HC Deb 21 March 1866 vol 182 cc650-8
MR. COWPER

, in moving that these Bills be referred to a Select Committee, said, that they were intended to improve the thoroughfares of the metropolis, and promote the convenience of the public, and the cost of carrying them out was to be defrayed out of funds to be raised within the metropolis itself. It seemed to him that measures of this kind ought not to be treated as Private Hills and referred to an ordinary Private Bill Committee, and thus to be withdrawn from the practical cognizance of the House. The Thames Embankment Act was introduced by the Government; it was made a "hybrid" Bill, and among its enactments was one providing that all the reclaimed land not required for the purposes of the highway, and not otherwise appropriated, should be dedicated to the use and enjoyment of the public, as places of recreation and ornamental grounds. One of the clauses of the present Bill, however, repealed that clause and gave the Metropolitan Board of Works the power of erecting buildings over the whole of the land thus set apart for the enjoyment of the public for ever. This was an important provision, and he mentioned it to show that the House ought not to allow a Bill to pass without special inquiry which would deprive the public of open spaces very essential to the health, recreation, and orna- mentation of the metropolis. The present Bills, however, as it happened, passed the second reading without objection or discussion as Private Bills, although many Members desired to offer remarks against the particular Bill to which he referred. What he wanted to secure was, that these Bills, instead of going before an ordinary Committee, whose business it would simply be to listen to the remarks of counsel, and the evidence they might tender, should be remitted to a Committee to consist of a certain number of Members, who should have for their special object to take into consideration the interests of the public. It might be better, as a rule, that such measures should be dealt with as hybrid Bills; his Motion, however, only applied to these three Bills. The next question arose as to the funds, but that was not a part of the subject to which his Motion related. The promoter of the Bill was the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), and he (Mr. Cowper) only interfered in the matter on behalf of the public.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Thames Embankment (North) Approaches Bill, the Thames Embankment (Chelsea) Bill, and the Park Lane Improvement Bill, be committed to a Select Committee, consisting of Eleven Members, Six to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection."—(Mr. Cowper.)

GENERAL PEEL

hoped that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) would tell the House from what funds the works provided by the Bill were to be made. The right hon. Gentleman said out of the public money. [Mr. COWPER: Of the metropolis.] He was the more anxious to have an answer to this question, because he understood the hon. Member for Bath to tell the House last year that unless the Metropolitan Board of Works obtained a renewal of the coal duties, these improvements could not be carried out. Now, before the House called upon a Committee to consider these Bills, it would be well to inquire where the money was to come from. This, however, was not to be part of the inquiry. A Select Committee, presided over by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), was already sitting to inquire upon the taxation of the metropolis, and he should like to know whether this inquiry was to be hurried on before that Committee had reported.

MR. TITE

said, that the Metropolitan Board of Works had no intention whatever of paying for these improvements out of the general rates. They applied for an extension of the coal duties for ten years; but as considerable doubt was felt as to the expediency of this measure, they next contemplated the imposition of a distinct rate to be called an improvement rate. The matter was now before the Committee upstairs, and the condition upon which that Committee was granted was that they should report at the earliest moment on the means of supplying the funds for this and other City improvements. He trusted that the Committee in question would finish the evidence on this subject by Thursday next, and that they would report early after the Easter recess on that part of the subject. Until that Report was made it would be unnecessary to go on with that part of the subject. The Metropolitan Board of Works desired that every one of these improvements should be thoroughly examined, and this would be better done in the interest of the public by a hybrid Committee than by the ordinary Private Bill Committee of four Members. He wished to state that so far from interfering with the land belonging to the public or diminishing the area, the Bill would increase the total area of the ornamental ground set aside for the recreation and amusement of the public. It was, however, necessary to take powers to vary the line of existing buildings.

MR. ROEBUCK

must admit that he, for one, was very jealous of granting these powers, which they was told were never intended to be employed. The Metropolitan Board of Works asked for powers by this Bill to do away with an Act which secured to the public the enjoyment of certain land reclaimed by the Embankment. Instead of sending the Bill to a hybrid Committee, the best course would be to send the Bill to a Committee that day six months.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the words "Approaches Bill" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be committed to a Select Committee upon this day six months,"—(Mr. Roebuck,) —instead thereof.

MR. COWPER

thought the House must be rather taken by surprise by the severe punishment which the hon. and learned Member wished to impose. He quite agreed that the Bill was drawn in a very careless manner, or perhaps with some possible expectation that the fault would not be observed. The promoters of this Bill stated that it was not their intention to deprive the public of any portion of the recreation ground secured to them by the former Act; but it was the fact, nevertheless, that the Bill proposed to repeal all those clauses of the existing Act. It was not, however, necessary on this account to reject the Bill altogether, because the alteration of a single line would be sufficient. The Bill provided for the construction of a street between Charing Cross and the Thames Embankment, which would be greatly for the benefit of the public. One of the great objects contemplated by the Thames Embankment and the new street from Blackfriars Bridge to the Mansion House was to have another thorough fare parallel with the Strand, which would relieve the choking traffic along the Strand and Fleet Street. The facilities thus provided would be much assisted if a direct communication was provided between Charing Cross and the Embankment. The proposal, as originally made, was to go through the property of the Duke of Northumberland; that part of the scheme had been withdrawn, but the Metropolitan Board might devise another access from Charing Cross to the Embankment. Another improvement provided by the Bill was the power to lay out a new street between the Strand and the Embankment near Waterloo Bridge. He thought that some new streets were indispensable to facilitate the immense traffic which would be sure to come down to the Embankment when completed. If the Bill were referred to a Committee, it was capable of very considerable improvement; but there was, he thought, no reason for rejecting it altogether for a defect for which the promoters were not responsible, and which they were prepared to remedy.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman last addressed the House he had wished to point out that the Bill referred to had been drawn in a most improper manner, and that if it were not a measure of some importance it ought not to be permitted to go to a Committee at all. Sufficient notice was not provided for the persons whose property was interfered with, and no one would know until it was too late to take objection to it whether it would touch their property or not; neither was any fund provided from which the expenditure was to be defrayed. This was a most objectionable feature of the Bill, and ought not to be tolerated in any Private Bill. It was for the House to consider whether on account of the importance of the measure it should not be an exception; but if the other promoters of similar Bills were allowed to follow this precedent, private parties would never know with whom they had to deal.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE

said, that being interested in this matter, he should be unable to vote upon the present Motion, but the public question raised was so important that he should wish to say a few words. The House had to deal with a Bill that affected the public interests. Every one knew the haste with which Private business was conducted, and the impossibility of paying attention to Private Bills unless the notice of the House was especially drawn to them. When once the Bill went before a Private Bill Committee the public had no means of defending its own interest, and the greatest injury might thus be indicted unless the notice of some public officer or of the Members of the House was drawn to the matter. If, therefore, it should appear at any time that by the carelessness with which it was drawn a Bill was calculated injuriously to affect the public, it would not be a very improper punishment for such a misuse of private legislation to throw out the measure and let the promoters bring it in in a more satisfactory mariner.

MR. TITE

hoped that the House would not visit the sins of the drawer of the Bill upon him. He had nothing to do with the preparation of the measure, but being a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works his name, with that of two other Members of the House, also members of the Board, appeared on the back of the Bill. The original Bill for making the Thames Embankment in 1862 was brought in by the Government, and the Metropolitan Board of Works had little to do with it. The Government at first proposed to hand over the subject to a Commission, but this was refused by the House, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were charged with the construction of the Embankment. The work, so far as it had progressed, was executed in a creditable manner, and the Embankment promised to be constructed within a moderate time. The Embankment was to be not less than 100 feet wide from Westminster Bridge to Blackfriars, and then it would be continued by means of a new street to the Mansion House. As, however, some of the side approaches of this great road were imperfect the Metropolitan Board of Works brought in a Private Bill, and gave the parties interested the usual notices. The object of the Bill was not to interfere either with private or public rights, but so to vary the road as to make it more convenient to the public. A new approach was wanted from Wellington Street and the Strand to the Embankment, and this would be a long oblique line, enabling traffic to come from Lincoln's Inn and particularly from the New Courts of Justice along the Embankment to these Houses and Westminster. Another street was wanted from Charing Cross. It was at first proposed to pass through the premises of the Duke of Northumberland, but Northumberland House had been struck out of the Bill, and the subject had been re-considered. The Metropolitan Board had been able to propose a new street nearly equal to the one originally laid down. He had postponed the Bill for a fortnight in order expressly that the hon. Members more particularly interested might have an opportunity of considering it. It was no fault of his that he did not explain the provisions of the Bill on the second reading, which was passed sub silentio by a mere accident. He begged to remind the House that the Amendment if carried would delay a very important public work. In addition to the Thames Embankment and the new street from Blackfriars a railway would run along the line of the thoroughfare, and until the approaches were settled the Metropolitan Board could not give the railway company the levels they required to carry out their line. He trusted that the House would appoint the Committee, so that the whole matter might be fully inquired into.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, he must remind the hon. Member for Bath that it was not stated in the Bill from what source the funds were to be provided. Was it from the ratepayers, and, if so, would they have notice? If, on the other hand, the money was to come from the coal duties, what arrangement would be made for that purpose?

MR. TITE

said, that in the preamble of the Bill that question was left open. It awaited the consideration of the Committee on Metropolitan Improvements now sitting upstairs. With regard to the expenses to which private individuals might be put in opposing this Bill, if they should be given by the Select Committee they would be defrayed out of the ordinary funds of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and no wrong would be done in that respect. The Metropolitan Board of Works had suggested the coal duties as the source out of which the expense of the new work should be defrayed, and they were in communication with the Government on that subject.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

reminded the hon. Member for Bath that he had again resumed his seat without answering the question whether if the coal duties were not to be resorted to, the Metropolitan Board of Works would go on with the Bill.

MR. TITE

We have no intention of proceeding with the Bill and charging the expenses on the ratepayers in the ordinary way.

MR. LOCKE

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield would proceed with his Amendment. The new street was not to be made through the Duke of Northumberland's property, and no land or houses were mentioned in the Bill through which the street substituted would pass. He understood Sir John Thwaites to state to the Committee that it would be necessary to introduce a new Bill next Session for making the street from Trafalgar Square to the Thames Embankment. Therefore, it was not of so much consequence if the Bill referred to in the Amendment were struck out of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. TITE

appealed to the Deputy Speaker to say whether it was not irregular to quote matters given in evidence before a Select Committee before the Committee had reported to the House.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

It is not competent for the hon. Member to refer to the proceedings of a Committee which has not yet reported to the House.

MR. LOCKE

would only say that what he had stated was in his mind the real state of things. By that Bill there was no land or houses in the line of deviation through which that street could pass, and the Duke of Northumberland's property being excluded, the street could not be made at all under its provisions; but it would be necessary to come to Parliament next Session for the purpose of making a street in a different line altogether. Therefore, there would not be much importance in striking that Bill out of the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. He agreed entirely with the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Cranbourne), that, in regard to cases of that description, there was not sufficient notice given to the public. These were not Bills which ought to be brought in as ordinary Private Bills. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) did per- fectly right in proposing that the Bill should be treated as a hybrid measure, and go before a Committee of eleven Members; but whether the particular Bill with respect to the Thames Embankment ought to be excluded should depend upon any examination which might be made by the members of the Metropolitan Board of Works as to what powers they had to make that street.

MR. LOCKE KING

suggested that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) should withdraw that Bill, and make some arrangement, with respect to the Standing Orders, with the view of introducing another Bill of a satisfactory character.

MR. HORSMAN

said, there was a point with regard to which he wished to have an opinion from the Minister of Public Works. A Bill was introduced several years ago by a Government Department, and all the weight and authority of the Government was brought to bear in that House to carry it. It would appear that the Duke of Northumberland, having at first opposed the Bill, subsequently assented to it upon certain conditions—that was to say, upon certain clauses which were given to him by the Chairman of the Committee, and afterwards ratified by that House. On that understanding the Bill was carried through Parliament. Now an arrangement having been made on settled conditions between the Government and the Duke of Northumberland, there ought at all events to be clauses introduced to prevent that settlement being unsettled, and the Duke left year after year to fight the battle over again. It was no longer a question between the Duke of Northumberland on the one side, and the House of Commons and the public on the other; but the Government Department which had made a compact with him and given certain pledges on their part ought to defend their own Act of Parliament, and not throw the burden of doing so upon an individual.

MR. COWPER

said, his view of the transaction connected with the Thames Embankment Bill passed in 1862 was different from that of the right hon. Gentleman. The Act of 1862 took away the water from the front of certain wharves; and it was necessary either to give compensation for the loss of the water-frontage or to purchase the wharves entirely. It did not then seem of much importance which of those courses was taken, and he had been quite willing that the Duke of Northumberland should take his choice between these two alternatives. The Duke of Northumberland elected to take the compensation, and the matter having been settled on that footing he (Mr. Cowper) did not, see that, as the promoter of the Bill of 1862, he had bound himself by any engagement to oppose any future application that might affect Northumberland House. He had, therefore, not felt it to be his duty or his province to interfere in that respect, although, of course, if there had been anything like a compact or engagement to that effect he should have been the last person to hesitate in performing it. It might, however, be quite competent for the Duke of Northumberland to say that that clause ought not to be repealed.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that, unless the hon. Member for Bath accepted the proposal made by the hon. Member for Surrey, he should divide the House.

MR. HENLEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Office of Works had spoken of what he should have done if there had been "anything like a compact or engagement." Lt was quite clear that the parties on the other side had thought that there was not only an agreement but a compact; and a most unfortunate state of things now arose. What were the facts of the case? There was a portion of land occupied by wharves and covered with an extremely low set of buildings for the specific purpose of not interrupting the river view from Northumberland House. The value of the property was reduced on account of that speciality; that speciality was brought fairly before the notice of all the parties, and it was stated in the very memorandum of agreement drawn up in the case that the object was to protect the enjoyment of the view from Northumberland House. He must say that if the special pleading now adopted on that matter was to prevail, people must look sharply after all the Acts of Parliament that came of the cognizance of the Department of Works.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Thames Embankment (North) Approaches Bill, the Thames Embankment (Chelsea) Bill, and the Park Lane Improvement Bill, be committed to a Select Committee, consisting of Eleven Members, Six to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection.—(Mr. Cowper.)