Lords Sitting of 1 April 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (BRISTOL LINKS) BILL [H.L.]
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR)*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR) moved, "That this Bill be now read the Third time." He said the Bill was promoted by the Great Western Railway Company for the purpose of making certain new lines in the immediate neighbourhood of Bristol. Notice of opposition had been given to the Third Reading of the Bill, and, therefore, in accordance with the usual practice, the Chairman of Committees did not move the Third Reading. Another noble Lord interested in the Bill was to have done so, but he being unable to be present, he had been appealed to to take the noble Lord's place. He need hardly say that, on a matter of this kind, he did not speak for the Government, but as one who had for some years endeavoured to take some interest in Private Bill legislation as carried on in that House. It was a very unusual course to oppose the Third Reading of a Private Bill on such grounds as those likely to be put before their Lordships. This Bill had been through the usual routine of Private Bills in that House. All the notices under the Standing Orders were given at the usual time of year. The Bill was opposed by another railway company, and this opposition was inquired into by a Committee of the House in the usual way, presided over by Lord Camperdown, and that Committee decided that the Bill should be allowed to proceed. So far as its unopposed provisions were concerned, it had been dealt with by the Chairman of Committees in the usual way, and he did not propose to go into the merits of the Bill. It was sufficient to say that there was practically no landowning opposition in the ordinary sense of the term. The Corporation of Bristol were in favour of the Bill, and the Bill, which actually authorised the construction of the railway in respect of which the opposition
  250
  was suggested, had actually passed the House. The provisions in this Bill for constructing the railway were only to be brought into effect in the event of that Bill not passing, or in the event of the powers which were already given under that Bill not being put into execution. Therefore, so far as this House was concerned, it would not necessarily make the slightest difference whether this Bill was passed or not, because the powers for making these lines had already received the sanction of their Lordships. A Paper had been circulated giving in some detail the grounds thought sufficient by those opposing the Bill to warrant their Lordships in rejecting it. He would say nothing against the work of the ladies who were opposing the Third Reading of the Bill. He was prepared to take it entirely at their own valuation. But the excellence of their work had nothing whatever to do with the question before their Lordships—whether a certain railway should be made which commenced at some point within, he believed, 160 yards of the dwelling which they had erected. This was not the case of a railway coming to a district in which there was no railway before. The railway was opened for traffic some time before this religious community went to the place at all. The railway which passed their building was authorised in 1866, opened for traffic in 1872, and passed under the control of the Great Western Company in 1876, after which considerable traffic passed along that line. The ladies began to build their house a year later, in 1877, and it was not opened and their work there was not begun until 1879. Therefore, they had come to the railway, not the railway to them. But the matter did not end there, because they made the assertion that—
  "if the work was carried out they would be practically in the middle of a shunting and goods yard half a mile in length, the central portion being right under their windows,"
  and that—
  "the evils, hitherto borne as inevitable with so much difficulty, will be increased and multiplied to a practically indefinite extent."
  Even if this were accurate, he did not think it afforded ground for their opposition. They claimed that their residence

  251
  should be bought by the company, but if everyone whose residence was within 200 yards of public works were to be allowed to claim that their properly should be bought their Lordships would introduce a principle quite novel in these matters, and would put an end to many public enterprises. He was informed that so far from an increase of traffic near these ladies' house being probable, it would not be the case. At present the railway which passed their buildings commenced two or three hundred yards after it passed them. One of the proposals of the Bill was to continue that line and take the traffic round another way, so he was informed that there would be less traffic passing the buildings and less shunting than in the past. He did not, however, rest upon that plea because it depended largely on the merits of the Bill which the House was not a fit tribunal to discuss at any length upon such an occasion as that. He did not know whether the opposition to the Bill would be persevered in to the extent of moving the rejection of the Bill. He hoped not. He had stated shortly the case for the Bill, and hoped it would be read a Third time.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Question the words "this day six months." He apologised to their Lordships for the unusual course of opposing such a Bill as this on the Third Reading. But the case was quite exceptional, and under the circumstances no other course was possible, if the injustice and injury which the Bill, as it stood, inflicted upon the Sisters of Charity at St. Raphael's, Bristol, was to be prevented. The Bill, if it passed, authorised the Great Western Railway to execute works which would render the House of Charity uninhabitable and useless for the purposes of public utility for which it was built. At the time of the Second Reading of the Bill the Sisters were in correspondence with the directors of the Great Western Railway Company in the hopes of obtaining reasonable compensation, in an amicable manner, and it seemed inconsistent with that attitude to oppose the Bill. The Sisters were advised that they could not, under the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, be heard before your Lordships'
  252
  Committee, inasmuch as the Bill did not propose actually to take their property. Not having come to an agreement with the directors of the Great Western Rail-way Company, they were driven, therefore, to oppose the Third Reading with a view to obtaining proper consideration for their claim. The facts of the case were these. For nearly 30 years the Sisters of Charity had been engaged in charitable work in Bristol, and their house was the headquarters of other dependent houses in the neighbourhood, and in more distant parts of the kingdom. Their present house was built between the years 1877 and 1879, at a cost amounting, together with the price of the freehold of the land, to about £11,000, on the site of former buildings occupied by the community since its commencement. The site was chosen on account of its being in a central position for their work and in proximity to St. Raphael's Church, whose vicar was then as now the chaplain of the community. Acting under parliamentary powers, the Cheat Western Railway Company, some years ago, opened a shunting yard in the immediate vicinity of the House of Charity, eventually causing the Sisters great inconvenience by night as well as by day from the vibration, smoke, and noise proceeding from the increased traffic. By the present Bill the Great Western Railway proposed to add very largely to the volume of traffic and shunting work close to the house, and if this were done it would be rendered uninhabitable; and as it would be almost, if not quite, unsaleable, the Sisters, if not compensated, would have to provide themselves with another headquarters at a ruinous sacrifice, for which they had not the funds. It was, he believed, said that the present house was built after the Great Western Railway had opened its shunting yard, and that the new works, by providing an exit, might diminish the shunting immediately under the Sisters' house. In regard to the building of the house it was quite true that it was built after the railway had been commenced, but no one at that time could have foreseen the changes which the railway had made in the neighbourhood. Indeed, at first, and for many years, the harbour railway was no nuisance, and it was not till the Great

  253
  Western Railway started their shunting lines and took to sorting a large portion of their goods' traffic under the windows of the Sisters that the nuisance became serious. In regard to the exit afforded by the Bill, it must be remembered that an exit was also an entrance, and it was not to be supposed the Great Western Railway Company would spend £500,000 on new works if they were merely expecting to maintain the present volume of traffic. The Great Western Railway company had purchased the site of the late gaol, the boundary wall of which was not 100 feet distant from the House of Charity on the east side; and a large amount of house property, extending for a quarter of a mile to the west of St. Raphael's Church, which touched the House of Charity on the other, had also been acquired as part of the scheme. To feed these yards they were applying for powers to construct several miles of harbour railways, and to connect them with the shunting yards, and with their general system. The cost of the contemplated works was stated before the Committee of their Lordships' House to be about £500,000, independently of what was proposed to be raised by the Corporation of Bristol; and the fact remained that if the works were earned nut as proposed, the House of Charity, with St. Raphael's Church on the west and three small villas to the east, would be practically in the middle of a shunting and goods yard half a mile in length, the central portion being right underneath its windows, and with all the evils which have been hitherto borne as inevitable increased and multiplied to a practically indefinite extent. Their Lordships could judge what the result of the works on such a scale were likely to be on any house standing in the middle of them. The Sisters did not deny that they were bound to bear all inconveniences incurred under existing Acts of Parliament. Their case was that when they built their house the inconvenience was slight to begin with, that no one at the time could have foreseen what had been done even under the existing Act, while the present Bill gave such unlimited powers of increasing those inconveniences that they had an equitable claim. The Great Western Railway Company admitted in their evidence before the Committee of their Lordships' House
  254
  that they were making the part of Bristol in which the House of Charity is situated their great goods depôt. They had no room at their Bristol station. It must in the long run be evident that they could not have a religious house in the midst of a railway station. The Sisters submitted in view of these facts that a clause should be added to the Bill requiring the Great Western Railway Company to acquire the House of Charity under the compulsory powers of the Land Clauses Act. He would merely add that the community, which supported itself, consisted of 46 persons, who were doing an admirable work in religious visits to the poor, managing an industrial school, and convalescent home work, not only in four parishes in Bristol but in Liverpool and Leeds. Several of the community had met their deaths in connection with the Universities Mission in Central Africa; and they were supported in their opposition to the Bill by the Bishop of the diocese, who was well acquainted with the work they were carrying on, but who was unfortunately, to his great regret, prevented being present that day. He thought if ever there was a case for generous treatment this was one. Some clause ought at least to be inserted in the Bill before it was allowed to pass, compelling equitable compensation to be given to the Sisters.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, as one who sat on the Committee to which the Bill was referred, pointed out that the Sisterhood did not appear before the Committee for the good reason that they had no locus standi. Their house was situated not on any new railroad, or near any new railroad it was proposed to make by the Bill, but 150 yards distant from the terminus; and, therefore, they were not, strictly speaking, affected by the new works. The question was whether the railways which had been authorised by this Bill and which were, with one exception, dock railways, were likely to increase the nuisance which already existed, and could not be diminished. This matter, of course, was not referred to, and did not come specially before, the Committee, because there was no petition with reference to it. But at the same time, as the Committee was sitting yesterday on other matters, and the noble Viscount had placed this Notice on the

  255
  Table of their Lordships' House, the Committee thought it desirable to call the solicitor and officials of the Great Western Railway Company, who produced plans and photographs, now lying on the Table of the House, from which their Lordships could see how the works affected the house of the Sisterhood. So far as he could form an opinion he was extremely doubtful whether any additional inconvenience would arise to the Sisterhood at all. He should be very sorry, and of course their Lordships would all be sorry, that possible inconvenience should arise to the Sisterhood; but at the same time, unless they were prepared to force a railway to purchase all the properly in its neighbourhood, he really did not think, himself, that this House could very well interfere. When it was further stated that the Sisterhood had no locus standi whatsoever, and could not appear before the Committee, he was afraid it was just one of those cases in which Parliament was not able to do anything. He thought it would be very unreasonable if their Lordships were on this account to throw out the Bill. He did not know that the noble Viscount had suggested that extreme course, but even with regard to compelling a railway to purchase property, he was afraid under existing circumstances they should hardly be justified in taking that course.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)observed that the noble Viscount had pursued a somewhat unusual course in moving the rejection of this Bill, which was one of great importance to Bristol, involving the construction of a large number of dock railways, which had been sanctioned by the Great Western Railway Company, under an agreement with the Bristol Corporation. The noble Lord had moved the rejection of the Bill, or, at any rate, had moved or suggested the insertion of certain clauses for the protection of this Sisterhood. There was no doubt the Sisterhood did most excellent work, and he was quite certain their Lordships would sympathise with them very much if they suffered the damage which they alleged they would from the construction of these lines. But he would ask the House to consider the question
  256
  from the technical point of view. From the technical point of view the Sisterhood was merely the owner of land and of a site adjoining but not taken by the railway. Under these conditions, as Lord Camperdown had said, they had no locus standi before the Committee to which the Bill was referred. He would ask the House if they would not be taking an unusual course, and one without precedent, if they were to allow parties who, under their rules, had no locus before the Committee to obtain a locus before the House, and to obtain exceptional relief. It seemed to him that such a course would establish a precedent of the very greatest danger, and he was perfectly certain the House would not, for a moment listen to it. He feared the Sisterhood must be left to the ordinary remedies of the Law under the Lands Clauses Act, or any other legal procedure they might have recourse to. He did not for a moment wish, to go into the merits of the case, for he ventured to think that without much more careful investigation than the House in general could give to it, it would be quite impossible to weigh the merits of the different statements put forward. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill stated that the interests of the Sisterhood would be damaged, while two other noble Lords had given reasons, with which he was inclined to agree, that the outlet offered by the new Great Western line would tend to decrease the traffic on the piece adjoining the premises of the Sisterhood. But he did not want to discuss the merits of the case, that would be outside the question before the House. Sympathising as he did with, the fear expressed of inconvenience to the Sisterhood, he yet must confidently say that if their Lordships were to reject the Bill, or even give special relief to these Sisters, who were expressly excluded by general rules from appearing before the Committee, their Lordships would establish a dangerous precedent, and one that had never, so far as he knew, been allowed up to the present time. He, therefore, urged the House most strongly to pass the Third Reading of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid he was extremely unwilling to divide the House, and he had some hope that there would

  257
  have been an expression of opinion in, favour of a clause providing equitable compensation to the Sisterhood.
  On the Question whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to lie read 2a Tomorrow. (The Marquess of Lansdowne.)—[No. 40.]

  LAND COMMISSION (RULES).
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: In bringing this question under your Lordships' notice, I have no wish to enter into any Debate. I merely wish to ascertain from Her Majesty's Government if these Hides are before the House, when they were presented, and whether, and within what period it will be within the liberty of any Member of the House to raise a Debate on the subject. I, therefore, ask whether the Mules of the Irish Land Commissioners, dated the 2nd of January 1897, and presented to the House of Commons on the 5th of March 1897, have yet been presented to this House; and. it so, at what date; and up to which date it will be competent for this House to move an address to Her Majesty to reject the said Rules, or any of them?
  THE EARL OF RANFURLY: In reply to the Question I beg to say that the Rules referred to of the Irish Land Commissioners were presented to both Houses of Parliament on the same date—namely, the 5th March. In pursuance of Subsection 3 of Section 50 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, it is competent for either House to present an Address to Her Majesty within the next subsequent hundred days praying that any one or more of these Rules may be annulled.
  House Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Five o' Clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Ten o' Clock.