SECOND READING. (Hansard, 12 March 1900)

§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
This is one of a class of Bills which I may call new. As the House is very well aware, for many years past we have set our faces against the enclosure of commons. We have gone so far as to pass several Enclosure Acts, which provide that whenever there is a proposal to enclose a common there shall be a local inquiry held under the guidance of the Board of Agriculture, and the public bodies concerned in the matter shall be represented thereat. But this session there are several Bills promoted by local authorities for the enclosure of commons, and I look upon them as attempted evasions of the law, because their effect will be to prevent any representation of the public at a local inquiry by getting the authority to enclose direct from Parliament itself. If this Bill had been promoted under the guidance of the Board of Agriculture, the county of Cheshire and the district council of the neighbourhood affected would have been entitled to be heard, as well as the Corporation of Birkenhead. But as the Bill now stands that corporation is the only authority which has the right to protect the public interest in this matter. Still I am happy to see that the corporation, with great public spirit, is petitioning against the Bill. I think it desirable to say these few words, because they apply equally to other Bills of a similar character, and I wish to beg the representative of the Board of Agriculture to interfere to protect the public in all these cases in which it is sought to give the go by to the Enclosure Acts, But I am very glad to tell the House in regard to this particular Bill that the commoners concerned, at a meeting on Friday night last, passed a resolution withdrawing their opposition to the enclosure of the land providing that a certain portion was set apart as a recreation ground, and I may add that the district council have accepted that condition, so that, all parties being agreed, and the public interest being protected, 564 it will not be necessary for me to do more than to formally move my Amendment, and I only do that in order that we may have from my hon. friend the Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire his declaration, on behalf of the commoners and district council, that a satisfactory arrangement has been arrived at.

§ *MR. MACDONA (Rotherhithe)
I suppose I am in order in seconding this Amendment, although I do not see, in view of the attitude of the proposer, that it will carry much force with it. But inasmuch as I have on the Paper an Amendment of an exactly similar character, I wish to take this opportunity of explaining that I oppose the Bill because I look upon it as an infringement of the rights of the public. It deals with one of the most beautiful commons in that part of Cheshire. From time to time the rights of the public have been seriously encroached upon, by commons in this district being enclosed. I think I have some right to speak in this matter, because I have resided in the neighbourhood for thirty years. West Kirby is one of the most beautiful health-giving resorts in the whole of Cheshire, if not in the whole of England; but what God has made beautiful man has made vile, for the sewage of the whole of that district comes right on to the sands in the front of this beautiful watering-place, and instead of people and children being able to bathe and enjoy themselves, the water springing back from the sands, from the mouth of this cesspool of sewage, is so foul and the stinks from it are so abominable that bathing has had to be given up altogether. I would call this Bill a death-trap, rather than an improvement measure. For many years people have been in the habit of going down to these sands to gather cockles, which are sold in Birkenhead, Liverpool, and adjoining towns. Is it not clear that, in consequence of the sewage being brought down to those cockle-beds, the germs of disease and death will be distributed all over the district, and many thousands of people may be made ill, and many of them die from poison? For these reasons I say the Bill is a disastrous one for the district, and likely to be productive of misery to great numbers of people who have been in the habit of visiting the place for recreation, because of its limited scope in not taking powers to deal with this sewage death-trap. Had 565 some such scheme as Scones', which works so well at Warrington and Eastbourne, been adopted here this lovely, life-giving health resort would for many years yet to come prove a benefit to thousands of people. I therefore oppose the Second Reading.

§ *COLONEL E. T. D. COTTON-JODRELL (Cheshire, Wirral)
I rise to express the hope that the House will not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, and I do so with the more confidence because I understand he does not intend to press it. The only opposition that we have really to encounter is that of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe, who, although he claims to be a resident in the district, lives three miles from it, and on an altogether different estuary. He cannot, therefore, possibly be affected by any of those dreadful dangers which he foreshadowed in connection with the sewage question. I may go further and say that proposals are under consideration for dealing with the sewage question, and if only land is available, which is adapted for the purpose, a scheme will be promoted which will no doubt successfully deal with it. As to the present proposal constituting a death-trap, I do not think there is any more foundation for that argument than there is for the one the hon. Member advanced in regard to the sewage question, because the strip of land proposed to be enclosed is so small in extent that its enclosure cannot shut out any appreciable amount of sea air. It is, I believe, the intention of the urban council to adopt, as far as possible, the suggestions which have been made for laying out a recreation ground, but, speaking from personal observation, I must say that there is not sufficient land to be made, into a public cricket ground, and that, at the best, it will only be suitable for boys to play cricket and football upon. I can assure my hon. friend that the council has agreed to settle terms with the Commons Preservation Committee, and that they are willing to give an undertaking that no technical objection 566 shall be raised to the appearance of that committee should it wish to oppose this Bill. I may also state that the six representatives of the district referred to by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe on the urban council were unanimously agreed, not to offer any objection to the Bill. I do not think the hon. Member should object to the Second Reading of a Bill the object of which is to secure a distinct public improvement. Let him rather raise his objection before the Committee. This scheme constitutes a connecting link between two undertakings of a similar kind already completed, and will make a very long and desirable promenade road; it will also be the means of saving what I may call derelict land from the sea, for much has already been washed away, and if this Bill is thrown out I fear there is no doubt that in a few years there will be no common left at all. Under these circumstances I have no hesitation in recommending the House to consent to the Second Reading of this Bill.

§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER
I do not think I need apologise for having brought this matter before the House, because when such a scheme is promoted in Parliament this is the only opportunity on which an appeal can be made for the protection of the public interest. After the very satisfactory explanation of my hon. and gallant friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.