§ "Where land is acquired by a light railway company under this Act otherwise than by agreement, the following provisions shall apply: the Board of Trade shall not make any order for acquiring the whole or any part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground; or other ground, the property of a railway company or canal company, which is or may be required for the purposes of their undertaking, or any land which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, is being held and may be required for the extension of a factory or public work."
237§ He said that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the powers conferred on the Board of Trade under this Bill were somewhat similar to the powers which had been conferred by Parliament on other Government Departments. This was scarcely the actual fact. It was perfectly true that Parliament had from time to time in recent years devolved upon other authorities powers with regard to the acquisition of land. for public purposes; but those powers had been devolved under the Public Health Acts and under the various Local Government Acts, and had been devolved, not upon Government Departments, but upon local representative authorities. Under this Bill very large changes would take place in the manner in which land could be appropriated by a public department. Hitherto no public department had possessed such authority. The Bill practically placed in the hands of the Board of Trade very large power with regard to proposals for the acquisition of land for the purposes of light railways. As a matter of fact, as had been pointed out, considerable powers already existed under which land could be acquired, but they did not exist for the purposes for which land could be acquired under this Bill. He wished under his clause to give that protection which ought to be given to owners of property who held it for the purposes referred to in the clause. There was no provision in the Bill to prevent an order being issued causing an inquiry to be made of a more or less public character by the Light Railways Commissioners as to the acquisition of land under any circumstances and in any place, and it was because he felt there ought to be protection for individual proprietors, that he moved his Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)said he did not know what the intentions of the Government with regard to this clause might be, but he thought it ought to be opposed. To begin with, it was rather indefinite in its terms. It appeared to have no reference to that kind of property the hon. Gentleman wished to protect, but to refer only to property belonging to a railway or canal company. The question of whether private property was to be interfered with or not was the whole essence of an application for 238 an Order under the Bill, and was the question which the Commissioners would have to decide. This was the first time it had been proposed to put any legislative restrictions on applications from railways. If a light railway company was to be prevented from acquiring any property of an existing railway company the whole object of the Bill would be defeated—namely, to enable a light railway company to obtain communication to existing lines. The clause said that land was not to be acquired when, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, it might be wanted for the extension of a factory or public work. On this there arose the question, what was the meaning of the expression "public work"? Was a school a public work within the meaning of the clause? If it was not why should it be excluded from the operation of the clause? In his opinion, the provisions of the clause were most invidious.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid that it was impossible for the Government to assent to this clause. The object of the Bill was to promote light and, therefore, cheap railways. He thought it might safely be assumed that no railway company or corporation would ever apply to acquire property of great value if they could possibly avoid taking it. Cases such as the hon. Member wished to provide against would, therefore, seldom arise. The Government, however, could not agree to the insertion of the clause, because, in exceptional cases, it might have the effect of preventing the acquisition of necessary land and the construction of a railway.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)hoped the clause would not be added to the Bill, as it might prevent very desirable railway extensions. Owing to the restrictive action of certain large proprietors of parks and pleasure grounds when railways were first made, some districts of the country remained to this day undeveloped by railway communication.
§ MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)regretted that the Government should refuse to agree to this clause, which was similar to one which appeared in the Public Health (Scotland) Bill.
§ MR. F. A. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)was glad that the Government opposed this clause, because it would 239 place difficulties, amounting in some cases to an absolute veto, in the way of the construction of light railways. If the clause were carried some one owner or occupier in a district, might, by his action, prevent the construction of a railway in that locality.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put and negatived.
§ MR. J. C. MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe)had placed the following new Clause upon the paper:—