INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 24 February 1887 vol 311 cc440-54

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [21st February].

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)

I was so unfortunate as not to catch your eye, Sir, on the last occasion when this Bill was under consideration before the adjournment of the debate was moved. As far as the Instruction is concerned which is proposed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), I do not know that on its merits alone I should be very much disposed to oppose it. At the same time I consider that the Amendment proposed to the Instruction by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is a good Amendment, and I shall support it if the hon. Member goes into the Lobby. I desire on general grounds to enter a protest against the manner in which the opposition to this Bill has been conducted, and especially against the precedent which this Instruction establishes. I cannot for the life of me see why the inhabitants of Westmoreland and Cumberland are to be always subjected to this annoyance whenever they wish to obtain the facilities which British subjects possess in other parts of the Kingdom whenever any scheme is brought forward for the improvement of the district in which they reside. More than that, I wish also to protest in the strongest manner against the effort which has been made on this occasion to prejudice this scheme in the eyes of the House. The hon. Member for Aberdeen complained very much of the action of hon. Members sitting on this side of the House. He actually made use of this expression, for I took down his words at the time—"This is not the way in which the Business of the House should be conducted." I think there is a great deal in this question which merits the sneer which the hon. Member addressed to the House. We have seen the way in which the opposition to the Bill has been conducted, and in my opinion it has not been in accordance with the Business arrangements of the House. When the Bill was read a second time there were persons in the Lobby engaged in distributing to Members a paper which I hold in my h and called "Reasons against the second reading of the Bill." I ventured the other day when the Bill was under consideration to go through those reasons very briefly, and to point out that substantially every one of the allegations down in this paper was false. I repeat that statement now. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) followed me, and he made use of these words, which I also took down at the time. He said that— He was fully prepared to maintain the truth of every word contained in the statement put forward by the Society for the Preservation of Commons, of which he is the Chairman. Now, all I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be personally acquainted with the facts of the case, or else he is incapable of understanding them. The third of the allegations contained in this paper is this— The support of the line is confined to a very few persons, most of whom have some private purpose to serve. The only promoter who is a landowner declines to pledge himself to become a shareholder. The inhabitants of the neighbourhood are, as a body, opposed to the line. There is not a word of truth in that allegation. I pledge myself, standing here in my place in the House of Commons, to the fact that the vast majority of the inhabitants of West Cumberland are in favour of the Bill. The Press of West Cumberland is entirely in favour of the line.

MR. W. H. JAMES (Gateshead)

I rise to Order. I wish to know from you Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce)?

MR. SPEAKER

The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman upon the Amendment seem to me to be perfectly applicable.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

I am really surprised that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James), who has been a Member of this House for so many years, should have such a very small acquaintance with the A B C of our Rules of Procedure. I was defending myself from the imputation brought against me by the right hon. Member for Bradford, who said he was prepared to maintain the truth of every one of these statements. I am very sorry to detain the House, but interruptions of this kind naturally tend to prolong the observations I intended to make. Well, Sir, the reasons against the second reading of the Bill put forward by the Commons Preservation Society, which I was reading, say that the support of the line is confined to a very few persons. Now, I maintain that the whole of West Cumberland is in favour of the Bill. I hold in my hand a copy of The West Cumberland Times of last Saturday—a paper of very large circulation in West Cumberland. In an article upon the debate which occurred in this House the editor is good enough to approve of the course which I myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther) took, and also of that which was taken by the hon. Member for Northampton; and it goes on to say that we administered a merited rebuke to the so-called Lake District Defence Society, who appear to be "about as mendacious as they are meddlesome." The House, however, has only to do with the action of Parliament. These reasons go on to say— The Lake District has hitherto been treated as a national pleasure ground—the one mountain district of England. Its peculiar beauty is of a kind which would be seriously impaired, if not ruined, by the intrusion of railway embankment and cutting; and Parliament has, hitherto, steadily refused to admit any line within the area. Now, Parliament has never done any thing of the sort; but it has sanctioned railways in Westmoreland and Cumberland at various points. If it be any justification of the opposition I have felt it my duty to raise in regard to this document I may say that I hold in my hand a telegram received in reference to the Secretary of this particular Association. That telegram says— Hill has sent letter about Ambleside Committee on here, admitting errors in last statement, and endeavouring to excuse himself. I think that the inhabitants of the district are in themselves quite competent to judge whether this railway will be of advantage to the locality through which it passes or not, and that they shall be allowed to come to a decision upon their own local matters without interference from without. I may also say a word to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford upon the question of taste. If the question is to be raised I should say that the right hon. Gentleman is the very last man to interfere in such a matter, seeing that he is the author of the very worst piece of Vandalism which has been perpetrated in the present day—namely, the wilderness of Hyde Park Corner.

MR. T. FRY (Darlington)

I have had a house within a few miles of Ambleside for several years, and I should, therefore, like to say a word upon the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). All I can say is that I wish the railway had been made some seven or 10 years ago, because I believe it would have been of great advantage to a large number of persons who annually go to that district. It has been stated that the construction of this railway will destroy the beauty of the scenery. No doubt the district is one which is remarkable for the beauty of its scenery; but I do not see how the scenery of the proposed line differs from that between Kendal and Windermere, in regard to which Parliament has already allowed the construction of a railway. Parliament has also sanctioned a railway to Coniston, another to Keswick, and lines to two points upon Lake Windermere itself. There are many hon. Members in this House who know the district well, and I am sure that they will appreciate what I say when I mention that persons have often felt the disadvantage of being turned out at Windermere, in a pouring rain, when desiring to get further on in the district. For a large portion of the year the coach accommodation is of the smallest character, and during the three or four months which constitute the tourists' season the traffic is so great that the coaches are uncomfortably filled. I am quite certain, from what I know of Ambleside and the people there, that they are largely in favour of the construction of this railway, and that they are impressed with the importance of having it carried on as far as that town. Most of those who support the Bill are inhabitants of the district. It is opposed only by a few well-to-do residents; but I do not think that this House ought to consider the privileges of the few against the advantages of the many. I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.

MR. KNOWLES (Salford, W.)

I trust the House will pardon me if I occupy its attention for a few minutes while I say a word or two upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). My hon. Colleague in the representation of Salford (Mr. Howorth) spoke last week against the second reading of the Bill, and I supported him by my vote, be- lieving that in doing so I was acting in the interests of my constituents, who are, in the main, members of that body which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) calls the masses—"the intelligent masses." I believe that they will be much affected by the passing of this Bill, and I oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton in their interest—not in the interest of the rich, but in that of the poor, or, at all events, in the interest of those who are not rich. I maintain that if this railway is sanctioned the Lake District will be cut up and seriously injured. The poor will not be able to admire the district and scenery as they have done hitherto, and, unlike the rich, they will not be able to afford expensive railway fares which may enable them to take long journeys to other and more beautiful localities. At the same time I feel some difficulty in speaking upon the Amendment, because I am bound to confine myself to what the right hon. Member for White-haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) has called the A B C of our Rules of Procedure, and I am not allowed to touch incidentally on questions outside the scope of the Amendment. I maintain that the Committee to which the Bill will be referred ought to have complete evidence before it, not only from the neighbourhood, but also from persons outside the neighbourhood—what may be called non-local evidence. I admit that the interests of the tourists ought not to be considered before those of the inhabitants; but what I contend is that it is the interests of speculators that are now being considered before those of the community. Moreover, I maintain that those who live on the spot—those whom we may call the inhabitants of the Lake District—are not able to judge whether the scenery will be spoiled or not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven has told the House that the great majority of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood are in favour of the construction of this line; but I say that they are not the best judges. I am also of opinion that outside evidence ought to be admitted, because it is a common practice to admit outside evidence in similar cases. So far as the speculators are concerned, I say that evidence is absolutely necessary in regard to what has taken place outside the Lake District. What I think may happen is this. At the present moment the station at Windermere is a mile distant from the town of Bowness. [An hon. MEMBER: Moro than a mile.] It is proposed to carry on the Windermere line from Windermere to Ambleside, a distance of about six miles, and, perhaps, to Keswick. When the railway reaches Ambleside, it will be found that the town of Ambleside, being on the Lake, is on the same level as the town of Bowness; and the consequence will be that a proposal will soon be made for constructing a line between Ambleside and Bowness, on the edge of the Lake. [An hon. MEMBER: Why not?] My hon. Friend says "Why not?" and my answer is that we should then have a railway upon the Lake, and there could be nothing more hideous than to have the Lake of Windermere girt by iron rails. I have stated that those on the spot are unable to judge for themselves. If an illustration is wanted, let me refer the hon. Member for Northampton to the conversation which took place between the professor of philosophy and M. Jourdain, when M. Jourdain discovered that he had been talking prose for more than 40 years of his life, and did not know it. If we want a further illustration, let me refer to the senior Member for Northampton himself. He has repeatedly spoken in this House during the last fortnight, and probably he may entertain a favourable opinion of the effect of his speeches. Probably he does know the effect of them upon those who sit upon the Benches near him; but, as far as I can judge, he does not know the effect which has been produced by them upon hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House. For a similar reason, people who live in a particular neighbourhood are unable to judge whether the scenery around them may be injured or not. It is for those who live outside the district to say whether or not the scenery will be spoiled under certain conditions. I know that the hon. Member for Northampton is fond of recurring to the wisdom of our ancestors, and this is a case in which I think we ought to recur to the wisdom of our ancestors. If we do that, the hon. Member will not support his own Amendment; but, on the contrary, he will vote for the original Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce).

For these reasons I intend to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, and I trust that many other hon. Members will follow me into the Division Lobby.

MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)

I am glad to see such a strong consensus of opinion in regard to this question on the part of the Representatives of the great Northern cities, though sitting on different sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Knowles), who has just spoken, told the House that he spoke on behalf of the toiling and intelligent masses. I also take this opportunity of speaking on their behalf. I quite agree with him that, in a question like this, this House is bound to constitute itself the custodian of the beautiful spots which are left in England. It would be most undesirable to allow the Lake District to be cut up and handed over to snorting railway engines, as other parts of England have been. A great outcry is made when a picture by Raffaele, or by Murillo, or by any of the great masters, is allowed to leave the country; but here we have a priceless gem, fresh from the hand of Nature, which we are asked to destroy for the benefit of a few local gentlemen who study only the advantage of their own pecuniary interests. I am of opinion that the House of Commons should never allow interests of that kind to outweigh the interests of the great mass of the inhabitants of Yorkshire and Lancashire. It is well known that the Lake District is the recruiting ground for the health of the labouring classes of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and of working men of all classes who are engaged in the great industries of the country. Having been recently in the North of England, I took the opportunity of endeavouring to ascertain the opinion of the working classes in regard to this scheme; and I found that it was decisively and unanimously against it. Let me draw the attention of the House to what has taken place in connection with the town of Richmond, in Yorkshire. That town and its surroundings formed one of the most beautiful spots in England; but the Town Council have erected gas works, and three hideous buildings covered with tar raise their hideous forms just where the river breaks into a natural waterfall. Those erections now form the chief objects in the view, and the beauty of the site is entirely spoiled. I have no doubt that if this line of railway is allowed to be carried on from Windermere to Ambleside, there will soon be three or four ugly sheds put up, and the whole beauty of that classic spot will be destroyed. I shall, therefore, vote most decidedly against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. I think the House should constitute itself the champion of the cause of beautiful scenery in the country, and should persistently reject proposals of this character.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I wish to remind the House that the Question before us is not the second reading of the Ambleside Railway Bill. That has been already disposed of, and we who opposed the second reading must bow to the decision of the House. The immediate Question before us now is what Instruction shall be given to the Select Committee as to the inquiry they are about to undertake. I am somewhat disposed to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and deal with all the points he has entered into. I will content myself, however, with saying that I stand entirely by the Circular which was issued by the Commons Preservation Society, of which I am Chairman, and which I believe to be substantially true. I am not disposed to enter into a controversy with the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the views of the Society are worthy of consideration or not, nor am I prepared to discuss questions of taste. I have always heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he was not an authority on questions of taste, and I think that that was a right view to take of his position. Therefore, I will not defend my conduct in this or any other matter. Turning to the question before the House, it is simply this, What is the Instruction which ought to be given to the Committee about to be appointed to investigate the provisions of the Ambleside Railway Bill? Upon that point I will venture to remind the House that on two previous occasions the House has given the same Instruction which it is now asked to give in respect of a railway which proposed to enter the Lake District. In the year 1883 the Ennerdale Railway Bill came before the House. It was opposed on the second reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), and a Division was taken on that occasion, when the second reading was carried. My hon. Friend then moved an Instruction precisely the same as that which he has now proposed—namely, that the Committee was entitled to take into account the general view of the public interests in regard to questions of scenery, and so forth, and to hear general evidence upon the subject. The House divided upon the Instruction, and my hon. Friend carried his Motion. Again, in the year 1884, the same question arose. The Ennerdale Bill came again before the House, and again this House gave an Instruction to the Committee in similar terms to that which my hon. Friend now moves. The House has now passed the second reading of the Ambleside Railway Bill; and what we ask is that the House shall again pass the same Instruction to the Committee as that which was passed in the years 1883 and 1884. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven to say that he did not seriously object to the Instruction, although he thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was somewhat better. He raised no serious objection, however, to the proposal of my hon. Friend. The difference between the two is this: The Instruction moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen proposes that the Committee shall have power to go into the general question in the interests of the public, and that they shall be entitled to take evidence on the part of the public as to whether the scenery will be interfered with or not; whereas the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton would have the effect of confining the Instruction merely to the people who live on the spot. Now, I maintain that the true course the House should take is to allow general evidence to be given on the subject. Let me remind the House what took place in the Ennerdale case. When the Bill went before the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen himself gave evidence as to his views on the subject. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton is passed, my hon. Friend would be precluded, from giving such evidence. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!] But if the Instruction moved by my hon. Friend is passed, he will be able to appear before the Committee, and give evidence. We contend that this is a public question in which the public are largely interested, and that it is not merely a matter in which the local interests of the people are concerned. It very often happens that, in this class of cases, the interests of the public on the spot are different from those of the general public. Let me give an illustration of this. I suppose there has been no public interest of late years so generally recognized as that which relates to the preservation of Epping Forest. Undoubtedly, the interests of the people on the spot are in favour of enclosure, whereas the interests of the public of London go in an entirely opposite direction. The interests of the public of London prevailed over those of the people on the spot. It may be—I will not say that it is—that the interest of the public in the ease of the Ambleside Railway should prevail over the interest of the people on the spot. The question for the House to consider is whether those interests should be allowed to go before the Committee and present their case there, or whether the inquiry should be conducted in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton. I am not going into the question who is right or wrong in this matter. The question is a very simple and a very small one—whether the House shall restrict the Instruction in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton, or allow evidence as to the general interest of the public to be brought before the Committee in respect of this proposed railway to Ambleside. I cannot doubt that the House, following the precedents set in the case of the Ennerdale Railway in 1883 and 1884, will agree to the Instruction moved by my hon. Friend.

MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)

I shall only detain the House for a very few minutes. I only desire to point out the direction in which the proposals contained in this Bill go, and how necessary it is to pass the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I believe that many hon. Members voted for the second reading of the Bill not because they liked the measure—because I believe that the great majority of the House disliked it—but because they thought that a Bill of this kind ought to go upstairs and be dealt with by a Select Committee. If the Bill be rejected upstairs, those who are against it will have nothing further to say; but if it were passed by the Committee upstairs, and this Instruction were rejected, the opponents of the Bill would be in a position to say that the Committee had been crippled very much by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, and would be fortified in that which they very much desire to do—namely, to throw out the Bill altogether. They will certainly be considerably helped in their opposition to the Bill on the third reading if this Instruction to the Committee is rejected by the House.

MR. GILES (Southampton)

I am very sorry to disagree with the hon. Member who spoke last; but it does appear to me that, when the inhabitants of a district have subscribed their money to construct a line of railway for their own convenience, they should not be interfered with by an irresponsible body, hailing, I believe, from Manchester, and calling themselves "The Lake District Defence Society." I should have thought that Manchester would have been about the last place in the world where we should have expected to find so much sentiment. I am quite certain that Manchester itself does not allow any sentimental nonsense to interfere with its material interests. Why not carry the question of sentiment out to its proper conclusion? If you are consistent in your sentiment you ought to go much further, and should take steps to abolish the gunpowder mills, the gas works, the bobbin manufactory in the neighbourhood of Ambleside, and the steamboats on Lake Windermere. These are things which certainly do not add to any sentimental view of the beauties of scenery. But sentiment does not appear to me to be the only motive for the Instruction to the Committee. This Bill has already passed a second reading, and this is an attempt, by a side-wind, to obtain a locus standi before the Committee which I think the Lake District Defence Society should not get. I shall, therefore, oppose the Instruction of the hon. Member for Aberdeen.

MR. W. H. JAMES (Gateshead)

I think the Amendment has probably been drawn by some old Parliamentary hand. It appears to me that if the Amendment of my hon. Friend below me were carried, not only would the evidence be confined to local evidence, but it would have the effect of rejecting the Instruction altogether.

MR. SPEAKER

Has not the hon. Member already spoken?

MR. W. H. JAMES

No, Sir. All I did was to move the adjournment on the last occasion. There are probably many hon. Members in this House who have never served upon a Parliamentary Committee, and when the question of the Instruction came before them, the learned counsel who represent the promoters would urge that local evidence would mean merely the evidence of those who have already acquired a locus standi to appear before the Committee. Therefore, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton is carried, all questions affecting the interest of the general public would be carefully kept out of sight.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

I hope the House will support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. I happen to have been born and to have spent all the younger years of my life in the neighbourhood of Lake Windermere. I know the whole of the scenery there, and the only complaint I have to make of this Bill is that it does not come near enough to the Lake. Hon. Members have talked about the interests of the toiling millions, and their desire to prevent the scenery from being spoiled. The fact is, that until this railway is made, the toiling millions cannot reach this part of the Lake at all, and the whole of the beautiful scenery is practically shut out from the tourists and cheap trippers from Manchester, Liverpool, and the great manufacturing towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire. I believe it to be a selfish policy that would keep the Lake District entirely for the rich, who are able to hire conveyances and go down to the water-side. If this railway is made, it will put Lake Windermere within the reach of the whole of the cheap trippers and factory hands of Lancashire, together with their wives and little ones; and will place the residents of the locality within easy reach of every other part of the Kingdom.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Perhaps I may be allowed, for one moment, to recall to the recollection of the House what is the precise issue we are asked to vote. It is not whether the Ambleside Bill is to be read a second time. That was done a few days ago, and the Bill was ordered to be sent upstairs. The only question before us now is what kind of evidence shall be admitted by the Committee on the subject. The Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen proposes to admit evidence as to the effect of the proposals contained in the Bill upon the scenery of the country. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton does not in the least degree diminish that kind of evidence—namely, evidence as to the scenery of the country; but the hon. Member wishes to restrict the persons who are to give evidence on that point to those who are in the locality. There may be reasons for rejecting the Instruction altogether; but if you are to take evidence as to the effect of the Railway on the scenery of the country, it appears to me impossible to say that the Select Committee shall only hear one class of persons upon that question. The Committee should hear whatever evidence may be submitted to it on the subject, and to say that they shall only hear persons living on the spot would be to restrict unduly the Instruction to the Committee. If you care to allow the Committee to entertain the question at all, you should follow the Instruction in the case of the Ennerdale Bill. I trust that no attempt will be made to restrict the evidence that may be offered, for it appears to me that such a course would simply stultify the force of the Instruction altogether. At the same time I hope the Committee will be strong enough to say that they will not have a repetition of the same evidence from the same class of persons, but that they will confine it within practicable limits. I hope that the House, with that understanding, will accept the Instruction.

MR. SCLATER BOOTH (Hants, Basingstoke)

For my part I hope the House will reject the whole of the Instruction, and that the Committee will bring common sense to bear upon the case, taking the evidence only of the witnesses who will naturally be brought before them. I altogether repudiate the idea that the Committee is to be bound by the case submitted to them by the promoters and opponents of the Bill. It is the duty of a Committee to con- sider, in all cases, the interests of the public, and if they see reason to reject a Bill on its merits they may do so, notwithstanding what evidence the promoters or opponents may adduce. If I were the Chairman of a Committee like this, I should feel excessively embarrassed by an Instruction of this kind, calling upon the Committee to receive evidence on the scenery of all parts of the Lake District. I believe the evidence will be fully brought out by witnesses on both sides, without any Instruction to the Committee at all.

Question put.

The House divided :—Ayes 225; Noes 118: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 20.)

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Aye3 231; Noes 133: Majority 98.—(Div. List, No. 21.) Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Ambleside Railway Bill, to inquire and report whether the proposed Railway will interfere with the enjoyment of the public, who annually visit the Lake District, by injuriously affecting the scenery in the neighbourhood, or otherwise; and that they have power to receive Evidence upon the subject,—(Mr. Bryce.)