the proposed line, and that the employment of workmen was likely to increase very considerably after the line was made. If this Bill were passed in. its present shape there would be no means of remedying the grievance, no matter how largely the population might be augmented in the future. In the eyes of some hon. Members it did not appear to be a matter of much consequence whether lives were sacrificed upon a level crossing or not. He entertained a strong view that it was highly inconvenient to conduct traffic across a high road; and he held that no railway, except under very peculiar circumstances, should be allowed to make a level crossing in any town in England.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

begged to remind the House that it was in the power of the Board of Trade to direct that a level crossing should be put a stop to.

MR. MAC IVER

expressed a hope that some Member of Her Majesty's Government would be good enough to inform the House who the Board of Trade were.

MR. LEAMY

said, that it had been stated, in the course of the debate, that within a Very recent period several fatal accidents had occurred in Stockton upon the level crossings now in existence. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade what his opinion was as to these crossings, and what convenience they afforded to the public?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he must protest against the interference of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. The interference of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be somewhat wanton, because, if he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) were not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman was not one of those who had been present during the whole of this very interesting and somewhat protracted debate. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman had intervened with a single sentence, evidently for the purpose of having the last word with the jury. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken, however, and was not going to be allowed to have the last word. The observation which the right hon. Gentleman had so skilfully interpolated was an observation which dealt with the kernel of the question—namely, whether or not level crossings were a danger to human life. The case with regard to this particular railway was already practically settled, because there had been three lives lost already in the town of Stockton upon level crossings since the month of December last. It was now proposed to add two other level crossings. The right hon. Gentleman said the Board of Trade had the power of stepping in at any time to put a stop to the use of a level crossing; but the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that a level crossing could not be changed without incurring considerable expense. One of the things which the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) had put forward in that eulogy with which he had indulged with regard to himself and his own public services as one of his many claims to canonization was that he had himself spent £2,000 in getting a level crossing abolished in this very town of Stockton. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was informed by an hon. Gentleman who was acquainted with the circumstances that no less a sum than £10,000 had been spent by the ratepayers of Blackburn recently in order to get rid of a level crossing, which certainly ought never to have been sanctioned, in the midst of a large population. He had nothing to say against the character of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means; but he thought no more damaging statement could have been made against the case for this Bill than the statement of the hon. Gentleman. To paraphrase an old Latin phrase, they had an accused person confessing his own guilt—of course, he used the term in a purely Pickwickian sense. The hon. Gentleman said the measure came before him as an unopposed Bill. That was the grievance which was now protested against; and it appeared that the hon. Gentleman himself was not satisfied with the statements made by the promoters in regard to it, because he made an order for other evidence to be brought forward, and adjourned the Committee until it could be produced. But by whom was the new evidence brought forward. It was not by the opponents, because the Bill was unopposed; and, therefore, the evidence which succeeded in bringing conviction to the wavering mind of the hon. Gentleman was the evidence of the promoters of the Bill. He wanted to know whether or not it was a fact, as stated by the hon. Member for the North Riding of York-shire(Mr. Guy Dawnay), that no less than 12,000 working people passed the place every day where this level crossing was to be constructed; and, if that were so, was the House prepared lightly, and upon most insufficient evidence, to expose to great danger the lives of no less than 12,000 of the constituency of Stockton? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) had an easy way of meeting all objections. It was said that there had been a public meeting against the Bill. "Oh;" said the hon. Gentleman, "that public meeting was packed," then it was said that there was a Petition from the working men against the Bill; but in that case the hon. Member said that the signatures were forged, or had been obtained under duresse, because certain persons, unlike the hon. Member for Stockton, had a personal interest in the matter. In fact, the whole case of the hon. Mem- ber for Stockton was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) ought to hide his face in such blushes as he had at his command, because the right hon. Gentleman did not come into court on this occasion with the dove-like innocence of the hon. Member for Stockton. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not at all agree with those who said that personal questions ought not to be introduced into the discussion of this measure. He thought that the personal matters were the very essence of the question now before the House; and he told hon. Members on the other side of the House that public opinion outside would look to the personal side of the matter as the question upon which hon. Members ought to vote. And the personal part of the question was this. No one seriously asserted that the hon. Member for Stockton had a personal interest, or a corrupt motive, in the matter. That was not the charge against him; but the personal charge was that he was seeking for the personal support of the House to this Bill, not upon public grounds, but upon personal and corrupt grounds—not on grounds of public utility, but because his own son happened to be the solicitor to the Bill. That was the real question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire said that the son of the hon. Member for Stockton was his partner; but the hon. Member had denied that. ["No!"] The hon. Member denied that he had any personal or pecuniary interest in the firm in regard to this section of its business. He did not think, however, that he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) need dwell upon that point; because if the hon. Gentleman had requested support for this Bill as a stranger, he would, if the facts he had himself adduced were correct, in making the demand have acted upon corrupt and illegitimate grounds. That was the question the House had to consider; and he said that if this Bill were a good one, he thought that what had taken place, and considering the auspices under which it was brought forward, together with the circumstances which surrounded it, the House was bound, by due regard for its own dignity, to throw it out. The Bill was a bad Bill; and he thought the public would to-morrow narrowly scan the Division List, in order to see whether the House had more regard for the personal susceptibilities of a political Colleague than for the honour, dignity, and respect of that great Assembly.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 126; Noes 117: Majority 9.—(Div. List, No. 70.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.