CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 8 August 1888)

§ MR. MACLURE (Lancashire, S.E., Stretford)
said, he desired to move the insertion of Amendments to the clause which sanctioned an agreement between the Mersey Tunnel Railway and the London and North-Western and Great Western Railway Companies; giving the latter Companies exclusive privileges in the use of the Mersey Tunnel. He wished to explain that during the present Session the Mersey Company Bills had been introduced in the House of Lords, styled respectively the Mersey Railway (No. 1) Bill and the 3 Mersey Railway (No. 2) Bill. The No. 2 Bill was simply a Money Bill, and the No. 1 Bill contained certain clauses which were now the object of his opposition. The clauses and the agreement scheduled in the Bill to which he referred were not in it as it was originally submitted to the House of Lords or in this House; and therefore certain Railway Companies, whose interests were prejudicially affected thereby, had no locus standi against the Bill on that account. The proposal in the Bill really amounted to a gigantic monopoly, by which the whole system of Welsh railways, of the Sheffield and Lincolnshire, of the Midland, and of the Great Northern Railway Companies would be absolutely excluded from the free use of the Mersey Tunnel. The agreement of last year gave the London and North-Western an unfair advantage over five other routes, and it ignored the claims of the whole system of Welsh railways, the Sheffield and Lincolnshire, the Great Northern, and the Midland Railways, all of whom had spent large sums of money for the public benefit in order to establish an effective through communication between the Welsh system and the systems of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The Railway Companies prejudicially affected had already pointed out the gross unfairness of this proceeding to the promoters, but without effect; and he was so thoroughly convinced that the proposal in the clauses to which he took exception was opposed to the public interest that he was prepared to press his objection to a Division. Even taking the promoters' own statement, which had been sent to every Member of the House, the Mersey Tunnel was formed to make a communication between the railways on both the north and south sides of the river. Within the last month a great undertaking had been commenced—namely, the Dee Bridge, and those he represented had spent on that and the Wirral Railway £600,000 on works and communications, and they hoped within another 12 months that the Dee Bridge would be open and the Wirral system would be brought into absolute communication with the Mersey Tunnel. It would be of great benefit to both undertakings. In the statement the promoters had laid before the House they had ventured to say that the 4 route, by means of the extensions of the Wirral Railway, had not been commenced, nor did the Wirral Railway Company complain of the agreement; but he desired, on behalf of the Wirral Company, to protest altogether against such a statement. Then the promoters went on to say that the interests of the Welsh railways were even more remote. But, as a matter of fact, the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Company had running powers to the mouth of the Tunnel for the Wirral Railway system, and to sanction the proposal of the Bill would be to enable the London and North-Western and the Great Western Companies to choke the independent traffic which would be conveyed to the great benefit of the Principality of Wales. He asked the House to refuse to assent to this agreement. It was, as he had said, inserted after the Bill had left the House of Lords. The House of Lords had passed the measure without this objectionable clause, nor was it proposed in the Bill when the House of Commons passed the second reading. It was inserted in Committee on the last day when the Bill had been in the list for something like 10 days, and when it was impossible for those who were prejudiced by this very monopolizing clause to make their claim to have justice done.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member move to leave out the whole clause?

§ MR. MACLURE
said, he begged to move the omission of the words, in page 12, from the word "The," in line 3, to "Heads," in line 8.

§ MR. KENYON (Denbigh, &c.)
said, he earnestly hoped the House would support the protest of his hon. Friend against this proposal to give these great Railway Companies a practical monopoly. As had been pointed out, this agreement was only scheduled at the end of the year, at the very last moment, and without due consideration of the fact that if carried it would place the Welsh Railway Companies in a very unfair position 5 to other Railway Companies communicating with the Mersey Tunnel. All the Welsh railways asked was that they should be granted the same benefits allowed to all the other railways; that they should be placed on equal terms with them; and they only hoped the House would join in the protest against giving the monopoly of running powers to the railways to which reference had been made.

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)
I should have liked to have heard something said on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. It is extremely embarrassing for the House to have to come to a judgment on the question after hearing one side only. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire (Mr. Maclure) has moved an Amendment which is an important one, and which deserves very serious consideration; and the hon. Member has been supported by another hon. Gentleman, but no one appears to support what is contained in the Bill. I do not know whether there is anyone in the House charged with the duty of representing the promoters, but I will state to the House very briefly how the case stands. The Mersey Railway, as everybody knows, had financial difficulties to contend with, and last year the Company introduced a Bill which contained in a Schedule an agreement with the Great Western and London and North-Western Companies for the interchange of traffic—an agreement which, it is said, gave these Companies a practical monopoly in respect of the traffic between Wales and the Western and Midland Counties. Without going into the question whether that is so or not, that, at any rate, was agreed to last year. Then this Session the Mersey Company comes again to Parliament with a Bill introduced first in the House of Lords, and had at the last stage of the Committee in the Commons an agreement inserted in the Schedule varying, undoubtedly, the agreement of last year, and, as just alleged, varying it in a manner most prejudicial to the Companies other than those I have spoken of. If this agreement had been in the Bill as introduced, the other Companies would have alleged with some force, if not with exactness, that they would have had a locus standi to object to this agreement; but, as a matter 6 of fact, they were not heard before the Committee as it now stands in its amended form. As it is, they have not had the opportunity of urging their objections, and of showing how their interests will be prejudicially affected by this new agreement. Now, what the hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire proposes to do is not merely to nullify what is proposed to be done in this Bill as to the agreement, and as to which I think he has a very strong case, but he proposes also to repeal the Schedule and agreement in the Act of last year. That course would be unfair to the promoters of the Bill—about as unfair to them as the Bill is unfair to their opponents. I confess I can scarcely think the House will take the step of repealing the agreement which is scheduled in the Act of last year, and which is part of the series of Acts of Parliaments on which the Mersey Company has attained its position. What the hon. Member might do, and what I think the House will probably consider him entitled to do, would be to repeal Clause 15A altogether, and with it the Schedule, which will leave the Mersey Company in precisely the same position as they occupied last year—nullifying, in fact, its action in respect to which the opponents of the Company ought to have had the opportunity of being heard. I will suggest, therefore, to the hon. Member that he should withdraw the present Amendment and move the omission of Clause 15A, and then move the omission of the Schedule. Probably the House will think that by so doing neither the Mersey Company, nor the Great Western, nor the London and North-Western Companies will be unfairly treated.

§ MR. MACLURE
said, it would be unbecoming of him, as a new Member of the House, not to accept the suggestion of such an authority as the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees; and he, therefore, should withdraw his Amendment and propose the omission of Clause 15A.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
said, he thought the promoters of this Bill would, if the course now proposed were adopted, be treated with very remarkable leniency. They had resorted to a course of conduct which, in his humble opinion, ought to have brought them within the jurisdiction of 7 the authorities of the House. They had adopted a mode of action which enabled them practically to evade those Rules and Orders which had been established for the protection of the different interests of the country with regard to Private Bill Legislation. They brought in a Bill which was of such a character that at the outset a number of persons who might be interested were put off their guard, and therefore did not obtain that locus standi before the Committee that was really necessary for the protection of their interests, as events showed. They allowed things to go on until the Committee were prepared to adopt certain conclusions; and then, at the last moment, when it was practically impossible for the Committee to appreciate the effect of what was proposed, they agreed to a Schedule which invaded in a very serious way the interests of third parties. These third parties had had no notice of this, and were not at all aware of what was being done until it was practically impossible for them to lay their case before the public. Now, that appeared to him to be a distinct evasion of the Rules and Regulations of the House; and as the agents of the promoters were, he believed, amenable to the jurisdiction of the House, it appeared to him that it would have been proper, just, and most salutary that some notice should have been taken of their conduct, and that they should have been prevented from further acting as agents in connection with Private Bill Legislation—at any rate, for some time. Their conduct was such as to call for some serious disciplinary action. The observations of the hon. Gentleman, who spoke with all the authority of Chairman of Committees, were, in his (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) opinion, of a very lenient description. He should have preferred to see objection taken to the Bill being proceeded with any further; but if the House was disposed to take so lenient a view as the Chairman of Committees seemed inclined to recommend, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would not take the initiative in endeavouring to enforce serious penalty.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Amendment?

§ MR. MACLURE
I do, Sir.

§ MR. MACLURE
I beg to move the omission of Clause 15A.