RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 6 July 1880)

§ LORD SUDELEY

said, the Resolution moved by the noble Marquess to set aside the Certificate of the Board of Trade, after it had lain on the Table for the whole period of six weeks, was one of a most unusual character, and certainly ought not to be carried, unless there were very strong reasons indeed to justify such a course. He ventured to think that there the noble Marquess had failed to show any substantial ground, and hoped to be able to show that the Petition had been presented under a misconception of the real facts of the case. The certificate complained of was made by the Board of Trade under the Railways Construction Facilities Act, 1844, to authorize the Furness Railway Company to construct a short line of railway near Whitehaven. By that Act the draft must lie upon the Table of both Houses for six weeks before the Board of Trade could grant the Certificate. The draft was so laid on the Table on the 25th May, so that the Resolution before the House was being brought forward on the very last day, which of itself was a most unusual course. In the Petition there were three allegations—First, that the Petitioners, being proprietors of railways, the Board of Trade should have granted a Provisional Certificate instead of a Draft Certificate, the difference being that a Provisional Certificate had to be confirmed by an Act of Parliament; whereas a Draft Certificate, after being six weeks before the House, had the force of law. The Petitioners were, however, quite mistaken in their first allegation, as although under the Act of 1870 the Board of Trade grant a Provisional Certificate when a Railway Company oppose the scheme, in the present instance the Petitioners were not Railway Companies within the meaning of the Act; so that the Board of Trade had no option, and 1731 could not, therefore, grant a Provisional Certificate. The second allegation, that no proper investigation had been made into the merits of the scheme, seemed to be the one that the noble Marquess principally relied upon. The facts were, however, quite the reverse. Not only had Colonel Yolland, the Inspector, held a careful inquiry into the matter on the spot, but the authorities of the Board of Trade had also themselves thoroughly investigated into the merits of the case, so much so, that several alterations had been made to meet the views of the Petitioners, and the proposed railway was made to go under the road instead of over it. Then came the third allegation, which was that, the plan having been altered, the consent of the Petitioners, as landowners, ought to have been obtained. The answer to this was very simple. In the first place, the alteration had been made to meet the views of the Petitioners themselves; and, secondly, the Petitioners were not landowners within the meaning of the Act, but simply authorities having control over the road affected. These reasons seemed to him sufficient to warrant their Lordships declining to agree to the Resolution. But there was another fact which he could not help referring to— namely, that only a few hours previously a similar Motion had been made in "another place," and had been at once withdrawn, when the true state of the ease had been stated. On the very last day that the Certificate had to be on their Lordships' Table, he thought the Resolution almost without precedent. As he knew the noble Marquess only moved the Resolution on public grounds, he hoped he had stated sufficient to induce him to withdraw his opposition.