Lords Sitting of 4 June 1877

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The, Lord Gage, after the death of his Grandfather.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Crown Office (84); Marriages Legalisation, Saint Peter's, Almondsbury* (85); Consolidated Fund (£5,900,000)*; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Atherton, &c.)* (86), and. referred to the Examiners; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Belper Union, &c.)* (87), and referred to the Examiners.
Committee—Report—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (Brotton, &c.)* (60); Public Libraries Act (Ireland) Amendment* (65).
Report—Settled Estates* (49).

BURIAL ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.

  QUESTION. EXPLANATION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, as I see that my noble Friend the President of the Council is in his place, I will ask him a Question of which I have given him private Notice. I do not know whether it will be convenient to him to answer it this evening; but, if not, perhaps he will answer it on some other evening this week. The next stage of the Burials Bill will not be taken till after a considerable lapse of time—about a month from the date when it was in Committee. I think it would be convenient to the House if, before the next stage comes on, Her Majesty's Government—if they think they could do so—would state what course they propose to take with regard to the Bill. One clause of the Bill in particular is of very considerable importance, and it would be desirable to know when the Government propose to go on with the Bill, and, if they do, whether they propose to introduce Amendments?
  I may take this opportunity of giving a personal explanation relative to a statement which I made on the second reading of the Burials Bill respecting the burial of Sir Morton Peto's daughter, the accuracy of which has been disputed. Tile information was given me in 1876, and I intended to mention the case when introducing the Resolutions of last year; but I forgot to do so. The matter came back to my recollection this year when speaking on the second reading of the Bill, when I repeated it, as I thought, exactly as I received it. I am now informed the church on which Sir Morton Peto spent so much money was in an old churchyard; and that the refusal to allow anything but a silent burial to a deceased Baptist was given previously to the death of Sir Morton Peto's daughter. When his daughter died, warned by what had happened, he was obliged to bury her in a cemetery, although his strong wish was to bury her in the above-mentioned churchyard; and it was this sad event which induced Sir Morton Peto to bring in the Burials Bill of 1861. Sir Morton Peto made no complaint of the conduct of the clergyman—what he did complain of was the system, and that he sought by this Bill to remedy.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: The Report of the Burials Bill, which is the next stage, we propose to take on Monday, the 18th of June. Any Amendments which the Government may desire to introduce on that stage they will take care to have printed so that they may be in your Lordships' hands a considerable time before that date, and your Lordships may then have the opportunity of considering them.

JOINT STATIONS AT RAILWAYS.

  STANDING ORDER. RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMORErose to call attention to the inconvenience and danger to the public which had in some instances arisen in joint railway stations, under the joint control of different companies, owing to insufficient accommodation; and to move a Resolution, that there be a Standing Order inserted in every future Railway Bill, making provision in relation thereto. The noble Earl said that the recent Royal Commission, after pointing out that a great deal had from time to time been done by Railway Companies to provide additional accommodation, &c., at great cost, went on to say—
  "But though much has been done by Railway Companies to meet the demands of increasing traffic, we find that cases have existed, and do exist, in which Companies have for an unreasonably long period allowed the accommodation to remain insufficient, and that to such an extent as to give rise to serious danger. This is specially the case in respect of joint stations and lines jointly used in connection with them, and Guidebridge, Huddersfield, and Preston may be cited as prominent instances."
  The Commissioners explained that no difficulty had arisen in those cases where the original owning Companies had retained the rights of ownership, and the other Companies had been admitted as tenants, even though in perpetuity; but that the evil existed only where Parliament had given to more than one Company an equal right and equal voice in the control, &c., of the station. The Commissioners went on to say—
  "And here the consequences to be anticipated from divided control and divided responsibility have ensued. When such an arrangement has arisen from the demand of one Company to obtain rights to use the station of another Company, the object of the intruding Company has been either to bring about interchange of traffic, or else, without reciprocity, to transfer to its own system a portion of the traffic, whether de-

  1229
  veloped or undeveloped, of the other line. In the first case it will generally be found that the Companies have agreed to certain terms, and submitted them for the approval of Parliament. In the second case the intrusion of the new Company has generally been effected upon terms imposed by a Parliamentary Committee after a contest between the parties. In both cases the individual responsibility of the original Company to provide a station adequate to the traffic it admits is taken away: and, in the second case, the chance of profit from its original expenditure or any additional outlay is necessarily much reduced. Not even the most necessary alterations in the station can be effected until two or more Boards of Directors have agreed to the necessity of the expenditure proposed, and to the proportions in which their respective Companies are to be charged therewith."
  After some further remarks, the Royal Commissioners continued—
  "In granting to private persons a concession to make a railway, the Legislature has intended to impose the obligation to make a line adequate to the safe conduct of the traffic. But when other Companies intrude upon lines thus formed, this obligation is obscured, and the enforcement of it becomes difficult."
  Then followed the recommendation substantially embodied in his Resolution. The Duke of Buckingham, who was the first Chairman of the Royal Commission, attached great importance to this question of sufficient accommodation at joint stations, and this was a portion of the noble Duke's examination of Mr. II. Oakley, general manager of the Great Northern Railway—
  "Q. 33, 298.—Do you think there would he any hardship, any inconvenience to the public, if when new lines are sanctioned with running powers into stations and the use of stations belonging to other Companies, it was made a condition that the additional accommodation should be provided and the funds found—that is to say, the agreed portion found for it by the new line before the line was opened to the public A.—No, I do not think there would be any hardship on the now Company in that, provided the old Company were not allowed to delay the opening of the new line by any dilatory conduct on their part in enlarging the station. Q. 33,299. —Assuming, for instance, a case like this: Company obtains power from Parliament to make a certain line adjoining your own line, 100 yards or so outside the station, and using the station: at the present moment it appears that the common custom has been that the Board of Trade inspection practically ends at the point of junction I A.—Yes. Q. 33,300.—That the old station is used without material alteration, or practically without any, and that no one party afterwards has sufficient interest in the profit to make it worth its while to press on the re-arrangement, and the public are inconvenienced, and in some cases things have gone to the extent of making it dangerous to work? A. —Yes. Q. 33,301. Of course, the question arises
  1230
  why should that be, why should not the new Company, if it takes advantage of an old station, be equally bound to complete it before it opens its line, as it would be if it built a station of its own I A.—I do not think there can be any reasonable objection to the new Company being bound either to provide its own independent station, or to provide sufficient accommodation in the previously existing station. I think that is common sense; but in dealing with that question care must be taken that the old Company does not obtain a sort of practical power of shutting the new Company out for an indefinite time. Q. 33,302.—By disagreeing to its plans, you mean I A.—Yes."
  He was not asking by his Resolution for any interference with old joint stations; what he did ask for was a measure of precaution to which lie thought Railway Companies coming before Parliament for schemes of joint stations could make no reasonable objection.
  Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of the House there should be a Standing Order that in future any Railway Bill proposing to authorise the intrusion of a new railway into an existing station of another railway shall be referred to the Board of Trade for the purpose of obtaining a report from that department (similar to those which are now made in the case of Bills which authorise level crossings upon railways), whether the accommodation upon the line affected by the intrusion be sufficient for the increased traffic proposed to be brought upon it; and, if not, tint it is further the opinion of the House that provision should be made in any such Bill, before it leaves Committee, for the due extension of the works and premises; also for definitely fixing the responsibility of maintaining such premises, and of making future extensions should such become necessary; and that power should be given by the Act to any company under such responsibility to compel any oilier company using its line to contribute to the expense of the necessary works, or to submit to arbitration in the matter.—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the object his noble Friend had in view was one of considerable importance, and he thought he had made a case for bringing it under the notice of their Lordships. He did not, however, think that the manner in which his noble Friend proposed to deal with the subject was the best that could be desired. Indeed, there were considerable objections to any portion of the great question referred to the Royal Commission being dealt with in an isolated manner. As had been pointed out on a former occasion by his noble Friend at the head of the Government, it was obvious that the whole subject of railways must- be maturely considered

  1231
  by the Government with the view to its being dealt with in a general scheme. He could not, therefore, think it would be wise to treat this matter of joint stations by a Standing Order as proposed by his noble Friend whose Motion was before their Lordships. He submitted to his noble Friend and their Lordships, that to make such a reference to the Board of Trade as that suggested by his noble Friend would have the injurious effect of removing from the Committee on the particular Bill that responsibility which in the public interest it was desirable should be invested in it—inasmuch as they might consider it waste of time to enter into questions that had to be undertaken by the Board of Trade. As to the principle embodied in the last part of his noble Friend's Resolution, it had already been accepted in the cases of Acts passed for the Midland and Settle and the Wolverhampton and Walsall lines, and therefore there appeared to be no necessity for making it compulsory in the form of a Standing Order. He hoped his noble Friend would not think it necessary to press his Motion.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEthought it would be difficult to carry out by Standing Order a regulation such as that suggested by the noble Earl. It was undesirable to have many stations in a town, and every facility should be given for different Companies using the same station when it could be done consistent with safety.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  CROWN OFFICE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for making provisions with respect to the preparation and authentication of Commissions and other documents issued from the Office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery; and for other purposes—Was presented by The Loan CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 84.)

  MARRIAGES LEGALISATION, SAINT PETER'S, ALMONDSBURY, BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to render valid marriages heretofore solemnised in the Chapel of Ease called Saint Peter's Church, in the parish of Almondsbury, in the county of Gloucester—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of GLOUCESTER and BRISTOL; read 1a. (No. 85.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ATHERTON, &c.) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 86.) A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the
  1232
  Local Government Board relating to the Local Government Districts of Atherton, Barnard Castle, Belgrave, Brigg, Brownhills, Cwmdu, and Dawlish, the Borough of Evesham, the Improvement Act District of High and Low Harrogate, the Borough of Ipswich, the Local Government District of Newbold and Dunston, the Rural Sanitary District of the Settle Union, the Local Government Districts of Slough and Southborough, the Borough of Swansea, and the Rural Sanitary District of Ulverstone Union: And also,

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BELPER UNION, &c.) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 87.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Rural Sanitary District of the Belper Union, the Borough of Chipping Norton, the Local Government District of Clay Lane, the City of Exeter, the Borough of Droitwich, the Improvement Act District of Haverfordwest, the Rural Sanitary District of the Hendon Union, the Local Government District of Hexham, the Boroughs of Kingston-upon-Hull, Portsmouth, and Saint Helens, the Local Government District of Southend, the Borough of Sunderland, the Local Government District of Sutton-in-Ashfield, and the City of York:
  Were severally presented by The Earl of JERSEY; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.