HC Deb 19 April 1898 vol 56 cc383-6

On the Order for Second Reading,

MR. DOUGLAS H. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent)

I move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. The Bill down for Second Reading to-day never attracted my attention until this morning, and until I saw that the Bill was down for Second Reading to-day I was unaware that such a Bill existed. By this Bill it is proposed to put a tramway and tramroad from Llandudno up to the top Of Great Orme's Head, and I say that Great Orme's Head does not require that tramway and tramroad. I am sure that a great many hon. Members of this House are perfectly well acquainted with the natural charms of this district, or, at any rate, are sufficiently acquainted with them to know that there is not the least necessity for this tramway; and, if such a tramway or railway is made, it must very seriously affect the prosperity of the town of Llandudno. The town of Llandudno does not want any such tramway or railway; but, unfortunately, there exists a small section of the population which thinks that the attractions of the place can be enhanced by such a railway. I will now very briefly call the attention of the House to one or two clauses of the Bill. Section 59, subsection 5, says— No furnace, chimney, or other similar building shall be erected nearer to Llandudno than the point marked B on the deposited plans. I do not think that a check of that kind is likely to do very much for the good of the town of Llandudno. But there is a far more serious objection in the following sub-section. May I point out to the House that at the top of Orme's Head the cemetery of Llandudno is placed, and that the only way to get to that cemetery is by the road on which it is proposed to construct a tramway? The sub-section says— The company shall make provision for the conveyance at a reasonable and fixed charge, and in a decent and seemly manner, of corpses for interment in the St. Tudno Cemetery. I want to ask hon. Members to consider the meaning of these words, and to reflect upon them. How can an ordinary funeral, where the hearse is drawn by horses, go up a narrow road, alongside of which there is a tramway or railway, on which carriages are running? No horse would face it under such conditions. If, on the other hand, it is proposed to take corpses to the cemetery by this tramway, how can anything be more incongruous or unseemly than to have a funeral procession mixed up with ordinary holiday traffic? There is a very large excursion traffic in that district. Railway and steamers bring excursionists into Llandudno by thousands and tens of thousands in the summer months; and how could a funeral procession pass up to the ancient cemetery when there is a tramway in the very road by which the funeral procession must necessarily pass? I do hope that hon. Gentlemen who are much better acquainted with Orme's Head than I am will support me, or, at all events, will assent to some course by which the House may have some further interval, so that we may have an opportunity of forming a judgment as to whether this Bill should be allowed to have a Second Reading or not. There is one phase of the subject which I have not touched upon. Some years ago, a large part of the Orme's Head was bought by a builder for speculative building purposes, but up to the present time no houses have been erected there. I very much fear that the erection of this tramway is calculated to enable builders to proceed with the erection of buildings there; and, in the interests of preserving one of our finest natural promontories, such as this undoubtedly is, I do hope that the House will not allow the Bill to proceed to a Second Reading.

MR. JOHN HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

The hon. Member asks Welsh Members to support him, on the grounds that he has placed before the House, in opposition to the Bill. I am bound to say, however, that the course which the hon. Member has taken is an extremely inconvenient one, unless, indeed, the House will assent to the adjournment of the Debate for a week or a fortnight, as the case may be, in order that hon. Members who are interested in the matter may have an opportunity of familiarising themselves with the matter, and, above all, in order that my hon. Friend who represents Llandudno in this House should have an opportunity of communicating with his constituents. It is, I think, obviously undesirable, under the circumstances, if there is to be any serious objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, that the Debate should now proceed; and, therefore, Sir, I beg to move that the Debate be adjourned for a week, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill may be able to assent to that proposal.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,) Cumberland, Penrith

I certainly assent to the hon. Gentleman's proposal that the Debate should be adjourned. I had no idea that there was to be any opposition to the Bill, and I never heard of any opposition. The Bill was certainly put down for Second Reading "by Order," but no notice of opposition was given. As a matter of fact, the parties promoting the Bill were not present, and I do not think that anybody thought it at all likely that any opposition to the Bill would arise. I think it right, therefore, that all parties should have an opportunity of being heard in the matter; and, therefore, I support the Motion for the adjournment of this Debate.

MR. COGHILL

I quite agree to the adjournment.

Debate adjourned to Tuesday next.