THIRD READING. (Hansard, 19 July 1887)

§ MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)
I wish to point out that this Order goes beyond the Act of Parliament passed in 1870 regarding the tramways of the Metropolis. I have further to urge that the Board of Trade have no power to make this Order, and that it can only be made with the consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and also of the Vestry. In the present Order, the Board of Trade seek to establish motive power other than horses, such as electric and other power; and it appears to me that the provisions of the Bill place it out of the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works if they find that the power employed is inconvenient for the ordinary traffic—that it frightens horses, and becomes dangerous to life and property— to put a stop to it. The Metropolitan Board had power originally to refuse to accept this Provisional Order at all, and although they did not exercise their rights, they imposed conditions, which conditions are disregarded in the Bill. Of course, it will be said that if the Tramway Authorities act in any way contrary to the provisions of the Order, the Metropolitan Board will have power, if they desire to exercise it, to go to the Board of Trade; but I may mention that the Act of 1870 so far established the principle of local self-government, in contradistinction from that of centralized government, that it left the Local Authorities to decide whether the tramways were to be continued, in the event of their not being worked in accordance with their wishes. It is, however, in the interests of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and not in the interests of local self-government, that I rise for the purpose of making this protest. Before I sit down I may say that, at this late period of the Session, seeing that any effective opposition to the Bill would, in all probability, result in getting rid of any opportunity of passing this Order 1330 this Session, the Metropolitan Board do not wish to press the matter to a Division. They only desire to make a protest against what they regard as an infringement of their rights. Their contention is that the Order goes behind the Act of Parliament which has conferred certain powers upon them. I shall, therefore, content myself with having made these remarks, without asking the House to divide against the Provisional Order.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (Liverpool, East Toxteth)
I have no wish to enter into the technical discussion which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman; but I will simply point out that, in reality, the Metropolitan Board of Works have no cause of complaint in the matter. This Provisional Order was advertised in the month of November last. It was sent to the Board of Works, and a copy was forwarded by that Board to the Board of Trade on the 25th of March, and consented to subject to certain conditions.

§ MR. TATTON EGERTON (Cheshire, Knutsford)
Will the hon. Member state what the consent was which the Metropolitan Board of Works gave?

§ BARON HENRY DE WORMS
I am unable to say. All I can say is that no objection was taken to the Provisional Order until Petitions were lodged against it on the 21st of May last. It appears to me that the matter is a very simple one. The Metropolitan Board of Works gave their consent to this Provisional Order as far as they were concerned, subject to certain conditions, and these conditions were inserted in the Order except the condition that the Metropolitan Board might at any time revoke the authority to use mechanical power. That authority is vested in the Board of Trade; and if, at any time the Board of Works can show to the Board of Trade that there is any reason to suppose that this tramway, if worked by mechanical power, is likely to be a nuisance, or dangerous to the neighbourhood, the Board of Trade could withdraw the consent they had already given. Let me point out another matter which might have influenced the opinion of the Board of Works upon the subject. It has been alleged that the tramway will be worked by steam power. That is not so. The motive power proposed to be authorized 1331 is any mechanical power other than steam. The tramway itself will commence, I believe, at Shepherd's Bush, which is within the Metropolitan district. I am glad to find that the hon. Member intends to exercise a wise discretion in not opposing the third reading of the Bill.

§ MR. TATTON EGERTON
I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) has stated; but there is no wish to press for a Division against the third reading of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade has stated that the Metropolitan Board gave their consent to the provisions of the Order. Now, that I absolutely and utterly deny. A conditional consent is no consent at all, and the present contention relates to a question of principle. By the Act of 1870 Parliament gave to the Local Authorities, who, in this case, were the Metropolitan Board of Works, the power of withholding their consent to the Provisional Order; and the point of the contention is that, at the present moment, the Board of Trade are proposing to grant a Provisional Order which is to become an Act legalizing what is said to be an illegality. It is against that course on the part of the Board of Works that I protest. As the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) is in his place, I should be glad if he will give the House his advice on the matter, because I believe that the point to which I have called attention is an important one, and is of much interest so far as the future construction of tramways is concerned.

§ MR. J. C. STEVENSON (South Shields)
As a Member of the Committee appointed to consider this Bill, I should like to explain that the Committee came to no conclusion whatever in regard to the powers of the Board of Trade.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.