HC Deb 04 March 1872 vol 209 cc1315-20

Order for Second Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Hogg.)

MR. PELL moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Under this measure the Metropolitan Board of Works were enabled to borrow the sum of £2,500,000, in addition to the £10,000,000 of debt they had already incurred. The improvement suggested under the Bill of making a new street from Old Street, Shoreditch, to Oxford Street, was considered last year by a Select Committee, who, however, threw out the Bill under which it was to have been made, on the ground that no comprehensive scheme for the improvement of London had been framed by the Board of Works. The Board, nevertheless, seemed to treat this Resolution with contempt, and had re-introduced the Shoreditch scheme with some minor local schemes. On the ground that no comprehensive plan for the improvement of London had been proposed by the Board of Works, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

MR. GOLDSMID

seconded the Amendment, saying that the debt of the metropolis would increase very fast if the Metropolitan Board were allowed to do as they wished. He understood that in some of the metropolitan parishes the rates amounted to 5s., 6s., and 7s. in the pound, and if the Board were to do as they liked without any cheek there was no saying what it would amount to. The extravagance of the Board of Works had been amply proved by their spending £6,000 on the erection of a stand in Hyde Park for the accommodation of vestrymen on Thanksgiving Day, although the entire sum spent out of the national funds for the conveyance of the Lords and Commons by steamer on that occasion had only amounted to £30.

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. Pell.)

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

COLONEL HOGG

, as Chairman of the Board of Works, said, there ought to be some weighty reason before the House was asked to go out of the usual course and reject a Bill like this. The Bill contained proposals for five distinct improvements; yet those who opposed the Bill confined themselves only to one—the Shoreditch improvement. How the Bill was brought about was this. The Metropolitan Board sent round to every district in the metropolis, each district being asked to bring before the Board the scheme that they thought most conducive to the interests of their own particular district. After this information had been acquired there was appointed a special committee, which sat day by day to endeavour to frame a scheme which would be in accordance with the recommendation of the Shoreditch Improvement Committee. The particular proposal objected to was a part of a large, complete, and comprehensive scheme for the improvement of the metropolis. Further than this, the Wapping improvement, which formed another part of the Bill, was recommended by a Committee of the House so long as 34 years ago, and the street from Shoreditch to Oxford Street was recommended in a similar way no less than 30 years ago. The cost of the seats for the accommodation of the vestrymen on the occasion of the Thanksgiving was not £6,000, as stated by the hon. Member for Rochester, but £3,000. The Metropolitan Board were not answerable for the large increase of rates, because the amount imposed by them was gradually decreasing, whilst at the same time the benefits of their rule were increasing. If the Bill were allowed to go to a Committee the Board would be able to prove by irresistible evidence that what was contemplated by this Bill would effect great improvements, and would relieve the traffic to the City. He hoped that the House would not, by rejecting this Bill, impede and paralyze the action of the Board.

MR. HINDE PALMER

believed that the Metropolitan Board were entitled to great credit for what they had done in some parts of the metropolis; but still the objection was that what was now proposed was not a plan for general metropolitan improvements. The Board seemed to wait for action for the pressure of local influences. If the House should sanction these small local improvements large sums would be muddled away, and there would be nothing to show for it.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

thought that the recommendations of the Committee of last year had been roughly and completely set aside in the framing of this Bill; and now the Amendment simply asked the House to support the decision of their own Committee.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

hoped the Bill would not be discussed upon the merits of particular improvements. The Board of Works was not a speculative company, seeking to make a profit like a railway company, but a body representing the whole of the metropolis, who had discharged their important duties hitherto to the satisfaction of the ratepayers, and the improvements proposed were all such as could be approved. It seemed, therefore, a strong course to refuse to read the Bill a second time, in order that it might be submitted to the investigation of a Select Committee. A list of reasons for its rejection had been circulated; but only one of these was entitled to any weight—namely, that which referred to the destruction of houses inhabited by the poorer and industrial classes; and he would urge on the Metropolitan Board that whenever they destroyed large numbers of these houses they should build, or cause to be built, others to supply their place.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, he represented a constituency who could in no way be benefited by the proposed improvements, and he protested against their being taxed for schemes in which they had no interest.

MR. DODSON

said, he did not think the House was in a position to decide upon the merits of these improvements, and therefore he thought the Bill should be submitted to the consideration of an impartial Committee, in the ordinary way.

LORD ELCHO

submitted that the proper course would be to refer the matter to a Committee similarly constituted to that of last year, according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means. It would be competent to the Committee to decide, as before, whether the proposed improvements should go on, or whether some general scheme should be first submitted to Parliament. He hoped, then, that the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill would be withdrawn.

MR. LOCKE

concurred in this recommendation, but suggested that some metropolitan Members should be placed on the Committee, in order that the real necessities of the metropolis might be elicited.

MR. SAMUDA

hoped the Bill would be [read the second time. He regarded its proposals as real metropolitan improvements, for one of the great objects it would effect would be to facilitate the enormous traffic connected with the various wharves in the neighbourhood of Wapping, which traffic was occasionally much impeded from the want of such facilities.

MR. PELL

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of Ten Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection."—(Mr. Hinde Palmer.)

COLONEL HOGG

said, he could not accede to the Motion, and, if necessary, would divide the House against it. It involved a principle wholly opposed to the usual precedents.

MR. GOLDNEY

supported the Motion. He thought it was high time for the Metropolitan Board of Works to give their attention to the preparation of the long promised general scheme for the improvement of the metropolis,

MR. DODSON

entered his protest most emphatically against the Motion. In his opinion it would have been better to reject the Bill on the second reading than to refer it to a Select Committee to be constituted as proposed. Upon Committees on Public questions it was right and usual to appoint Members representing the different views and interests concerned; but on an opposed Private Bill Committee the persons interested were heard before the Committee by counsel and witnesses. The Committee acted the part of Judges, and, accordingly, by the Standing Orders, no Member was to serve unless he signed a declaration that he had no interest, either personally or through his constituents, in the matters referred to the Committee. It was wholly at variance with practice to appoint partizan Members upon a Private Bill Committee, and contrary to the principle upon which the House had acted hitherto.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that though this was nominally a Private Bill, it was a Public Bill to all intents and purposes. It was a Bill taxing the whole inhabitants of the metropolis for the benefit of a particular locality, and he therefore trusted that it would not be referred to the hybrid Committee suggested.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

thought this Bill could not be said to be entirely a Private Bill. It would affect not merely a particular locality, but the whole of the metropolis, and he thought that in the interest of the public the proposals of the Bill should be submitted to a general inquiry. It might be that the objects to be gained by the Bill might be obtained by some means better than those contained in the Bill, and he should, therefore, support the Motion.

MR. HEADLAM

said, he had sat upon hybrid as well as upon ordinary Committees, and, in his opinion, it would be infinitely better to send the Bill before the ordinary Private Committee than to the Committee proposed.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The argument of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) would, if sanctioned by the House, establish a precedent which would be most mischievous and dangerous. All previous Bills—nine in number—relating to the Board of Works had been sent to ordinary Committees.

MR. LOCKE

said, that the metropolitan Members of the Committee by which the Bill of last Session had been thrown out performed their duty as impartially as any other Members of the Committee. If the Bill before the House was sent to an ordinary Committee, none of the parishes which had petitioned against it would be heard at all. He protested against the interests of the metropolis being handed over to any four Gentlemen from the country.

Question put:—The House divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 170: Majority 48.