HC Deb 23 February 1865 vol 177 cc589-96

Order for Second Reading read.

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

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

rose to ask for some explanation from the representatives of the Metropolitan Board of Works and from the Chief Commissioner of Works with respect to this scheme. The evil to be met by this measure was one of so long standing and such great magnitude, and was so generally admitted, that any change proposed ought to be of the most comprehensive and effective description. He contended, therefore, that this Bill ought to be considered in the Whole House on its merits and ought not to be sent to a Select Committee in the ordinary course, because such a tribunal would be precluded from considering the merits of rival schemes, and confined to the investigation of that which was presented to them by the promoters, the alteration of Hamilton Place and its connection with Park Lane. It was only by implication that other plans could come before it. Now, there were not wanting gentlemen of great experience who said that this scheme was not the best which had been suggested, that it would give very inadequate and unsatisfactory accommodation to the public, and would entail evils that other plans would avoid. Mr. Nelson, who had taken a great interest in the subject had pointed out in a letter that had appeared in a newspaper that morning, that Hamilton Place, the roadway of which was only thirty-three feet broad at the widest part, and was considerably less at the upper part, would be utterly inadequate to accommodate the traffic which now choked up Park Lane, and that there would be considerable danger in having two streams of traffic converging in Park Lane at a short distance from Piccadilly. He said that there were other more natural and convenient channels, and suggested that the object which the Metropolitan Board had in view might be better attained by prolonging South Audley Street to Piccadilly, continuing Clarges Street northwards, and widening Park Lane at the Piccadilly end; and he stated that the expense of this alteration, which would give a wide and convenient thoroughfare, would not be greater than that of the alteration of Hamilton Place. There were two questions which he should like to have answered. Some years ago a Bill was introduced by Lord Llanover, then Chief Commissioner of Works, similar to the present; but it was abandoned in consequence of the Law Officers of the Crown—the present Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England—having given their opinion that its provisions would violate the rights of the Crown tenants. He should like to ask the Chief Commissioner how it was that this measure was better worthy of support than that which was then abandoned. It was true that since that time Parliament had sanctioned an interference with the rights of Crown lessees in the case of the Thames Embankment; but in that instance great concessions of land were in return made to the Crown tenants; and, even if that had not been the case, it could hardly have been argued that because the rights of such persons had been interfered with in one case they were ever afterwards to be entirely disregarded. He should further like to know why the Chief Commissioner of Works had since last year changed his mind upon this subject. In a letter, dated July 2, 1864, and addressed to the Metropolitan Board, the right hon. Gentleman objected to the transformation of Hamilton Place into a thoroughfare, on the ground that it was not wide enough to accommodate the traffic which it was intended to carry through it, and that the alteration would be an expensive and uneconomical measure. He should like to know whether Hamilton Place had grown wider since last year, or why the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind. The estimate upon which this Bill was formed could not be depended upon. The expense was by the promoters taken at £16,000; but the gentleman whose authority he had already quoted said that the alteration contemplated would not be made for less than £60,000. He believed that the Metropolitan Board of Works had been goaded into doing something, and had taken up this scheme, not from any unanimous or strong belief that it was the best which could be proposed, but rather from a desire to avoid the imputation of doing nothing. If the House refused to encourage a plan which was so crude, unpromising, and inadequate, there was no doubt that the promoters would on some future occasion present one which was more worthy of consideration. In order, therefore, that they might, before assenting to the second reading of the Bill, receive some explanation on the points he had alluded to, he moved that it should be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, To leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir James Fergusson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. TITE

said, he did not wish to enter into a discussion of estimates, which he admitted were matters of considerable uncertainty; but the hon. Baronet had admitted the necessity which existed for some improvement of Park Lane, and he (Mr. Tite) appealed to the plain sense of the House, whether it was not obvious that the alteration of Hamilton Place with its six houses on one side and two on the other must be a cheaper operation than if they took the line of South Audley Street, and pulled down some of the finest houses in Piccadilly, or whether Hamilton Place would cost as much as Gloucester House. Four plans had been suggested for meeting the evil which the Bill sought to remedy. One was that the Chief Commissioner of works should, with the authority of the Crown, permit carriages to pass through the Park, thus getting rid of the difficulty without cost; but that proposition the right hon. Gentleman had refused, and, he thought, properly refused to permit, inasmuch as that part of the Park was quite as much used by the democracy as by the aristocracy. The second was the extension of South Audley Street into Piccadilly. But if any one looked at the map he would see that the line of South Audley Street not only destroyed Holderness House but equally required the purchase of Gloucester House, and, therefore, such an alteration could not be made at a cost of less than £300,000 or £400,000; besides which the northern entrance to Audley Street was a quarter of a mile from the Marble Arch at which the traffic from the Oxford Road converged with that from the Edg-ware Road, which was the great access to the Great Western Railway, from which came the great bulk of the traffic that now crowded Park Lane. On these and other grounds, therefore, the Metropolitan Board abandoned the idea of prolonging South Audley Street. There remained then two plans, one for the opening up of Hamilton Place, and the other for widening the south end of Park Lane. It was true that Hamilton Place was narrow at the upper end, but by the purchase and rebuilding of two houses on the right hand it might be widened at no great expense, and there would be a return in the increased value of the land now unbuilt upon; this would carry the street direct into Park Lane by a large and wide avenue. On the other hand, according to the estimates which had been made, the widening of Park Lane would involve a sacrifice of at least £100,000 of public money. It was a very difficult thing to carry out all the improvements which were wanted and which must be undertaken. The main drainage had cost £4,000,000, the Thames Embankment and the new street into the City would involve an expenditure of £2,000,000; there was a new street at the east end which would cost £120,000, and there were other improvements of considerable extent which must be made. It was impossible that all these works could be carried out if the Metropolitan Board were indifferent as to the amount which they expended upon particular works. Bearing in mind the large amount of taxation already borne by the ratepayers of the metropolis for improvements, he put it to the House whether it was desirable to incur such a great further outlay. In Chelsea the rates were 5s. in the pound upon the rack rent. The Bill contained ample provision, by the incorporation of the Lands Clauses Act, for making compensation to any persons who might be injured, and as the noblemen and gentlemen who lived in Hamilton Place would have a locus standi before the Committee, by which tribunal all questions in dispute would be fully investigated, be trusted that the House would reject the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and read the Bill a second time.

GENERAL PEEL

said, he did not know under what circumstances the Metropolitan Board had taken upon themselves the expense of this improvement; but everybody would admit the inconvenience and danger of the present state of Park Lane. There were other parties, however, who were to be considered beside the inhabitants of Hamilton Place—and these were the constituents of the Metropolitan Board. If this was to be taken as a precedent for the expenses of all improvements being thrown on that Board, and for this House having the duty forced upon it of judging what the expenses should be, he would advise the ratepayers of London to look sharply after their own interests. He had no great confidence in the Metropolitan Board of Works, but it must be presumed that they had well considered this Bill, and it would be a very strong measure indeed to refuse it a second reading. The hon. Baronet had quoted an authority, who said that the cost of widening Hamilton Place and extending it to Park Lane would be £60,000; but he had seen a statement that the expense of taking down Gloucester House would be £180,000, and that of the prolongation of South Audley Street upwards of £200,000. It would not be right to prevent the Bill going to a Committee, nor was it possible for the House properly to examine the details, the consideration of which was necessary to the formation of a sound judgment upon the questions which it involved.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, the fact was that matters in Park Lane had come to a dead lock, and if the character of the traffic were examined it would be seen that the most dangerous portion of it was composed of very heavily-laden waggons, which came and went in the direction of the Great Western Railway. His own opinion was, that a road ought to be carried across Hyde Park to the Serpentine. By this means Park Lane would be relieved more effectually than by any other scheme. He did not intend to offer any opposition to the Bill; but he regretted that the Select Committee would not have an opportunity of examining 'other plans than that contained in the Bill.

MR. MILLER,

as a Member of the Board of Works, said that many suggestions had been made to them on this subject, and they had fully considered the question of compensation. If there were any demand for compensation under the plan proposed, it arose from the fact that when the leases of the houses in Hamilton Place were granted, there was an understanding that the place should remain a cul de sac. But since that time the population of the metropolis had been increasing at the rate of 40,000 a year; besides which two railways had been opened in the neighbourhood which were perpetually sending their traffic the one to the other through this locality, and accidents were continually occurring owing to the crowded state of the traffic. The hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) had called attention to the question whether the improvement should be made in Park Lane itself at an expense of £180,000, or in Hamilton Place at a cost of £15,000, without including compensation. He would not support an interference with private rights without compensation, but there were times when private rights must give way to the public advantage. According to the scheme contained in this Bill only two houses need be taken down.

MR. COWPER,

having been so pointedly alluded to by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Fergusson), wished to say a few words in reply. He felt very strongly that the existing state of Park Lane was a disgrace to all those in whose power it lay to provide a remedy. Park Lane was the only direct thoroughfare which lay between the north and south of the district which extended from Church Lane, Kensington on the west, to Berkeley Street on the east. The traffic which passed through it was to a great extent that of two great railways, which was forced through a passage not more than eighteen feet wide, so that two large vans were sufficient to block it up completely; while not more than three ordinary vehicles could occupy a parallel line. His opinion was that the best course to adopt with a view to remedy the inconvenience was to widen Park Lane; but the Metropolitan Board, who seemed to have only lately awakened to a sense of their duty in the matter, were of opinion that the enlarging of the southern end would involve a larger expenditure than they ought to undertake. He himself thought the Board was rather too timid in this matter; but the majority having decided against the adoption of the plan which he had just mentioned, the alternative lay between doing nothing at all and accepting the proposal contained in the Bill under discussion. The Metropolitan Board had asked him whether he could hold out any hope that traffic might be allowed to pass through the Park between Stanhope Gate and Hyde Park Corner; but he said, in reply, that he could not hold out the slightest expectation that such an arrangement could be made. It would, he felt, be considered highly objectionable by the inhabitants of the metropolis generally that heavily laden vehicles should be allowed to go through that part of the Park which was at present not sufficiently large for those by whom it was frequented, and it would, moreover, diminish the enjoyment of those who came there for quiet and recreation. It had then been suggested to him that that portion of the Park might be taken for a roadway which was at present included in Hamilton Gardens, and although, no doubt, considerable injury would be done to those gardens if that proposal were carried into effect, yet as the Metropolitan Board had undertaken this plan for the public convenience, he deemed it right, as far as possible, to meet their views. The traffic through Hamilton Gardens would be admitted to be productive of inconvenience to the inhabitants; but it should, on the other hand, be borne in mind that the Bill must provide compensation for any pecuniary loss they might sustain. Under those circumstances, he had intimated that he would not oppose the introduction or second reading of the Bill. Being of opinion that the different propositions for improving this part of the metropolis ought to be thoroughly discussed, the Government had come to the conclusion that the Bill ought to be referred to a Committee, while they, of course, reserved to themselves the power of reconsidering it after the decision of the Committee was pronounced. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Baronet would not object to allowing the Bill to be sent before a Committee, where its provisions would be thoroughly sifted. The hon. Baronet asked what had occurred in 1856. His predecessor (Sir Benjamin Hall) in office contemplated such a Bill as that before the House, and it was then considered that as the Crown was the landlord of Hamilton Place it was not competent for the Crown to alter the circumstances under which the leases were granted. The tenants, however, had not been able to prove that there was anything which guaranteed to them the present position of Hamilton Place, and now that the proposal had come from those who represented the metropolis, it would not be a proper exercise of the authority of the Crown to prevent Parliament from considering a measure brought forward for the purpose of public improvement.

MR. BENTINCK

said, the real turning point in the case had never yet been touched. Neither his hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill, nor any subsequent speaker had gone to the real question in the case. It turned upon one point. He was not going into the question whether it was wise legislation to seize the property of private individuals. That was not the point. The whole question was, whether the House would or would not, for the convenience of the pockets of the Metropolitan Board of Works, sanction a deliberate invasion of private property. If so—and that it was so there was the admission of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite)—no man's property would be safe.

MR. JACKSON

remarked, that in 1859 he presided over a Committee in which it was recommended that a measure resembling the Bill now before the House should be introduced; and Sir Benjamin Hall introduced a Bill to carry the project into execution. It was, therefore, not a new measure. It had been before the House for ten years, and it was one that in his opinion ought to be carried out.

SIR JAMES PEEGUSSON,

after what he had just heard from the First Commissioner of Works, said he would not further oppose the second reading of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed.