SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 April 1882)

§ MR. W. H. SMITH

I rise to oppose the second reading of this Bill; and I do not take that course from any desire to interpose an obstacle in the way of the construction of any railway that would be of public utility in connecting the North and the South of this Metropolis, but I oppose this Bill in the interests of my constituents, because it proposes to deal with their property in a way which is not authorized by the Land Clauses Consolidation Act. By that Act, Parliament has thought fit to lay down certain regulations in regard to the taking of private property for the execution of works of this kind; and by setting aside the provisions of that Act, my constituents will be affected by this Bill, most of them belonging to the humble and industrious classes, but at present thriving men, and they will be compelled to appear before a Committee of the House of Commons, at a cost that may probably be ruinous to them, in order to protect interests which, as a general principle, Parliament has thought it right to lay down shall be protected by the State. I have also another objection to this Bill, and it is that it appears to be promoted by persons who can only desire to obtain these powers in order to sell them again. The reference to capital contained in the Bill states that— 1645 The capital of the Company shall be the capital of a limited Company at the time of the passing of this Act, such, limited Company being a Limited Liability Company, which the Bill proposes to extinguish, and to re-adopt for the purposes of this Bill. The capital of the Limited Liability Company consists, at the present moment, of 70 shares of£10 each, and there is no security whatever that any other capital will be raised, and no evidence that capital necessary for the construction of the work, if sanctioned by Parliament, will be forthcoming. Hon. Gentlemen who are acquainted with the way in which Companies of this kind are worked, are well aware that the provisions contained in this Bill give no practical and real evidence of the bonâ fides of the undertaking. The promoters are persons who can have no interest in constructing the railway; but, on the contrary, their interest is only to obtain power from Parliament to construct it. Having obtained that power, they will then go to one of the Railway Companies, who will become interested, and say—"If you do not purchase these powers, or give us a contract to make this railway, we will go to somebody else, and so expose you to the danger of competition, or to a disagreeable interference with your business." Now, I think it is neither right nor fitting that Parliament should give to speculative promoters powers which can be used, and which, I venture to think, are intended to be used, in that way. In the present Bill there is no substantial Board of Directors provided, whose names would be a guarantee of the good faith of the Company, and of their bonâ fide intention to carry out the undertaking. If there were a substantial Company and Board of Directors, there would still be reasons for opposing the granting of powers of this description. But in this case there is nothing of the kind, and the Bill involves a very grave and serious interference with private rights—private rights that are necessary to the existence of my constituents, because, if the scheme is to be carried out as it is now proposed, it would stop up and close various important thoroughfares while the works are being constructed, such thoroughfares being essentially necessary for the traffic of the Metropolis. I, therefore, think that the House ought to hesitate 1646 before it consents to grant such powers as those which are now sought. The promoters, by a statement contained in a document which has been circulated this morning, give notice that it is their intention to abandon Railway No. 1, and also what they call a "Temporary Railway."