§ [Progress 12th May.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 9 (Board may annex and enforce conditions as to space to be left open where building is erected beyond the general or regular line of building).
§ MR. BOORDsaid, he was sorry to have to object to the clause. On Friday last an Amendment was moved to put in "subject to compensation." That Amendment was rejected; and an hon. Member, whom he did not now see in his place, had moved the rejection of the clause in consequence. He (Mr. Boord) should do the same on this occasion, and, if he got any support, should press the matter to a division. If it were necessary to repeat the objections to the clause, he would say that it would enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to fix any conditions they pleased to an infraction of the general line of buildings—that was to say, in the suburbs, where there was a row of houses with gardens in front, the Metropolitan Board of Works might allow one or more householders or freeholders to build on part of their forecourt, on any conditions they (the Metropolitan Board of Works) might choose to assent to. Those conditions might possibly be the giving of a fourth part of the freehold for the use of the public. What he (Mr. Boord) said was that if a fourth part of the freehold was taken in this way, it should be done subject to compensation; because, if no compensation was provided in the Bill, it would be, practically, a confiscation of the freeholders' property. In order that there might be no confiscation of property, he wished to see the clause rejected.
§ Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, he rose to support the views of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord), and to express his desire to know what ground the Metropolitan Board of Works had for making this claim. This proposition was put forward in 1862—namely, that the Metropolitan Board of Works should have the power to decide 1059 whether there should he an encroachment upon the line of frontage; and it was proposed that they should not take land except by agreement. This Bill, however, would allow the Metropolitan Board to take land without agreement; and, under it, the surveyor to the Board was to be the authority to decide the merits of a case. Powers were now sought which had been refused on a previous occasion, the Home Secretary at the time having expressed the opinion that the Vestries were the proper authorities to interpose where interposition between an owner of property and his encroachment upon the line of frontage was necessary. He had a right to know why the Metropolitan Board distrusted the Vestries, and were not content to leave in the hands of those bodies the powers they were now seeking for themselves. The Committee should trust to the honour of the Vestries. In his opinion, the matter stood better as it was, unless the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works could show that the interests of the public were not safe in the hands of the Vestries.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that if the hon. Member had taken the trouble to be in his place the other evening he would have gathered some information on this matter. He (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) was sorry to have to weary the Committee by repeating what he had said half-a-dozen times over in giving the reasons the Metropolitan Board had for asking Parliament to give them further powers. His hon. Friend was surely aware that people could not build on their forecourts without making certain promises to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Individuals built on those forecourts, however, and did what was of advantage to themselves and detrimental to the public, without giving anything to the public in return. What the Metropolitan Board now asked was, that when these conditions were entered into, those who made the promises should be asked to fulfil them—what they asked was, that those who said they would do certain things should be compelled to do those things.
§ MR. BOORDsaid, he was present when this clause was discussed on a previous occasion. He had heard the hon. Baronet's explanations, and did not consider them satisfactory, and that was the reason he was now renewing his objec- 1060 tion to the clause. The fact was that the Metropolitan Board had sought to impose new conditions, and the public had, in many cases, refused to submit to them. Several cases had been granted by the Metropolitan Police Magistrates for the decision of the Superior Courts; and, pending the decision of those Courts, the Metropolitan Board came to that House and endeavoured, in the small hours of the morning, to take powers which at present they did not possess.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he did not agree that the Bill was to take the land of the freeholders. So far as he understood it, nothing would be done by the Metropolitan Board unless the freeholders encroached upon the line of frontage; no damage could be done the freeholder unless he wished to get some benefit by building on the line. The Metropolitan Board of Works were perfectly entitled to ask that the line should not be broken without some of the land being given to the public. He did not think this was a question for compensation, and should certainly support the clause as it stood.
§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, the Vestry was at present the authority, the Act of 1862 requiring that the Vestry should give its consent to the line being broken. This Bill sought to give the Metropolitan Board concurrent power with the Vestries; and it would only be fair that the Board should give the Committee some reason why they asked for this power.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, his hon. Friend had evidently not heard the discussions which had taken place on this subject. He was mixing up one clause with another; and what he was referring to had really nothing to do with the question before the Committee.
§ MR. WARTONsaid the conduct of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) was a specimen of the spirit in which the Board intended to discharge its functions, and override the wishes of the public. He sympathized with the hon. Baronet, who believed that everything was good but being a lawyer. The hon. Baronet spoke of "breaking the line" as though the line were a fixed matter that anyone could understand; but the objection he (Mr. Warton) took was this—that "the line" reposed in the bosom of the architect of 1061 the Board. The question was really a difficult one to decide, when one found that there were two lines on one side of a street, and the Board's architect could arbitrarily choose which he would term "the line." He objected to giving this power to the architect of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who might make terms with people under certain circumstances. Any interference with the line might change the whole character of the street. Houses were built with forecourts in front, and it was sometimes very hard to tell which was the line. It was very hard that a man could not make use of his land to his own advantage without the exercise of this arbitrary power on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He protested against the hon. Baronet getting up in the spirit he had done, and declaring, when hon. Members had risen to speak, that they knew nothing at all about the question. It had made him (Mr. Warton) tremble to think that they would be exposed to such arbitrary conduct as this. If the clause went to a division he should vote against it.
§ Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 10 (Power of Board to exercise powers of vestries and district boards under s. 75 of 25 & 26 Vict., c. 102, with respect to buildings, &c., erected beyond general line of buildings).
§ MR. BOORDsaid, this was the last clause he intended to dispute. If he had a strong objection to the last clause, he had a still stronger one to this. It was a very simple matter. The clause proposed to confer powers on the Board that they did not at present possess. The powers detailed in the section were already possessed by District Boards and Vestries under the Act of 1862; and now the Metropolitan Board of Works, not content with the powers given to District Boards and Vestries in 1862, wished to have similar powers conferred on themselves by Parliament. In 1862 he (Mr. Boord) had not the honour of a seat in the House; but he believed at that period the question was discussed whether those powers should be conferred on the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Vestries and the District Boards, and it was decided that the power should be given only to the District Boards and Vestries—that was to say, to the authorities who 1062 naturally knew most about the needs of the districts. If that decision was arrived at in 1862, he maintained that they ought to be furnished with some very good reason before they altered it. The District Boards—and he spoke especially on behalf of one or two in his own constituency—knew the needs of their localities, and were competent to exercise the powers conferred on them by the Act of 1862. The Metropolitan Board of Works—if the hon. Baronet would excuse the observation—was a nondescript body that was not directly elected; and it simply wanted to possess itself of these powers and hold them in terrorem over the local bodies. The Metropolitan Board of Works came before this House every year—every year it brought forward an Omnibus Bill for something or other, and it succeeded in piling up enormous powers that affected the Metropolis. He objected to the manner in which these powers were obtained. The hon. Baronet came here in the small hours of the morning, when very few Members were present, and assumed a position, which he (Mr. Boord) was not entitled to assume, on the Front Opposition Bench, and succeeded in inducing Parliament to confer Royal powers on him and his Board. As a protest against this kind of thing, he should press his objection to the clause.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, his hon. Friend objected to his coming here in the small hours of the morning, and he could only say, in reply, that he wished he was in bed. As to the Metropolitan Board of Works having received "Royal powers," Parliament had given them great powers, because they came here and said "such and such things are for the good of the public;" and the reasons they gave were so satisfactory, and commended themselves so much to hon. Members, that the powers they sought were conferred upon them. He would venture to explain—as many hon. Members might not be aware of it—that, at the present time, no one could build beyond the line of frontage without the leave of the Metropolitan Board. Irrespective of making roads for their own private advantage, people sometimes advanced their buildings. The persons who ought properly to see that the law was carried out were the Vestries; but he was sorry to say there were some Vestries who would not execute the law 1063 —who, for their own private advantage, or because they had friends whom they wanted to propitiate, failed to execute the law. The Metropolitan Board of Works, therefore, came forward and asked that if certain people broke the law, and the Vestries would not check them, they themselves, as a higher authority—not a "nondescript" body, but a body properly constituted and placed in its present position by Parliament—should have the power of seeing that the law was properly executed. He was sure the proposal would commend itself to the Committee.
§ Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, this involved a great Constitutional principle, and only a very few number of Members were in the House to discuss. The Vestries were elected directly; whereas the Metropolitan Board of Works was not a body directly elected, but chosen by the Vestries. If, therefore, new powers were to be given to the Metropolitan Board because the Vestries did not carry out their duty, it was for the constituencies to take the matter into their consideration.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that, as this was a most important Constitutional question, and there were so few Members present to take part in the discussion, he begged leave to call the attention of the Chairman to the fact that there were not 40 Members present.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 15 (Conversion of houses, &c., into public buildings).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had challenged the decision of the Chairman, before he declared that the Ayes had it. Under the circumstances, he should move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
1064THE CHAIRMANI think the reason given by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport for moving to report Progress is entirely founded upon a mistake. I certainly heard a challenge when I first put the Question; but I listened attentively for a second challenge, and heard none.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Motion for Progress. The Bill had been under consideration by the Committee for several nights; and as there remained no matter of a contentious character to be disposed of, he should be glad to be allowed to finish the Committee stage at that Sitting.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the reason why he had moved for reporting Progress was because half-a-dozen hon. Members had said "No" to the Chairman's statement that he thought the Ayes had it. It was not a right thing to try to hurry the Bill through.
THE CHAIRMANI distinctly stated from the Chair that on the second occasion I had not heard a single "No." It was in consequence of this that I said the Ayes had it.
An hon. MEMBER said, he had distinctly heard several hon. Members challenge the decision of the Chairman.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 16 (Amendment of provisions of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 122, s. 21, with respect to hot water pipes).
§ On the Motion of Sir JAMES M'GARELHOGG, Amendments made in page 8, line 37, after the word "water," to insert the words "or steam," and in line 38, after "hot water," by inserting "or steam."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 17 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
§ New Clause—"This Act shall not apply to the City of London or the Liberties thereof,"—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time, "put, and agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
1065§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.