SECOND READING. (Hansard, 18 April 1893)

§ COLONEL BRIDGEMAN (Bolton)
said, before the Bill was allowed to pass, he desired to know whether the promoters intended to proceed with Clause 13, which proposed an entirely new departure in legislation of this kind? This clause was to do away with the proviso as to the liability of the company to build bridges over the Canal. It appeared to him that that was a very valuable proviso to have in a Bill. In these days, when large companies like Railway and Canal Companies were given very large powers, it was of great importance that the interests of the community should be safeguarded and none of the ancient rights conferred on the public taken away. It seemed to him that this was the most important part of the Bill, and he should like to hear from the promoters why this clause had been inserted, doing away with the liability of the company to provide bridges. In order to raise the question, and to obtain an answer, he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ *MR. ERNEST SPENCER (West Bromwich)
seconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, and said he did so not only because of the inclusion in the Bill of certain principles which were opposed to the law as it now stood—he referred to Clause 13 doing away with the company's liability to pay for bridges under necessary and proper cir- 544 cumstances—but also for the omission of certain clauses which were to be found in the Bill as originally introduced. These clauses were of considerable importance to his constituency (West Bromwich), inasmuch as they proposed to do away with eight locks, which were the cause of much delay and congestion of traffic, and to substitute there for an inclined plane which would allow of boats descending and ascending rivers with much advantage in time and convenience. If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill could assure him these clauses would be inserted his opposition to the Bill would be materially weakened.

§ *MR. DIXON (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment to a Division, because the matter he had alluded to was only of secondary importance, and a very small portion indeed of the Bill. His experience of the customs of the House was that it was not usual to prevent a Bill of this kind going to a Committee unless there was a very strong reason for it, and such a strong reason, he maintained, had not been explained to the House. The facts of the case, as he understood them, were these: In the original Act, passed more than 100 years ago, there was a provision that certain bridges should be made by the Canal Company, and he believed that all the bridges then contemplated—and, indeed, more—had been built by the Canal Company, and, therefore, the intention of the Act had been fully carried out. There had only been two cases brought before the Courts during the whole 100 years, and of these one was decided in favour of the Canal Company and the other against. There were something like 500 bridges, and only in the case of two had any difficulty occurred. Another matter of importance was this: During that time there had been a group of 70 bridges built by owners and occupiers of land, and the fact that owners and occupiers had recognised that if they desired a bridge it was their duty to build 545 it at their own cost showed that during all this time there had been a feeling throughout the district that if a bridge "was to be built it should be built by the owners of the land and not by the Canal Company. Under these circumstances, why should it be sought to put a different interpretation on the original Act to that which had been given by all the owners and occupiers of land up to the present moment? Having built all the bridges originally intended, and which they could be called upon to provide, it would be a great hardship on the company if they were now to be called upon to erect additional bridges. The whole matter, however, could be much bettor gone into in Committee, and he hoped, therefore, the House would not depart from the usual practice, but would allow the Bill to be read a second time.

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. MELLOR,) York, W.R., Sowerby
hoped the House would not depart from the usual rule in these cases. If ever there was a case in which the investigation of a Select Committee was required it was the present case. A Select Committee was the tribunal which had been suggested by the House for undertaking inquiry in a case of this kind, and he had not been able to ascertain any reason why they should not now follow the ordinary rule. He hoped, therefore, without saying one word about the merits of the Bill, that the House would not depart from its usual practice, but would allow the present stage of the Bill to be taken.

§ *SIR A. HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.)
said, as the Bill was originally introduced it contained certain clauses in the interest of the Canal Company and certain clauses in the interest of the public. Those in the interest of the Canal Company relieved them from the liability to provide bridges when the Magistrates had declared them to be necessary, and those in the interest of the public were to enable the Canal Company to make inclined planes in substitution for locks, which would be a matter of convenience and advantage to the public. The clause as to making these locks had been withdrawn, but the clause relieving the company from liability to build bridges had been retained. He should be quite ready to leave the question for the decision of a Committee of the 546 House of Commons, but he submitted that they should have the whole matter before them, including the clauses which were in the interest of the public as well as the clause in the interest of the Canal Company.

§ *MR. J. A. BRIGHT (Birmingham, Central)
thought he was able to say that there was no chance of the re-introduction of the clauses for the inclined planes, the company not having the necessary money. He did not quite understand the opposition to the Bill. The Bill had been promoted for several purposes, one of which was to get rid of an antiquated clause in a Bill 120 years old, which laid exceptional burdens on the Birmingham Canal. He thought if ever there was a Bill which ought to be sent for discussion to a Select Committee it was this one, and he hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division.

§ COLONEL BRIDGEMAN
said, the reason he brought forward the matter was because this appeared to be rather a new principle. Many of them thought that the powers of Canal and Railway Companies were too large, and they would like to see this special clause in the original Act imposing the liability to provide bridges, or a clause of a similar tendency introduced into other Bills of Canal and Railway Companies——

§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Member has spoken twice.