HL Deb 19 July 1881 vol 263 cc1245-6

, in rising to move the Resolutions of which he had given Notice, said, that, in the enlargement of railway stations which were used by more than one Company, it was often difficult to apportion the expenses between the several parties. He had communicated with the manager of one of the largest Companies, and had asked him to consult his friends and colleagues on the subject, with the result that a proposal very nearly the same as that contained in his 1st Resolution had been endorsed by the solicitors of the Great Western Railway Company, the London and North-Western, and the Midland Railway Companies. The solicitors to the Railway Association had also signified their approval. He understood that his Resolution would be opposed by the Board of Trade; but he hoped that their objections would not be based on the ground that it would discourage the joint use of stations, as it would always be cheaper for a new Company to share the use of an existing station than to make a separate one for itself. He had originally proposed to make a Standing Order of the Resolution; but, as he understood that the Chairman of Committees objected, he would not press that part of the Motion. Moved to resolve, "That whenever powers are sought to be taken in any Private Bill to enable the promoters of any new railway to run into and use compulsorily the station of any existing railway company, a clause shall be inserted in the Bill to provide that if in consequence of such user it is necessary to enlarge such station, or in case at any time thereafter the traffic of such railway station shall, in the opinion of the owning company, have outgrown the accommodation necessary for the safety and convenient use of such station by the public, and the said owning company shall have in consequence enlarged the said station, they shall be entitled to be paid by the other company so using their station an amount equal to such proportion of the expense of the enlargement, or at the option of the owning company such an annual sum as shall be considered right by an arbitrator to be named in the Bill, or, failing such arbitrator, by one to be from time to time appointed by the Board of Trade, and such payment shall be taken into consideration in the settlement of the terms of user of the said station, and if the using company shall at any time make default in payment of any sum due from them in respect of their use of the station, or any enlargement thereof, their right to use such station shall, during the period of such default, cease and determine."—(The Earl of Belmore.)


hoped that the Motion would not be pressed, as he could not say that it would be for the interest of the public to pass such a Resolution as this. The object of a Standing Order was to carry out some arrangement in the interest of the public generally; but this Resolution merely desired to carry out and lay down rules between the Railway Companies inter se. The real objection to the Resolution, therefore, was that it was not in the nature of a Standing Order. It had never been thought fit to adopt a Standing Order of the kind, and the Board of Trade strongly objected to it. Besides, if it were to be of any avail, a Standing Order of the sort must be adopted by both Houses of Parliament; whereas the fact was that the officials of the House of Commons, who had charge of private legislation, had the greatest objection to the Resolution, and maintained that it ought not to be made a Standing Order.


said, he quite agreed with what had just fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Sudeley). It would be most inconvenient and objectionable to agree to the Resolution as a Standing Order. At the same time, there could be no doubt that in some cases a grievance existed on the point, which might have been provided against if the Company, whose station had been invaded, had taken care to have reasonable protection given to them in regard to future expenditure in the Act sanctioning the junction, and Companies should attend to this hereafter.


also thought that the Resolution was objectionable, because it went beyond anything that could be justified on the ground of reason or justice.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.