§ Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI was remarking, Sir, when I was interrupted, that the promoters of this measure have already informed the House that a portion of the Bill has been withdrawn; and I only wish to make one remark with regard to the portion which has been withdrawn, and that is, that it is now rendered inevitable that every yard of earth taken from the proposed tunnel which is to be constructed from Charing Cross to King's Cross should be carted through the whole of the district, to the undoubted injury of the property situated in that part of the Metropolis, and to the great inconvenience of the residents. It is asserted by the promoters that there would be very little interference with the streets. Hon. Members, however, who are acquainted with the construction of works of this character, in London, must be well aware that it is utterly impossible for the promoters, however good their intentions may be, to construct a double line of railway under the public roads without shutting up the streets and interrupting the traffic of the entire district in which their operations are carried out. In this instance the effect of such a proceeding would be absolutely disastrous to the unfortunate traders, who are most of them small traders carrying on their business in the streets which come within the line of these works. I have been speaking so far on behalf of my own constituents, and I will leave my hon. Friends who represent Finsbury to state their view of the 1647 case, so far as the interests of their constituents are concerned. I will only point out that the inhabitants of the district generally are without any remedy whatever, unless they can appear before the Committee; and, I venture to say, it is wrong to compel, at great cost, the attendance of individual traders before a Committee of the House of Commons, in order that they may defend their interests against a measure of this kind, unless it can be shown that the measure is one of absolute and paramount necessity in the interests of the public generally. I think that that cannot be shown in this case; but there is every reason to believe that this is a mere speculative measure, got up solely for private interests, in order to obtain a profit hereafter by forcing some other Railway Company to purchase the right of carrying out the works. That being the case, I trust that the House will not consent to read the Bill a second time; and I beg now to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
§ MR. WHITBREADseconded the Amendment. He said that his attention had been drawn to the Bill in connection with some of the property through which it was proposed that the railway should pass. If it had been a mere interference with the rights of property he should certainly not have resisted the second reading of the Bill; but on looking into the Bill, it appeared to him that it contained several most unusual provisions which might well make the House pause before consenting to read the measure a second time. In the first place, the object of the Bill was set out, in a circular which had been issued by the promoters, as one that was to bring the Great Northern and Midland Railways into communication with the South-Eastern Railway in the centre of London; but there was not a single word in regard to these other railways in the Bill itself, nor was there any indication in the deposited plans that any arrangement was made for communicating either with the Great Northern or the Midland Railway. The Bill was, therefore, of a most misleading character; and it was hardly just to the House that language of this sort should be used, unless the Bill really proposed to carry out the arrangement indicated. The next point was also of an extraordinary nature. The Bill proposed that the 1648 Company established under it should undertake the liabilities and responsibility of a Limited Liability Company, whereas the character of the responsibility and the nature of the agreement were not specified or set out in the Bill. He did not think that Parliament would, for one moment, consent to a Company becoming responsible for any number of secret treaties which might have been entered into by a Limited Liability Company, without the nature of the agreement being fully set out in the Bill. He did not wish to waste the time of the House; but he should like to mention one or two other points in regard to the Bill which were of considerable importance. It was proposed to construct this railway under several most important thoroughfares, and the inconvenience to the public while the streets in question were blocked would be very great; but, besides that, the Bill suspended that portion of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act which provided that when a railway took part of a house for its own purposes, it should be compelled to take the whole. The House would easily understand that, by passing up the centre of the road, the promoters might think they were going to acquire the land almost for nothing, and then if they were to suspend the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, they might imagine that they would not be called upon to pay compensation for the house property they interfered with. That was a very serious point for the consideration of the House, and it was one of the reasons why he opposed the Bill. Then again, with regard to the acquisition of land, there were five separate points within the limits of deviation under the Bill in which the plans showed that it was proposed to widen certain streets; but in the Bill itself there was no provision, so far as he could see, to guarantee that that intention would, be carried out. There was no provision whatever to enable the Company to carry out any proposal of the kind; and he held, therefore, that it was not expedient to sanction a quasi-promise for widening the streets, when the Bill contained no provision to compel the Company to fulfil such promise. The Bill altogether was of a most misleading character; and, although he was aware of the desirability of making communications between the Railways serving the North and the South of 1649 London, the present Bill had in it such objectionable features that he hoped the House would refuse to read it a second time.
§ 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. W. H. Smith.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. SHERIDANsaid, the Bill authorized the construction of a short and simple line, which he should have supposed would commend itself to everyone. He believed that the proposed line would be made for such a price that it would be the cheapest line that had ever been made in this country, for its length. As he had said, it was a very short and simple line, and he could not understand the opposition which was raised to it. He certainly could not understand the motives which induced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) to move the rejection of the Bill. The line proposed to start from King's Cross and the Midland Railway, and to go down to Charing Cross. It was not a new scheme, because the House had, on two previous occasions, sanctioned a similar proposal. The first proposal of the kind that was sanctioned was, however, so associated with the construction of new streets, that it was found impossible to carry it out, and it was, therefore, abandoned; but now the streets were arranged for differently. The Board of Works were to make the new streets, and that objection disappeared. The proposed line could be made for a very small sum of money; and the communications which it was proposed to make between other railway property would be very easy and simple. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) said that the Bill contained no promise that this communication would be effected. He (Mr. Sheridan) could only say that the evidence disclosed this fact—that subways would be made both in regard to the Midland and Great Northern Railways; and it would be for the Midland and Great Northern Railway Companies to complete the communication with this little line, if they were desirous of having communication from the North of the Metropolis to Charing Cross. The line was a little more am- 1650 bitious at first than it was at the present moment. It was originally intended to carry it from St. Martin's down Parliament Street, so that hon. Members might go from the Houses of Parliament to the North of London, instead of experiencing the delay and. inconvenience now occasioned by the necessity of travelling in cabs; but the Government thought that the proposal to carry the line down Parliament Street was one which they could not sanction, and that part of the scheme had consequently been abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that persons ought not to be allowed to make these railways as a matter of speculation. He (Mr. Sheridan) had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members of that House had embarked in railway speculations of the same kind, and why the right hon. Gentleman should condemn a proposal to make this particular line, he (Mr. Sheridan) was at a loss to conceive, especially when a proposition of the same kind had been strongly recommended by the Parliamentary Committee which sat in that House in 1861. In that year the London and North-Western Railway Company submitted a scheme for opening up a communication with Charing Cross. The House would, therefore, see that this was no new plan. That scheme was not carried out on account of the difficulties it involved in widening the streets and constructing new ones; but, in 1863, a Select Committee of the House of Commons made a special Report, stating that any future railway communication with the lines now in existence should be made by an independent Company, and should not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, proceed from Companies already established. Parliament had not, therefore, authorized the Midland or Great Northern Railway Company to construct a line; but it had specially recommended that the proposal should come from independent persons. He (Mr. Sheridan) thought the Report of the Committee in 1863 was a complete answer, in that respect, to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. The fourth recommendation of the Committee of 1863 was that a new communication should be made between these very lines, and that it should be made by an independent Company in the nature of an 1651 underground railway. Therefore, if there was anything at all in the Report of a Committee of that House, and if they were to pay any attention whatever to the recommendations of the hon. Gentlemen whom they appointed upon Committees, surely a Report of that kind was worthy of the attention of the House. The right hon. Member for Westminster said that his constituents—"the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker"—did not like the proposal; but he (Mr. Sheridan) should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many of his constituents had petitioned against the Bill? He (Mr. Sheridan) believed that none of them had done so, although there had been some Petitions praying to be heard before the Committee, which was certainly the proper tribunal to dispose of the application. Any persons who chose to oppose the Bill in Committee could be represented and defended by counsel, and would be able to call witnesses in support of their case. It was utterly impossible for the House to deal with a question of this importance in an ad captandum and hurried manner. He might add that the right hon. Gentleman had not truly and fairly stated the case, because, while none of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman had petitioned against the Bill, there were 218 of them who had petitioned in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned that fact. He (Mr. Sheridan) thought the right hon. Gentleman ought, at least, to state his case impartially, and if he mentioned the points which told against the Bill, he ought also to mention those which told in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman was supposed to be acting in the interests of the public. This was a line which was submitted to the House in the public interests, and it was not confined entirely to Westminster, but extended to Marylebone and St. Pancras, and other parts of theMetropolis—which, however, supported the Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have told the House fairly that many persons connected with the Metropolis were in favour of the measure. He (Mr. Sheridan) was, therefore, justified in complaining of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, on the ground that it was misleading to the House, and founded on assertions which were the 1652 reverse of truth. ["Oh, oh!"] He begged to repeat that they were the reverse of truth. [Cries of"Oh!" and "Withdraw!"]
§ MR. W. H. SMITHasked if it was within the Rules of Parliamentary debate to say that any statement made by an hon. Member was the reverse of truth?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member (Mr. Sheridan) must be aware that a statement of that kind is altogether irregular.
§ MR. SHERIDANsaid, he would withdraw the observation, and say that, at all events, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was inaccurate, and that it was the reverse of correct. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were no Directors, whereas the Chairman of the Company (Lord Bateman) was at that moment in the Lobby assisting the promoters. The right hon. Gentleman had deliberately assured the House that there were no directors; but that the promoters of the Bill were some unknown persons without a Board at all. He repeated, that Lord Bateman, the Chairman, was in the Lobby at that moment, doing the best in his power to support the second reading of the Bill. He (Mr. Sheridan) thought he was justified, under these circumstances, in saying that the right hon. Gentleman's statement was the reverse of correct. Other statements made by the right hon. Gentleman were equally inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman said that his constituents opposed the Bill; but he did not give the House any evidence in support of his assertion, and there was not a single Petition in opposition. On the contrary, all the Petitions went the other way. The right hon. Gentleman said, further, that the line was not wanted; whereas there was strong evidence that it was wanted. The right hon. Gentleman said that the line should be made by established Railway Companies; but Parliament had already declared that it should not be made by established Railway Companies. The question really was this—the House had determined, in its wisdom, that the questions involved in such Bills should be referred to and reported upon by a Select Committee upstairs. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster mean to suggest that there should now be a departure from that principle, and that the 1653 merits of such proposals should in future be discussed in the House itself? Was it in future to be laid down that every proposal for the construction of a new railway was to be considered in the House, and disposed of after 10 minutes' discussion? Was it to be laid down that in future all questions of this nature were to be absolutely prevented from going before a Committee? If the right hon. Gentleman meant that all proposals for the construction of new railways were to be discussed in the House on the second reading, he (Mr. Sheridan) would be prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and, in future, to oppose the second reading of every Bill which contained power to construct a railway. Was that the view of the right hon. Gentleman? If not, what was his view? The House had declared that a Committee was the proper tribunal for the discussion of these matters. Was it a proper tribunal or not? If it was, why interfere to prevent this Bill from being properly considered and properly discussed by a Committee? If they were not to have a Committee upon it, then the sooner it was decided that all these second readings should be opposed, the better; and he, for one, would do what the right hon. Gentleman did now—namely, oppose the second reading of every Railway Bill when it came before the House. Perhaps, in these days of economy, the right hon. Gentleman considered that the best way of economizing the time of the House was to decide these questions on the second reading. But, until such a determination was arrived at by the House, he could only urge the House to allow this Bill, as one dealing with a question of great public interest, to be considered by a Committee in the ordinary way.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRI hope the House, in coming to a decision upon the second reading of this Bill, will separate the merits of the subject-matter of the Bill from any defects in the Bill itself. The subject-matter of the Bill has been frequently before the House. It was before a Select Committee in 1861, and an Act, giving power to construct railway communication between the South and North of London, was passed in 1863–4. Therefore, it has already been determined by the House that communication between the North and South of 1654 London is a subject that well deserves its attention, and one that ought to be supported. But the question now is whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) has a fair right to oppose the second reading, and so prevent the Bill being sent to a Committee in the ordinary way? There are some peculiarities in the Bill which deserve attention. It is almost the invariable practice in Bills of this kind to disclose various points. In the first place, it is the practice to disclose the names of the promoters of the Bill, and their names are usually mentioned in the Bill itself. There is no such mention of them in the present Bill. It is also an invariable practice to state what is the capital which is required for carrying out the purposes of the Bill; and this is clearly of great importance, because it ought to be known to those whose interests are affected that the capital provided is sufficient for the purposes contemplated. Clause 20 of this Bill says, that the capital is to be the capital of the syndicate mentioned in the seventh section who have formed the Limited Liability Company. But that capital is not disclosed in the present Bill. It can only be inferred what it is, because the sum of£40,000 is deposited, and, therefore, in all probability, the capital is£800,000. It is not, however, stated in the Bill. These are certain peculiarities in the Bill which prevents me from commending it to the House, and I cannot advise the House, under the circumstances, to send the Bill to a Committee. If the House do not accept the Bill at this moment, that would not prevent the promoters from coming here again in a proper way on a future occasion, and submitting a Bill in the regular form required for these purposes. Personally, I do not intend to support the second reading.
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSwished to corroborate what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had stated. The Bill proposed to carry a railway through a very important part of the Metropolis which was thickly crowded with dwelling-houses. It was quite true that his constituents had not petitioned against the second reading of the Bill, for they were content to leave their rights to be protected in conjunction with those of the general public. Everybody was agreed that it was desirable to have a 1655 subway formed from the North to the Centre of London; and if there was any personal feeling in the House upon the matter, the inconvenience felt from the want of such a means of communication would be calculated to induce the House to support any reasonable proposition for making it. But the case now before the House was this. At the time it was proposed to construct this line, in a district very much congested with population, there was a Committee sitting upstairs to inquire into the best means of dealing with the question of overcrowding; and yet it was proposed to construct this line and to stop up the traffic in very important thoroughfares, and to displace a considerable amount of the population without making any provision whatever for the persons displaced, or for the sanitary interests of the people who inhabited the districts affected. In order to reduce the cost it was actually proposed to exempt the project from the condition required by the Land Clauses Act—that when the underground story of a house was taken for the purposes of any public enterprize or improvement, compensation should be given for the whole of the tenement; which was only equitable as regarded private property, and wise as affecting the health of the community. He objected to the Bill entirely upon that ground; and the fact relied on by his hon. Friend (Mr. Sheridan), that the inhabitants of Finsbury and Westminster had not petitioned against the Bill, was one reason why the House, upon public grounds—and upon public grounds alone—should disregard personal motives and interests, and should hesitate very much before it sanctioned a speculative scheme so crude and inconsiderate as that now submitted to them.
§ MR. SHERIDANwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair), whether the amount required by Parliament—namely,£40,000 had not been deposited by the promoters?
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, ho had already mentioned that a deposit to that extent had been made.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Words added.
§ Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
§ Second Reading put off for six months.