COLONEL BERESFORD, who had given Notice to ask the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether his attention has been directed to the reports in the newspapers of the 13th July and the 3rd of August, of a case wherein a complaint was made against the London Street Tramways Company by a private resident to enforce penalties for having failed to keep in good condition and repair, and so as not to be a danger or annoyance to the ordinary traffic, the rails of their tramways and the substructure on which the same rested, in the Hampstead and Kentish Town Roads, and in High Street, Camden Town, and in which the fact of the non-repair was admitted, but the magistrate decided that the Act of Parliament referred to gave no remedy to a private inhabitant but to the Metropolitan Board of Works, who 955 only had power to enforce penalties of five pounds per day; whether in consequence any and what steps had been taken to enforce the law against the Tramway Company, or to recover such penalties; and, what had been done by the Metropolitan Board in consequence of the receipt of a Letter from a Correspondent to the Chairman of the Board, of May 1st, 1878, and the subsequent Correspondence thereon, was proceeding to put his Question accordingly, when——
§ MR. CHILDERSrose to Order. Primâ facie the hon. Gentleman was acting in violation of the Standing Orders of the House in putting a Question which was addressed neither to a Minister of the Crown with reference to public matters, nor to a private Member with regard to any Bill or Motion before the House. On the other hand, he believed it had on a previous occasion been ruled by the Speaker, that it had for some time been the practice to permit Questions relating to matters of public interest to be addressed to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who, although not a Minister, might, perhaps, become one, and who meanwhile discharged very important public functions. These Questions had always been confined to matters of public importance. The point involved in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, however, referred merely to an action which had been brought by some person against a Tramway Company and to a letter from an anonymous correspondent, and he did not think the Chairman of the Board ought to be called upon in his place to answer a Question of that kind. If the Rules of the House were to be violated in that way, Questions might be put to every Mayor or Chairman of a Local Board who happened to have a seat in it with respect to the affairs of that municipality or local authority.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, it was not customary to put Questions such as that of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark to private Members.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the right hon. Member for Pontefract had stated quite accurately what the Rules of the House were with regard to putting Questions. He was also correct in saying that it had for some years past been the practice to make an exception in enforcing 956 those Rules in the case of Questions addressed to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, in consideration of the magnitude of the interests which he represented. That practice, which had been the practice of his Predecessors in the Chair, he had followed by permitting Questions to be put to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board on matters of public importance. He must, however, say that the Question now addressed to the hon. and gallant Member seemed to him to be against the spirit of the Rules of the House; and if his attention had been previously called to it he should have pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark that it would be scarcely proper to put it.
SIR JAMES M'GAREL HOGGasked the permission of the House to state his readiness to answer that or any other Question which might be put to him by any hon. Member.