GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. (Hansard, 29 June 1866)

EARL NELSON
said, he desired to draw attention to the number of petitions presented by residents in the neighbourhood whose interests it was stated would be injuriously affected. He would remind their Lordships that the greater number of those who would be affected by the Bill were not persons in a condition to appear by Counsel before a Parliamentary Committee against the wealthy company who promoted it. Past legislation had forced large numbers of working men, with their families, to dwell in the outskirts of London, and many were resident in the smaller streets on the outskirts of the Victoria Park, which 707 had proved an immense boon to the crowded population around; and he contended that anything that would damage that place of resort ought to be prevented. The Committee in the other House to which the present Bill and other Gas Bills had been referred had drawn up a very able Report upon the whole question of the supply of gas to the metropolis; and he understood that the Government had undertaken to bring in next Session a Bill founded on many of the recommendations of that Report. But he could not conceive how it was that the House of Commons, with this document before it, should have been induced to pass the present Bill; for, by allowing the amalgamation or grouping together of a number of companies, the question was prejudged. Having himself visited Victoria Park, he was convinced of the impropriety of permitting the erection of the proposed works on the site contemplated. He found that on the Eastern side of the Park the vegetation was flourishing luxuriantly, while on the other the trees were beginning to wither away, being injuriously affected by the smoke from a number of large chimneys about half a mile distant. This being the case, it was evident that the erection of extensive gas works not more than 650 yards from the Park would materially damage the trees and shrubs. He trusted that their Lordships, who refused last year to sanction a scheme of the same nature in Chelsea, would be equally considerate of the health and comfort of the thousands of poor people who lived near the Victoria Park. He had received a letter from the Rev. Septimus Hansard, a clergyman, who had resided in the neighbourhood in question since the time of the great Chartist riot, which showed that the health of the population had been greatly benefited, while their moral character had much improved—a circumstance which he attributed in no small degree to the opening of the Victoria Park, whereby they were enabled not only on holidays, but at all times, to obtain innocent and healthy recreation, instead of being driven to public-houses. He trusted the House would not turn a deaf ear to the appeal now made on behalf of the working men of the East End of London; and he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that some papers had been circulated amongst the Members of the House on the subject of the Bill, and he knew nothing of the merits of the subject beyond what they contained. His first sympathies were entirely with the noble Earl, because if the effect of the construction of the proposed works would be to do injury to the Victoria Park it ought not to be allowed to pass. It appeared, however, that the entire subject had been fully and carefully considered by a Committee of the House of Commons, whose opinion was that no such injury would arise. The works would in the first place be half a mile from the Park, and in an uninhabited district, and if the Bill passed the works of two or three companies, which were now situated in thickly-populated districts, would be removed there. Under all the circumstances, the reasonable course would be to send the Bill for inquiry to a Committee of their Lordships' House.

LORD BROUGHAM
said, he thought the petitions from the working men in the East of London should have their due weight; and he trusted that nothing would be done that would be detrimental to a place of so much importance to the health and moral character of the people.

§ LORD RAVENSWORTH
said, that if the noble Earl should persevere with his Motion he was very much disposed to give it his support, in the hope that there would be future and more careful legislation in regard to the gas supply of the metropolis.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, he should vote against the Amendment. The only question raised was as to whether the gas works would be injurious to the Victoria Park. The House of Commons had considered the matter, and had passed the Bill; it would, therefore, certainly not be right for their Lordships summarily to reject it. The proposed site for the works was at no point nearer to the Park than 633 yards; and the question was simply whether they would at that distance injure the trees of the Park. As the House of Commons, after careful inquiry, had negatived the notice of inquiry he thought their Lordships should send the Bill to a Select Committee.

LORD TEYNHAM
said, that the investigation before the Committee of the House of Commons had not removed or allayed the fears of the inhabitants, and it was probable that an inquiry by their Lordships would be equally ineffectual to produce 709 such a result. Mischief might be done by passing the Bill, but no harm could result from its rejection.

§ THE EARL OF CAITHNESS
said, that a Bill which proposed to remove three large gas works from a thickly-populated district in the centre of London deserved consideration.

EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, he could not attach much importance to the decision of the House of Commons respecting the matter, as the inhabitants had no opportunity of supporting their views before the Committee.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
thought it was most inexpedient that the inhabitants of Victoria Park should be saddled with a nuisance for the relief of another district, especially as a site thinly-populated and otherwise advantageous could be obtained. To say that trees at a distance of 600 yards from gas works would be out of harm's way was contrary altogether to his experience—especially when the wind happened to set that way.

§ LORD OVERSTONE
thought it unadvisable to reject the Bill at its present stage without further inquiry, and advocated its reference to a Select Committee.

THE MARQUESS TOWNSHEND
said, he could not see any reason for referring the matter to a Select Committee, as there were already sufficient facts before the House to warrant its deciding upon the subject.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, the real question was whether there was anything objectionable in the Bill, and that was a question which could be settled properly only by a Select Committee. He did not believe the opposition to the Bill was one which was likely to be overlooked, for he found among those who had petitioned against the Bill, the corporation of London, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Hackney District Board of Works—so that there could be no doubt that the investigation would be a very searching one. There were very few cases in which a Bill should be rejected at its present stage, and as far as he was concerned he should vote for the second reading.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
desired to know whether the petitions presented were against the whole of the Bill or against some particular clauses. If the whole of the Bill was to be inquired into, it might be advisable to refer it to a Select Committee; but otherwise the balance of 710 evidence appeared to be rather against than in favour of the Bill.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, he knew only the fact that the petitions were presented, but did not know their contents. He imagined, however, that the Metropolitan Board of Works was scarcely likely to allow anything detrimental to the public interests to pass unnoticed.