HC Deb 03 March 1863 vol 169 cc1021-8

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, that in pursuance of his notice he rose to move that the second reading be deferred for six months. The scheme proposed by the Bill was precisely one of those which ought to be referred for investigation to a Royal Commission. He had no desire to obstruct any measure that would have the effect of relieving the traffic of the metropolitan streets; but he considered that the Bill would have a diametrically opposite effect, that it would destroy the appearance of the streets over which the railway was proposed to be carried, and that it would seriously damage a vast amount of property in the metropolis. It proposed to create a nuisance worse than Holborn Hill, by stopping up seven streets, and raising Euston Road eleven feet, with a gradient of one in thirty. Euston Road was one of the great main arteries of the metropolis, and that and similar wholesale interference with property and public convenience had roused the important parishes of St. Pan-eras and St. James to petition against the Bill. Mr. Bazalgette, the engineer to the Board of Works, reported that it would materially affect the sewage of the districts through which it passed. On that subject the provisions of the Bill were altogether silent, and there was apparently an intention to cross numberless existing streets upon the level. Though the railway was to start from the terminus of the Great Northern Railway, it did not appear that that company were in any way promoters of the line. It had no western terminus at all, but proposed to stop short in the immediate neighbourhood of the Regent Circus, in the middle of the small streets surrounding Coventry Street and Windmill Street, from which it was difficult to imagine how the traffic would ever escape. In conclusion the hon. Member moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

LORD FERMOY

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

MR. ROBERTSON

said, that although he had but recently had the honour of being elected a Member of that House, he had long been a practitioner before its tribunals, and he had never known a case in which justice was suddenly and impatiently refused as was proposed by this Amendment. The railway invasion of the metropolis was a bugbear which had been conjured up to frighten the House. Of the twenty-eight schemes originally contemplated only nineteen referred to the northern side of the Thames, and of these six had perished by their own weight. Four more had no new works in view, but related merely to internal arrangements by the railways themselves. Of the remaining nine, three were merely junction lines, of perhaps a few chains in length, and mostly outside the metropolis, and one (the Ludgate station) was not a new work, having' been already sanctioned by Parliament in connection with the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. Deducting these four from the residue of nine, there remained five Bills, of which four had been already read a second time either in that House or in the House of Lords. So that the Regent Circus Railway Bill now under consideration was the only one of the twenty-eight left, and a simpler case a Committee would never have been called upon to deal with. There was really nothing in its circumstances to call for exceptional legislation. By arrangements entered into with the Great Northern Railway, it would only be necessary to raise the Euston Road to the extent of one in sixty, and one side would be allowed to remain at its present level. It was a mistake to suppose that there would be any crossings on the level in the vicinity of Coventry Street; and power was expressly taken to widen Tichbourne Street, and to open out a new street leading into Regent's Circus. The line had been carefully laid out by Mr. Hawkshaw, with a view of avoiding any open spaces, and of letting light and air into the most crowded districts. The public advantages which had resulted from the construction of the Metropolitan Railway, and the public policy which dictated the Charing Cross Extension, showed clearly that the Regent Circus line ought to be made; and as for the alleged interference with property, the House knew that private interests were, if anything, too well protected. A tradesman, to his knowledge, had openly expressed regret and apprehension lest his premises should not be "injured" by a railway which proposed to purchase the house two doors lower down.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the hon. Member, although a new Member, was a skilful and able advocate and a sanguine man; but, in spite of his assurances that there was no cause for alarm and of the ingenious manner in which he had handled his statistics, he had not succeeded in dissipating the general uneasiness with regard to metropolitan railway schemes. If, as the hon. Gentleman said, so many Railway Bills had slipped through a second reading he could only say, more shame for the House of Commons; and if there were so many more undergoing consideration in another place, he hoped the House of Lords would do their duty better. As for those lines which he had called "junctions," he asked the House to take warning from the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and to beware how they sanctioned new lines entering the metropolis, which in the following Session they might be told contemplated little harmless "junctions," of which the principle had been already sanctioned. Then, as for the lines which had disappeared, he dreaded them quite as much as any which were then in full activity, for they would be sure to appear again; and if encouragement were given to such a project as that before them, the Thames would be crossed and London would be dotted over with railways in such a manner as would defy the ingenuity of the most skilful Railway Committee that was ever appointed. He knew nothing about that particular scheme, but in his opinion the House ought to act on the general and wise rule of rejecting every one of these metropolitan lines, in the hope that, even at the last moment, the Government would be roused to a sense of the importance of that great national question, and appoint a Commission to examine into the whole sub- ject of intramural railway communication. If they failed to take it in hand, the next best thing would be for the Metropolitan Board of Works—who, thanks to the hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chairman of Committees), were empowered to act to a certain extent in these cases, and who were acquiring more and more the confidence of the public — to devote their attention seriously to the subject. But whichever course was adopted, he earnestly advised the House to adopt the recommendation of the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, and to agree upon some general scheme of metropolitan intercommunication which would satisfy the public convenience, without handing over the metropolis to the devices and conflicting designs of railway companies. He believed that in the long run the shareholders of these lines would have cause to congratulate themselves if the whole question of metropolitan railways were at the present moment postponed in order to the careful consideration of some general scheme.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, that the borough he represented (Finsbury) was intersected by this railway from one end to the other. He had, however, told his constituents that he could not support the rejection of the second reading, but that he was ready to vote for referring that as well as all other metropolitan railway schemes to some tribunal competent to deal with the whole question.

MR. JACKSON

said, that eight years before he was the Chairman of a Committee that sat on the subject of the overcrowding of the streets of the metropolis, and the conclusion that Committee came to was, that nothing but a system of railways would clear the streets and improve the means of communication. He therefore advocated the second reading of that Bill on principle; and if the Metropolitan Board of Works had any opposition to offer to the measure, they ought to appear before the Committee on the Bill in the usual way.

MR. DOULTON

said, that after the modification by the House of their Standing Order, the Metropolitan Board of Works, being thereby enabled to oppose the Bill, immediately met and determined to offer to it all the opposition in their power. The scheme materially interfered with the drainage of the district through which it was intended to pass, and would cut through four of the principal sewers of the metropolis. He therefore trusted the House would save the Metropolitan Board of Works the expense of appearing before the Committee, by rejecting the Bill at that stage.

MR. LOCKE

said, he could not see why London should be sacrificed to the convenience of travellers from the North. The House of Commons should do as they had done in Dublin, where nineteen different schemes for railways had been proposed. The Corporation of Dublin condemned those schemes, and said they would not have the city of Dublin cut into pieces in the way proposed. The proposed railway was to be part on the surface and part subterranean at the Euston road, which road the carriages must pass over. [Mr. ROBERTSON: No; it is eighteen feet below the level.] It would pass above ground in Finsbury and below ground in Marylebone, which was peculiar, because Finsbury was higher than Marylebone. He opposed the Bill because the railway schemes had caused the greatest possible nuisance on the south side of the river. If they wished to have the same tiling done on the northern side of the water, they would pass this Bill. It was said that the line was to be connected with the London, Chatham, and Dover line. The latter company was going to cross Ludgate Hill with one of those frightful viaducts now seen in all parts of the metropolis. But the hon. Member (Mr. Robertson) had stated a fact which was extremely important. Among the numerous Bills which he had mentioned, he had called the attention of the House to one, the Ludgate Station and Junction Railway, which was connected with the London Chatham and Dover Line. Now, the House would have an opportunity, before they gave their sanction to that Bill, to stipulate that the intended mode of crossing Ludgate Hill by one of those frightful viaducts should be given up, and it would be the duty of the Committee to which the Ludgate Station Bill was referred to attend to this question.

MR. RICHARD HODGSON

said, he should support the Motion for the second reading, on the ground that he had not heard one word against the principle of the measure, that four other Bills of a similar nature had been passed by the House, and that Bill ought not to be treated in a different manner.

MR. TITE

said, the Metropolitan Board had examined the proposed scheme, and looked upon it as one of the wildest that could be brought forward. They opposed it from the beginning, because the projected line would cut through four or five sewers, the whole area of which would have to be reconstructed. It would also cut through the great Holborn sewer. Another objection to it was, that it could not pass the Euston road without raising that road, seeing that the Great Northern Railway was on a level with the road, and it was impossible to penetrate below the level of the road because the Metropolitan Railway passed at that point. He therefore could not see how it was possible to commence the line. The scheme alluded to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) as having been recommended by a Committee eight years ago, was for a line running round London.

LORD FERMOY

said, there was a general feeling that the metropolitan railways should be taken up by Government, or by anybody that could deal with them on a uniform principle. If there was the slightest intention on the part of the Government to carry the idea out, the House ought to reject the Bill before them on the second reading. By so doing they would not only he saving the inhabitants of a large district from a severe infliction, but would also save a great deal of money to the promoters of the Bill. It was quite clear that the proposed railway could not be worked on a uniform plan with the railways of the metropolis, because it was not constructed with any regard to the levels of other railways.

MR. MASSEY

observed, that though it was usual to send private Bills to Select Committees, in order that their merits might there be decided on, there were, nevertheless, two sides to that question; for if it should appear that a scheme on its very face was objectionable in principle and faulty in detail, it would be unjust to pass the second reading, and thereby compel persons who were adverse to it to go to the expense of opposing the measure in Committee. The scheme was one of no ordinary character; it was not a question between competitive projectors, or one of compensation to landowners, but it was an attempt at constructing a railway to penetrate the very heart of the metropolis. It was a matter for great regret that, in the infancy of the railway system, some general comprehensive scheme had not been adopted by which an enormous destruction of property might have been saved and a vast outlay of money spared. He was inclined to think that such a scheme would now be found impracticable. but it might be possible within the limited area of the metropolis to devise such a scheme of railway accommodation as should satisfy the reasonable wants of the public and avoid all unnecessary interference with private property and vested interests. They had been told as a recommendation that the Bill was one of many schemes, the others having perished; and he must say that it was the most daring of those schemes, and seemingly promoted by no persons of responsibility. The line was described as one in connection with the Great Northern Railway. It was not, however, promoted by the directors of that railway, but by gentlemen of whom he (Mr. Massey) never had the advantage of hearing before. Those gentlemen came forward with a scheme traversing great streets and interfering with a vast amount of property, and not only greatly obstructing the public convenience, but creating unsightly excrescences to the great disfigurement of the metropolis. For these reasons, though he was extremely reluctant to refuse any one applying to that House an opportunity of being heard, still it appeared to him that it would be fruitless to send the Bill before a Committee; and as there was an almost perfect unanimity against it in the minds of gentlemen qualified to judge, he thought it was one of those exceptional eases in which the House should exercise its discretion, and decline to allow the Bill to be read a second time.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he conceived that a strong case had been made out against the Bill, and the fact of the Metropolitan Board of Works being so strongly opposed to the Bill constituted a reason for not allowing it to go to a Select Committee. He had also received representations from many of his constituents adverse to the proposed measure; and though he was averse to refuse the promoters of Railway Bills a hearing, he thought the Bill ought not to be permitted to go any further.

MR. MALINS

observed that the line was not to be a subterranean line, but was to be executed in open cuttings; and he did not believe that the House would sanction a scheme by which Oxford Street was to be cut into trenches. He thought that Parliament should take some decided steps in order to manifest its determination that the metropolis should not be disfigured by these railway schemes.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

said, his constituents, as far as he had ascertained their opinions, were strongly opposed to the Bill.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill put off for six months.