§ MR. HARRY FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft)moved—
That the Report of the Examiners, that the Standing Orders in relation to the said Bill had been complied with, be referred back to the Examiners, with instructions to report whether Standing Orders 4, 30, and 33 have been complied with so far as the common lands known as Gunton Denes and Lowestoft Denes are affected by the Bill.The hon. Member said the Motion was somewhat unusual, but not absolutely without precedent, and if it lacked precedent it would be because the action which had led to the necessity for the Motion was without precedent also. That House, very properly, was exceedingly jealous of any interference with open spaces or common rights, and in the Standing Orders had laid down express injunctions as to the course to be followed by the promoters of a Bill when they proposed to interfere with common rights. Standing Order No. 4 required that where, by any Bill, it was proposed to take any right to any common or commonable land, an advertisement should appear in The London Gazette stating the fact that it was proposed to interfere with those rights of the public, and also the estimated quantity of such land proposed to be so taken. That requirement was obviously for the purpose of putting people on inquiry, and giving notice to the public that rights were to be affected. Standing Order No. 30 also required that there should be deposited, in any case where commonable land or common lands were to be taken, plans and sections, and a book of reference in the Private Bill Office, showing exactly what land was to be taken. By Standing Order 33 it was required that, where such land was taken, notice should be given to the Home Office and a copy of the Bill deposited there, in order that the Home Office might call the attention of the Board of Agriculture to the matter, who were required to report to the House with regard to common rights, and might give notice generally to others interested in the preservation of common rights. The Bill in question was for the construction of a line of railway from Yarmouth to Lowestoft, and the plans deposited disclosed, 1117 for the first time, the fact that the proposed line was to come across what were known as the Gunton Denes and the Lowestoft Denes, both of which places were public recreation grounds, which, from time immemorial, had been common land and commonable land, on which there had been a right to pasture cattle exercised for centuries, and which was exercised at the present day. Part of these lauds were acquire I by the Corporation of Lowestoft in 1890, and in 1891 they were expressly acquired for the purpose of being used by and dedicated to the public for ever, the Corporation being trustees of the public. None of the Standing Orders he had indicated had been complied with. The Bill did not contain one single word, from the first clause to the last, disclosing the fact that common land or commonable land was to be interfered with. No plans had been deposited with the Private Bill Office disclosing that fact, and no notice had been given to the Home Office or the Board of Agriculture. He was told that the promoters of the Bill contended that the lands were not common lands, and that was their reason for not having complied with the Standing Orders. In reply to that contention he would say that, in 1890, the Corporation of Lowestoft applied to the Local Government Board for permission to acquire these lands, and also for enlarging the Borough of Lowestoft, in order to take them in. In their application to the Local Government Board the Corporation stated that one of the most attractive features to Lowestoft had been the proximity to Gunton Cliffs and Gunton Denes, which had been always unenclosed and open to the public, and over which both the inhabitants of and visitors to Lowestoft had, from time immemorial, availed themselves of the privilege of recreation; and it was of the utmost importance that at least the Denes should be perpetually preserved as an open space for the benefit of the public;. Upon that express statement the Local Government Board held an inquiry, when evidence was given to show there was a right of pasturage, together with other common rights. The necessary sanction was therefore given for the purchase by the Corporation of that part of Gunton Denes for the use of the public. The solicitor to the Commons Preservation Society assured him 1118 that the terms of the conveyance conveying the land to the Corporation established the fact that this was common or commonable land within the meaning of the Standing Order. In the year 1891 the Corporation of Lowestoft desired to acquire Lowestoft Denes, and in connection with that Mr. J. J. Colman, formerly a Member of that House, agreed to give £750 towards the purchase, provided the lands were dedicated to the use of the public for ever. The deed conveying the lands expressly set forth that they were to he for ever kept and used as a public recreation or pleasure ground. He had a communication, dated no later than the previous day, from the Clerk to the Borough and County Justices, a gentleman who was a solicitor, in which he said that Lowestoft and Gunton Denes had been places open and free to the public from time immemorial; and he enclosed a document which, in a very few hours, left for that purpose, had been signed by 14 or 15 persons, who had exercised the rights of free pasturage on these lands for many years. He had in his hand a statement, furnished by the Commons Preservation Society, which showed that, so long ago as the time of Queen Elizabeth, there existed a record to the effect that these were commons or pasture; lands. If that were so, and if the Bill did not comply with the Standing-Orders, he asked the House to send this reference down to the Examiners—who were in no way to blame—so that they could report upon the matter. He submitted that the Examiners should have an opportunity of deciding whether these were common lands or not, and that those who represented the popular rights should be able to appear before them. He was asked in somewhat official quarters why he was not satisfied to let this Bill be read a Second time, and then the objectors could have a locus standi before the Committee. His constituents were deeply interested in this matter, and it would be a gross injustice to put them to the expense of summoning witnesses and instructing counsel, when after all it might be found that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. He believed he had shown that the Bill did not comply with three Standing Orders to which the House attached the greatest importance. He was told 1119 that the House might be asked to suspend the Standing Orders in this case. He should like to have the verdict of the House challenged. The House had shown an increasing desire to help local bodies to preserve open spaces for the public, and he should be surprised if, in a case like this, it stultified itself by suspending the Standing Orders.
§ SIR BENJAMIN STONE (Birmingham)(seconded) the Motion.
§ SIR FREDERICK MAPPIN (York, W.R., Hallamshire),in opposing the Motion, said the House would be adopting an unusual course in referring the Bill back to the Examiners. The hon. Member who moved the Motion had made a number of statements which it was impossible for the House to consider. The House would have confidence in the Select Committee to which the Bill would be referred. That Committee would consider all those matters which the time of the House ought not to be occupied with, and he hoped the House would reject the Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said railway companies cut lines across commons whenever they could. If the hon. Member for Lowestoft pressed his Motion to a Division he should certainly support him.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,) Cumberland, Penrithsaid the matter was not quite so simple as the hon. Member for Lowestoft put it before the House. It was really a difficult matter. He seemed to assume that there was not the least doubt that the places he had mentioned were commons. He had sought such information as he could obtain on the point, and the information given to him by the promoters was that they were not commons. The Corporation of Lowestoft, who would have a large interest in the matter, denied in toto that there were any commonable rights over these places. The Board of Agriculture had made a Report on the Bill. They referred to other commons mentioned, but no mention of these places was made. Not satisfied with this, he communicated further with the Board of Agriculture, and had received from them a letter stating that they had no evidence whatever to show that either of these places were commons, or that commonable rights existed over them. He did 1120 not say whether such rights existed or not. That was surely a question of law which neither he nor the hon. Member could decide, and he was perfectly certain the Examiners would not be able to decide it, because they could not do so. He was satisfied that the promoters of the Bill acted in good faith. They had satisfied him that they took steps to ascertain whether the places referred to were commons. At Lowestoft they were informed by those in authority that they were spaces open to the public but belonging to the Corporation, and were public property in that sense, but there were no commonable rights over them. The hon. Member for Lowestoft had asked the House to do what had never been done before, viz., to refer the matter back to the Examiners. The Examiners were not proper persons to decide a delicate and difficult point of law such as would be involved. Supposing the Examiners decided that these lands were commons, and then reported to the House that the Standing Orders had not been complied with? The matter would have to go before the Standing Orders Committee, who would have to consider whether in this case the Standing Orders might or might not properly be dispensed with. That would be a rather roundabout way of arriving at the decision the hon. Member wished the House to arrive at. On the other hand, he ran the risk of the Examiners deciding that the lands were not a common, and that there was, therefore, no obligation on the promoters of the Bill to comply with the Standing Orders. He himself hoped that in these circumstances the House would not take the unusual step of sending the Bill back to the Examiners. The clients of the hon. Member had presented a Petition against this Bill, in which they raised this very point. That Petition would be heard before the Committee if the Bill should go before it, and he had the authority of the promoters to say that if the Commons Preservation Society would present a Petition the promoters would not object to their locus standi. and they would doubtless argue the point out whether these lands were commons or not. The Bill was an omnibus Bill. It did not deal with this subject only, but with the construction of a railway at King's Lynn, the creating of a dock at Yarmouth, and of other works, and if the Examiners 1121 found that the Standing Order had not been complied with, the whole Bill would be killed—which would be hard on the promoters—just because of a mistake, into which they might easily hare fallen, and because they had not complied with the Standing Orders in respect of two small pieces of land.
MR. J. W. MELLOR (York, W.R., Sowerby)said he hoped the House would take the advice just given by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It was advice that any Chairman of Ways and Means would give—that this Bill should go to a Select Committee in the ordinary way. The contention of the hon. Member for Lowestoft involved a delicate and difficult question of law—if there was anything in it at all. How could the House or the Examiners of Private Bills decide such a question? The Examiners had not to decide questions of law. All they had to do was to see whether the Standing Orders had been complied with on the information before them. The natural and only tribunal to try the question involved in this Motion was the ordinary Select Committee, to whom all such Bills as this were referred. He could see no reason why this Motion should be carried.
§ MR. HARRY FOSTERsaid he would read to the right hon. Gentleman Standing Order 141. [The hon. Member then read the Order.]
MR. MELLORthought the hon. Gentleman did not quite understand the meaning of the Standing Order. The Committee would not inquire as to whether the Standing Order had been complied with, but into the question of law as to whether these were common lands or not. He would point out also that the hon. Gentleman would gain nothing even if he carried this Motion; as, if the Bill were sent back to the Examiners, and they reported that there had been non-compliance with the Standing Orders, the promoters of the Bill would go before the Committee on Standing Orders, and, in the case of such an important Bill as this, the Standing Orders Committee would probably suspend the Standing Orders as to which non-compliance was reported. He believed his right hon. Friend was perfectly right in saying that this was the first time that a Motion such as this had been put before the House.
§ MR. HARRY FOSTERsaid that, after the statement which had been made and the advice tendered to him, he would ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.