SECOND READING. (Hansard, 22 February 1877)

SIR JAMES HOGG
In rising to move the second reading of this Bill, I do not think it necessary that I should take up the time of the House by endeavouring to prove the necessity for improvements in this increasing City, nor do I think it necessary to dilate upon the benefits which I believe the citizens of London have derived, whether resident here for purposes of pleasure or business, from the improvements which have been made by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House that in the year 1872 powers were given by this House to the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out various important street improvements. Amongst them there was one authorizing them to make a communication, partly by means of new streets and partly by the adapting of old ones, from Bethnal Green down as far as Holborn. One of the objects of the Bill which I now ask this House to read a second time is to make a street 60 feet in width to meet the street which I have just mentioned, and which I hope will be completed before the end of this year. If this additional street is constructed as we propose there will be a communication 60 feet wide directly down to Regent Street. Another object of the Bill is to authorize the Metropolitan Board of Works to make a street 60 feet wide from Tottenham Court Road as far as Trafalgar Square. And this brings me to my point of difference with my hon. Friend the Member for 818 Stoke. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: Cambridge.] I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I mean my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). The opinion of my hon. Friend is always well received, both inside this House and out of it, on all matters of taste. He objects to one of the proposals of the Bill, and only one; but I believe I shall be able before I sit down amply to satisfy my hon. Friend upon the point in regard to which he is so very anxious. But while I express my readiness to do everything I can to meet his views and the views of the House, I must say this—that if the street which I had hoped to get permission of the House ultimately to make—if that street is not of the width of 60 feet from Tottenham Court Road to Trafalgar Square, the responsibility will not rest with the Metropolitan Board, but with those who object to any interference whatever with the stops of St. Martin's Church. I need not assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University, nor need I assure the House, that in carrying into effect any improvements there is no desire on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works in any way to injure, or touch, or displace, or disfigure any of the architectural beauties of London, because, I am sorry to say, there are not too many of them extant. Still more, I may say that instead of wishing in any way to deface, we are anxious to improve, and when we make an improved communication, we are anxious that the improved streets and communications should be lined by handsome buildings. I think I may point to Queen Victoria Street as an example. The buildings which have been erected in it are really a credit to the metropolis. Then, again, we hope, in the course of a few years, that Northumberland Avenue will be filled with buildings of a high architectural character. Perhaps, with regard to the steps of St. Martin's Church, I may, with the permission of the House, be allowed to mention a few circumstances. When this scheme was first proposed, the rector and the churchwardens and some of the inhabitants addressed the Metropolitan Board of Works upon the subject. We endeavoured, as far as we possibly could, to meet them in a friendly and conciliatory spirit. We heard all they had to say; 819 we received from them certain plans, which were proposed modifications upon our plans—the modifications being proposed by Mr. Ferguson. We went into them, and we thought we had improved them; and we introduced and brought in other modifications, which we hoped would meet the views of all parties interested in the matter. I am sorry to say that the Metropolitan Board have in that entirely failed; that not only the churchwardens, but I am sorry to say my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, and I am also bound to add most of the Members who have spoken to me in the House of Commons, have expressed their disapproval of our plans. Now, Sir, I think it is much the best course, in all circumstances like these, to be entirely honest and frank. And that being the case, and not wishing in any way to destroy or do anything to injure the architectural beauties of the metropolis—although I do not think the plans we were going to propose to the House of Commons, and which we hoped would be allowed by the House to go before a Committee, would have had that effect—still, as we found that many hon. Members objected to them, I think the best plan for me to follow is at once to give up a portion of our plans. We ask the House now to say that the street shall be 60 feet in width from Tottenham Court Road down to St. Martin's Church, and I am prepared to give my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University a distinct assurance that in the future progress of the Bill nothing shall be done in any way to interfere with or touch the steps of St. Martin's Church. I hope that that frank acknowledgment and promise from me will induce my hon. Friend to withdraw the opposition of which he has given Notice to this Bill. I am satisfied that if the Bill is passed, and the improvements proposed in it are carried out, it will be of very great advantage to the metropolis. As I am speaking on the subject of the Bill, I should like to mention one or two other improvements which we contemplate, and which are very much wanted. Those who live in the East of London, and on the other side of the River, well know how very much improvements are wanted in Bermondsey and in Tooley Street. We propose to widen both of those thoroughfares, and to form a street which we 820 believe will tend very much to divert the traffic from London Bridge, now so considerably congested with it. There is one other scheme about which I believe an hon. Member proposes to ask me a Question. It relates to Gray's Inn Lane, which we propose to widen to the width of 60 feet, and in order to enable us to do that we have scheduled a considerable amount of property. I may add that a great deal of the property so scheduled is at the present moment reported as quite unfit for human habitation. I hope that this Bill will clear away a large portion of that very bad property. There is just one more point to which I should like to allude for a moment. I hope the House will agree with me that it is a desirable improvement when I tell them that the improvement in question is one for widening Abingdon Street, and making the approaches to this House more worthy of the metropolis. We also contemplate, if the House gives us permission, the extension of the New Embankment recently made beyond the House of Lords to Millbank. There will then be a continuous embankment from Battersea Bridge to Blackfriars Bridge. These objects are some of those we are striving to obtain by this Bill. Having frankly given up the only point of difference in regard to this Bill, notwithstanding that we thought our proposal would tend to the convenience of the whole of the metropolis, I trust that the Bill will now be allowed to go to a second reading and be reformed, as is usually the case.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir James Hogg.)

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
I can assure the House, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend, that I have listened to the manly, and frank, and satisfactory statement which he has just made with particular pleasure. We all know that his word is his bond. We know that anything he promises himself will, as far as he is concerned, be thoroughly carried out; but he, of course, can only speak for himself, as far as he has power with those with whom he acts, and so long as his tenure of office remains. I am sure that from the very first time his attention was 821 called to the matter from another point of view, wholly different from that to which it was first attracted, ho would be ready to do all that he could to meet the wishes of the rest of the House and of the public generally. However, I waited to see whether that which his official position enables him to propose would be that which I could honestly say would be permanently sufficient to meet our wishes. Personally, I should be glad of any clause which will prevent the Metropolitan Board of Works from carrying out their first intention. There were, however, rumours in the air of clauses leaving a contingent power of assent in no doubt very respectable hands. But no contingent right of destruction, however fenced, would have been sufficient. We want an absolute exclusion of this portico of St. Martin's Church. That absolute exclusion is now promised, and it is what I asked for. Before, however, the question drifts away, I should like to recall the recollection of the House to a little incident of past history. I am old enough to remember when Trafalgar Square was first made, and I have a very distinct recollection that the plan of Trafalgar Square was vitally altered before it was carried out. In those days people believed more in rectangles than they do at present. The picturesque had not grown up so much in architecture as it now has. Trafalgar Square was at first intended to be a rectangle, but in course of time Trafalgar Square was laid out, not as a rectangle, but as an open space, without one single right angle in it. And why was that? It was because a general and a just cry had arisen that this beautiful portico of St. Martin's was an object which ought to be brought into full view of all England in that part of London, where, as Dr. Johnson said—"The full tide of human existence passes Charing Cross." Actually the whole plan of Trafalgar Square was altered in order that this portico, steps and all, should be brought into full view; and how inconsistent it would be to have swept them away now. Still more inconsistent would it have been had the barge carrying away these steps met another barge from an opposite direction bringing Cleopatra's Needle to decorate that Thames Embankment which is the honour of my hon. and gallant Friend and of his Board. Our 822 national monuments are not so many that we can afford to sacrifice any of them, and I hope that under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) we shall be able to preserve a few pre-historic monuments. There are, however, other monuments, perhaps not so ancient, and artistic treasures of stones delicately carved, which are equally worthy of the attention of a great people. This is, I trust, the first and the last time that London and England will have to fear the hands of Vandalism being laid upon St. Martin's Portico, and I shall with much pleasure withdraw the Amendment of which I have given Notice.

§ MR. RAIKES
I am anxious to say a few words before the Bill is read a second time. We have heard the arrangement which has been come to between my two hon. Friends, and I am not aware that any other hon. Member of the House is anxious to disturb their concord. I only wish to say that while I congratulate them upon having concurred on the subject of the Bill of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro, if my hon. and gallant Friend had gone to a division upon the second reading of the Bill against the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge I should have supported him; because I think the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the University was rather one which ought to be left to the consideration of a Committee. It forms only a very small part of a very large Bill, and I should certainly have deprecated any proposal for taking issue upon the whole question upon such an Amendment. I am glad, however, that the question has been satisfactorily settled between the contending parties, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge has every reason to congratulate himself upon his successful opposition.

§ LORD ELCHO
My hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees has said that if there had been a division he would have supported the second reading of the Bill against the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the University because he considers that the question of St. Martin's Church is only a small portion of a very important Bill. But it appears to me that whether or 823 not St. Martin's Church is to be destroyed as a national monument is a very important question, more important far than the absolute line to be taken by the road, because I believe that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board and those who act with him would have been able to make the required road without touching the portico and steps of the church. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has taken the course he has; it is a most important question and principle that we have dealt with on this occasion. The object of the Metropolitan Board in these improvements is utilitarianism pure and simple. Is that principle to run riot through the public buildings of this metropolis? I venture to think that the House of Commons will never sanction such a principle as that. It has shown by the support which it has given to the Bill of the hon. Baronet opposite for the preservation of ancient monuments what its real views are; and I hope the action it has so taken will be a warning to the Metropolitan Board to respect the monuments in this metropolis less ancient than those under the charge of my hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock).
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.