SECOND READING. (Hansard, 14 August 1867)

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it had been very carefully considered in the House of Lords. He believed there was no opposition to the Bill except on the part of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), who wished to protect, as he supposed, the interests of the City. But he trusted that his hon. Friend would defer his comments on the Bill until it reached the next stage, and allow it to be read a second time.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE
said, this Bill was of vast importance to the trade and commerce of the metropolis, but not a word of explanation had yet been given of it in this House. He objected to the Government attempting to carry such a measure at that advanced period of the Session. It had been taken for granted by the great interests of the metropolis that the Bill would not be pressed forward on the 14th of August. The Bill would interfere, to an extraordinary extent, with the trade and commerce of the metropolis. It was read a second time in the House of Lords on the 12th of February, and came to the House of Commons on the 26th of March last; it had been hung up ever since, and those interested in it believed it had been abandoned. He did not say that the Government were responsible for the delay. The Bill should have been introduced to the House of Commons first, or it should at least have been sent to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, that its details might be sifted; for, although it had been before a Select Committee of the Upper House, the proceedings there were 1528 conducted in private, and none of those interested in it knew what was going on; many even did not know that Evidence was being taken. He opposed the Bill on the ground that it would increase the price of all articles of necessity to the inhabitants of the metropolis. It had been said that the Bill was similar to one introduced by the Corporation of London; this was not the case. The Corporation's Bill would have regulated the traffic; this would simply suppress it; instead of directing the routes the traffic should take, it would expel traffic from the metropolis. The measure had been framed on evidence given by Sir Richard Mayne, who evidently felt that the traffic had got beyond him, and that there was no means of controlling it except by suppression. Sir Richard Mayne desired to prevent coals and heavy goods from being delivered either in the City or suburbs as far as Clapham, Hampstead, Notting Hill, and other places four miles distant from Charing Cross, except between one and ten in the morning; he also suggested that people should sit up to receive the coals, or leave the coal plates of their cellars unfastened; but the consequence would be that the consumers would have to pay an additional 2s. 6d. per ton for their coals. The wine and spirit trade ought to be entirely excluded from the operation of the Bill, as the docks and bonded warehouses which were under the supervision of the Officers of Customs were only open for the delivery of goods from nine o'clock to four o'clock in the winter, and from eight o'clock to four o'clock in the summer, consequently it would be quite impossible to remove wines and spirits in casks from the docks and bonded warehouses and deliver them in the City of London either before ten o'clock in the morning or after six o'clock in the evening as was provided by clauses in this Bill. The parties affected by the measure should be afforded an opportunity of stating their grievances and explaining how its provisions would injuriously affect them. The provisions for insuring the speedy removal of snow were the most absurd and impracticable that could have been desired, and would cause considerable annoyance to the street authorities of the metropolis, and therefore ought to be expunged from the Bill. And that part of Clause 12 should also be struck out which authorizes any police constable to take into custody without warrant any person who within view of such constable should disregard 1529 the regulations in any street within the special limits of the Bill. If the Government would adopt measures by which Waterloo Bridge would be made free, the metropolis would be greatly relieved from the pressure of traffic. Great advantages had been derived from throwing open Southwark Bridge, and similar advantages would result to the Western and North Western parts of the metropolis from making Vauxhall Bridge free. It was a new idea that a Bill for the Regulation of Traffic should commence by suppressing traffic, and that it should presume to say what vehicles should alone pass through the streets. On the whole, he felt convinced that it would be most objectionable to press the measure forward this Session when it was known that it would inflict great evils on the trading community. It was supposed that in Paris after certain hours no heavy traffic was to be seen in the streets; but this was a mistake, for he himself had seen great waggons conveying stone to buildings in course of erection within the prohibited hours. But the real reason why the heavy traffic of Paris was capable of being controlled, was that, comparatively speaking, it was of very moderate dimensions. In Paris, there was no great river with freight equalling that of the Thames, or manufactories of large articles. It was a city of pleasure, and elegant trifles formed the staple of its products. The effect of compressing the limit of time within which heavy traffic could be carried on would be to necessitate the employment of many more vehicles and horses to do the same work quicker. Loss of life was spoken of; but loss of life was owing in the City not so much to the slow as to the quick traffic, which it was now sought to accelerate. The House was familiar with a very common form of complaint. A gentleman wanting to get from the West End to Bishopsgate Street Station rapidly, having a dinner party at home perhaps, and not having allowed himself sufficient time to drive there, missed his train, spoiled his dinner party, and then wrote next day to The Times, complaining of the crowded state of the streets. The effect of increasing the present rate of driving must be to add to the annual number of deaths. The Metropolitan Board of Works had, under their seal, petitioned the House of Lords, praying to be heard by counsel against this Bill, but their Lordships refused to accede to their 1530 prayer. It should be remembered that Petitions from all the principal railways running into London had been presented to Parliament against the passing of the Bill. The vestries of the most important parishes in the metropolis, from St. Luke's, Old Street, to Kensington, inhabited by very different classes of population, all disapproved of the Bill as interfering materially with social arrangements, likely to produce great inconvenience, and to require a great increase of police and parochial officers. Boards of Works, Commissioners of Sewers, and other public bodies, also petitioned against the Bill, pointing out the ill effects that would be produced by the clauses relating to the delivery of goods, as well as by other regulations affecting houses and property. These all asked to be heard against it, and to have an opportunity of appearing before a Committee. He knew it was hopeless for him to contest the Bill against the weight and authority of the Government, which was all-powerful in the month of August; but he appealed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to listen to their opinions, and to postpone the measure for that purpose. They might carry the measure, but putting in force its provisions was a very different matter, and Sir Richard Mayne, with all his men, and even a large accession to the police force, could not attempt it without leading to the greatest confusion. What would be said if it were proposed to take the heavy barges out of the Thames, and leave it clear for the fast steamboats? It was equally ridiculous to propose to take the heavy traffic out of London streets and leave them to cabs and carriages. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he had been anxious to take some part in this debate, but the subject had been treated in such an exhaustive manner by his hon. Colleague, that it was impossible to approach it at any point that had not been thoroughly discussed. He could only say that he agreed with his hon. Colleague. He did not object to Parliament dealing with the traffic of the metropolis, but at this period 1531 of the Session it was impossible the subject could be properly considered.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, the Bill contained many clauses which he thought it was desirable to pass. He suggested that the House should consider these clauses, but that the Home Secretary should withdraw that portion of the Bill relating to the delivery of coal and the removal of snow and dust.

COLONEL SYKES
said, the radius of three miles within which this Bill was to operate should begin not at Charing Cross, as was proposed, but at Guildhall. In the former case, Belgravia and Tyburnia would be brought under the operation of this Bill. That would be an unreasonable interference with the comfort of the inhabitants of these districts, because there was no crowded traffic there. He insisted that before any measure was passed on this subject, the people whose property and comforts would be affected by it, ought to have an opportunity of being heard before a Select Committee of the House.

§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
said, he would not attempt to follow the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) who had gone into so many subjects beyond the scope of the Bill. Those embraced within the measure were not very numerous, but they were very important as regarded the comfort and well-being of the metropolis. Some of the regulations provided in this Bill had been called for year after year, and there could be no doubt that the question of regulating the traffic of the metropolis must be dealt with before long, whatever party might be in office. Even at that advanced period of the Session he thought it was incumbent on the House to attempt to remove some of the evils with which the Bill dealt. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment complained that there was not time for a consideration of the Bill; but it had been before Parliament during the whole of the present Session, and, no doubt, every Member of that House had given it his consideration, and made up his mind on it. Again, though he would not venture to say that an inquiry before a Select Committee of the Lords superseded inquiry in the House of Commons, still hon. Members ought not to refuse to recognize inquiries made by the other House. The Bill, as now before the House of Commons, did not go nearly to the extent which had originally been intended. All the various interests concerned 1532 had been heard attentively by the Select Committee of the House of Lords, and very considerable modifications had been made in the measure at the suggestion of those interests. It had been at first intended that extensive power should be given to the Commissioner of Police as to the streets in which there should be restrictions on the traffic; but, instead of that large discretion being given to him, the streets in which the restrictions were to have effect were all duly scheduled. It would be seen that the streets so scheduled were principally those in which great carrying companies had found it to be for their own interest to have self-imposed restrictions as to the delivery of goods. The want of proper regulations for heavy traffic was a disgrace to the metropolis; and better regulations with regard to hackney carriages and to dogs were also urgently required. There had been some distressing occurrences in consequence of rabid dogs being allowed to run about the streets in warm weather. Various useful regulations, too with regard to shoeblacks, commissionaires, and other employés were not to be despised. The hon. Member (Mr. Labouchcre) had asked the Government to consent to take out the clauses relating to the removal of snow, dust, and coals. He should not like to pledge the Government to give that consent, but he was authorized to say that they would accept any reasonable modifications which might be proposed, and that when they got into Committee they would consider the question of the withdrawal of such clauses as might be objected to. He trusted that that promise would satisfy the House, and that the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment he had proposed.

§ MR. LOCKE
was glad to hear the statement which the hon. Baronet had made, the more particularly since the persons connected with some of the trades with reference to which it was proposed to legislate had had no opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee and stating their objections to the clauses and where the shoe pinched them. He understood that the whole of the City of London and the liberties thereof were scheduled in the Bill with respect to the delivery of goods, and considering the immense trade of the City, regulations forbidding the delivery of bulky goods within certain hours of the day would create an enormous tax upon traders, which tax the public at 1533 large would ultimately have to bear. It was likewise a most preposterous proposition to say that beer should not be delivered to public-houses between ten o'clock in the morning and seven o'clock at night. He suggested that they should strike out all those clauses which had not been considered by a Select Committee of that House. With regard to the removal of snow, the vestries, while disclaiming the contemplated interference with their powers, were unanimous in expressing the opinion that it would be impossible to carry out the provision of the Bill which related to this subject, and that provision ought also to be struck out, and any regulation necessary on the subject postponed till next Session, when it would be able to receive proper consideration. There were several valuable provisions in the Bill, such as that relating to dogs straying about the street, and he should be sorry to see those parts of the Bill lost because there were other clauses to which great objection was entertained.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
thought that some of the clauses—such as those relating to gambling, advertising vans, and dogs—could be made useful, and the other clauses could be subsequently taken into consideration.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE
said, that after the declaration made on the part of the Government he should withdraw his Amendment.