§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
§ MR. MARRIOTT, who had a Motion on the Paper that the Bill be considered on that day week, said, he did not propose to move the Resolution which stood in his name; but he thought the House would permit him to call attention to a few facts in connection with the Bill. It would be in the recollection of the House that the Committee, some three years ago, gave certain powers to the Metropolitan District Railway Company to make ventilators on the public land; but it was not until those ventilators were absolutely put up that the attention of the public was called to their inconvenience. As soon as the inconvenience was felt the matter was brought before the House. As was well known, the House had always a strong objection to interfere with anything a Committee had previously decided, and very rightly so; but when this question was submitted to the House special Instructions were given to consider the matter in connection with another Metropolitan District Railway Bill which was submitted to the House. It was then expressly stated that, as a matter of principle, there were strong objections to undoing the work of a Select Committee. But, in this particular instance, so great was the inconvenience occasioned that the House considered it right to depart from its usual course, and the usual course was departed from by a majority of 110 in a crowded House, and powers were given to the Committee to close the ventilators in the different streets of the 1185 City and upon the Thames Embankment upon reasonable terms. He should now like to call the attention of the House to what the Railway Company did after these Instructions had been given by so large a majority of the House. When the Bill came before the Committee the Railway Company simply defied the House. They asked the Committee this question—"Are you going to pay any attention to the Instruction which has been given to you by the House of Commons?" The Committee took time to consider, and then said that they were going to pay attention to it. Whereupon the Hail-way Company rejoined—"Then, we will drop our Bill, and you cannot, therefore, carry out the Instructions of the House." They did drop their Bill, and the Instruction could not be carried out. But the authorities of the City of London and in the Metropolitan area, after beating about in order to see what further steps they could take for stopping the nuisance occasioned by these ventilators, and after a consultation between the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works, came to the House and stated their case, declaring that the only way to get rid of the nuisance was to promote a Bill, and to ask the House to suspend its Standing Orders with regard to it, thereby making it a Public Bill. The House was so convinced of the nuisance, and so desirous of adhering to the opinion they had previously expressed, that they at once gave this power of suspending the Standing Orders, and two separate Bills were brought in—one by the City of London, in regard to ventilators within the jurisdiction of the City, and the second by the Metropolitan Board of Works, in regard to the ventilators which had been constructed upon the Metropolitan area. Those two Bills were referred to a Select Committee; and he must here say a word in regard to the action of the Railway Company, because he thought the conduct pursued by the Company would receive the condemnation of all who respected authority. When Bills went before a Committee of the House it was supposed that the Committee would listen to nothing but the arguments addressed to them by the counsel representing all the parties concerned; that they would hear the evidence laid before them, and then decide upon the merits of the application. But he regretted to 1186 say that the Metropolitan District Railway Company took a course unprecedented by any Railway Company in the United Kingdom, because they resorted to out-of-door agitation, in order to bring pressure to bear upon the Committee. There might have been seen in Pall Mall and all over the streets huge placards, with advertisements, announcing—"Awful slaughter!" "Wholesale slaughter of the working classes!" "£40,000 of the ratepayers' money going to be thrown away!" and other devices, never resorted to before by a Railway Company.
MAJOR DICKSONrose to Order. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Member if he had any proof that the Railway Company were responsible for these placards?
§ MR. MARRIOTTsaid, he had this proof—that when the time came for stating their case the Railway Company put forward their engineer, and did not put into the box either the Chairman of the Company or the General Manager. He had, further, this authority for the assertion he made—that the advertisements appeared in every station on the District Line; and he was sure that if the Committee had been able to examine and cross-examine the Chairman and the Manager of the Railway Company, they would have been able to ascertain where the money came from, and it would at once have been admitted that, at any rate, the Company paid for the advertisements. He did not think that any further proof was necessary. If the assertion was untrue, let the Railway Company come before the House and deny it. The agitation did go on, and it was conducted in the most obnoxious and objectionable form. The Railway Company tried, by outward pressure brought to bear upon the Members of the House, to influence the decision by getting up a workman's grievance. They represented themselves as the champions of the working classes; whereas everybody in the House knew that every beneficial institution the Railway Company had introduced had not been at the instance of the Railway Company themselves, but at the instance of the House. Even while their Bill was passing through the House, it was necessary to watch them, and to bring in clauses to protect the interests of the working classes. When he saw the 1187 Railway Company holding themselves out as the champions of the working classes, and defying the City and the Metropolitan Board of Works, he was reminded of the old proverb of "Satan reproving sin." The House of Commons had always taken up the rights of the working classes, and it was absurd and ridiculous to assume that the District Railway Company were their champions, and that the House of Commons was against them. He believed the House would concur with him that such conduct on the part of the Railway Company was highly reprehensible and objectionable. He did not think, however, that it had any effect upon the Committee, the. Chairman of which he was glad to see present in his place. He felt certain himself that it had not. He now asked the House to inquire for a moment what it was that took place before the Committee. Two of those ventilators were situated in the City of London. One was extremely dangerous, and the other very harmless. The City of London only objected to one of them, and the Committee ordered that one to be closed. Therefore, the City of London were perfectly satisfied with the decision of the Committee, which ordered the ventilator in Queen Victoria Street to be shut up. But with regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works, their case was altogether different. There were eight ventilators to which the Board objected; but the Committee decided that only two of them should be shut up, that one should be altered, and the other five should be left untouched. He was glad to see the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works in his place, because he believed that, acting for the ratepayers and on behalf of the public at large, the Metropolitan Board were greatly dissatisfied with the decision arrived at. They looked upon these ventilators as a source of danger to the public, and as a nuisance in many ways. The Committee had requested the Railway Company to suggest a clause by which the nuisance might be abated, and the Railway Company suggested that the whole matter should be referred to arbitration. In regard to the nuisance, although he could not give evidence, he would make a statement for himself, and he believed that that statement would be fully corroborated by other hon. Members. Those who walked 1188 up and down the Thames Embankment before the attention of the House of Commons was called to these ventilators would be aware that volumes of steam and smoke used to issue from these apertures. ["Oh!"] He was speaking of what took place three or four months ago. No doubt, as soon as the matter was brought before the House those large volumes of smoke practically ceased, and very little would be seen to issue from the ventilators as persons walked up and down the Embankment. Why was that? It was evident that the Railway Company did not wish the nuisance to be seen so long as the rod of the House was held over them; but if this Bill passed there would then be nothing to prevent these volumes of smoke from coming out again, and, if any objection were raised, the reply would be that the ventilators had been sanctioned by Parliament. If the Railway Company wished really to abate the nuisance, let the ventilators be placed under the Railway Commissioners. There were three Railway Commissioners, who had not very much to do; and if this Railway Bill were subjected to the authority of the Commissioners, with power to interfere in the case of any nuisance that might be created, the public, no doubt, would be satisfied, because if the matter went before the Railway Commissioners it was quite clear that the nuisance would very soon be abated. But the question for consideration now was, what the House would do. The House had taken the matter on themselves, and the only question was whether they ought to reject the Bill in the amended form in which it had come down from the Committee. In his opinion, one-half or a quarter of a loaf was better than none; and as the Bill had still to go through the House of Lords, he would venture to let the matter stand where it was, the House retaining to. itself further action, if necessary, in the next Session of Parliament. If that were the opinion of the House, he would ask permission to withdraw the Resolution which stood in his name on the Paper, and he would allow the Bill to pass for the present.
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. and learned Gentleman move any Amendment?
§ MR. MARRIOTTNo.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he did not wish to inquire into the manners and morals of the Railway Company. He considered that the whole question of what the Railway Company did, or what they were supposed to have done, was entirely decided. The only question before the House, and the question constantly present to him, was whether these ventilators were necessary for the health of the persons who travelled by the railway. He was entirely convinced that they were, and he exceedingly regretted the action which had been taken by the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was satisfied that there would be great and growing discontent even in regard to this partial action on the part of Parliament in shutting them up. In the interests of those who travelled on the Metropolitan District Railway, he desired to say a word. As soon as the subject had been discussed, he had been waited upon by representatives of the working classes in London. As a matter of fact, the borough he represented—Southwark—was not materially served by this railway. Fortunately for the people of the South of London, they generally travelled upon open railways, where it was not necessary to have special means of ventilation; but the working classes of the South of London felt very much for their brother workmen, who complained seriously of the course pursued in respect to this railway. He was told that there were no less than 200,000 working men in London who were prepared, if they had had an opportunity—which, however, was refused to them—of being heard before the Committee, of stating their views upon the matter. In the absence of the information which they could have given upon the subject, the Report of the Committee was necessarily an ex parte one; and, therefore, he contended that it did not take into account various important considerations which ought to have been before the Committee in relation to the question of public health. Now, what had been done in regard to these ventilators? They had been constructed in comparatively innocuous places, and a great deal of sentimentality had been uttered in regard to them. The House had been told of pestilential vapours, injurious both to man and vegetation, constantly issuing 1190 forth in puffs of smoke and steam. But they were evils which existed only in the vigorous imagination of his hon. and learned Friend. He (Mr. Rogers) confessed that he had not seen anything of the kind. The fact of the matter was that the whole amount of steam which came out of the ventilators was not half so noxious, and certainly not one-half as visible, as that emitted from one of the steamboats that plied up and down the Thames, and which they did not wish to interfere with at all. The steam and smoke from these steamboats certainly created a very considerable nuisance. But the nuisance from the ventilators was very trifling indeed. In point of fact, the particular kind of coal used on this railway was one by which very little smoke was created. Of course there was a certain amount of steam emitted; but it was quickly dispersed into thin air, without any injurious consequences to health or vegetation. The Committee which sat upon the Bill had closed three ventilators—one at the instance of the City of London—and he regretted exceedingly that the opportunity escaped him of attacking that Bill which enabled the City to close that ventilator. He was informed, on good authority, and he had spoken to several of the guards and permanent officials of the railway since the ventilator had been shut up, that the closing of that shaft would very much interfere with the pointsmen and engine drivers, and that, in future, there would be great risk of danger to persons who used the railway in that direction. He presumed that the ventilator was closed on account of a general disinclination on the part of the City of London—for he could explain it on no other ground—to have light let in upon their proceedings.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERrose to Order. He wished to ask whether his hon. Friend was justified in attacking the City of London on this question?
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he presumed that the Commissioners of Sewers, who promoted the Bill, were part of the City of London, and he regretted that the worthy Alderman was unable to accept a good-humoured jest upon the Corporation as to what went on in the City. With regard to the other two ventilators which were to be closed, there was no doubt that when they were shut up a good deal of the 1191 space now rendered comparatively pure would be vitiated. In regard to the general course taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works, it would be observed that just beyond the point where the last ventilator of the Railway Company was opened within the jurisdiction of the City there were a great many spaces which had been utilized on the line of the railway itself, and which might have been employed for building purposes. That was to say, that part of the space belonging to the Company had been devoted to the good of the public, showing that the Railway Company had not been altogether influenced by selfish considerations. He should like to know what was the reason that the ventilator had been closed in Parliament Square? He believed that the only reason assigned was that it was an historical spot. No doubt Tothill Fields was an historical spot; but that did not seem to him to be an adequate reason. The circumstances of the case rendered it absolutely impossible that the Metropolitan Railway could make openings in the streets except with the sanction of the House of Commons, and two years ago Parliament went into the question deliberately, and, whether rightly or wrongly, did give that sanction. He thought Parliament acted rightly when they preferred to consider the public health rather than sentimental considerations. The sanitary condition of the railway as soon as the ventilators were opened was, he believed, somewhat remarkably improved; and he regretted very much that this compromise had been entered into, because he believed that it would be injurious to the people who travelled by the Underground Railway. Although after what had been decided on previous occasions it was unlikely that he should carry the Motion, he, nevertheless, felt it his duty to move, as a protest, that the Bill be considered on that day three months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he quite concurred with the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member 1192 for Brighton (Mr. Marriott). The Metropolitan Board of Works—and he believed their feeling was shared by the great majority of the inhabitants of London, and also by the majority of that House—could not help expressing great surprise at the decision of the Committee after the repeated votes which had been given by the House of Commons; but as the Committee had given due consideration to the matter, he could only say, on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, that they were prepared to accept the decision of the Committee, and to go on and take the Bill up to the House of Lords. At the same time, they reserved to themselves the power of doing whatever they thought fit in the House of Lords, dependent on the action of the Railway Company. They were prepared to take what they could get now, and to reserve to themselves the power next year of doing what they might think necessary, if they found that the health of the inhabitants was suffering from these ventilators, and he was very much afraid that that would be the case. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Rogers) had been good enough to introduce the question of the steam issuing from the ventilators. He did not know whether the hon. Member had listened to or read the Evidence before the Committee. If he had, he did not think the hon. Member could have asserted that the smoke from a penny steamer was much more objectionable than that which came from these ventilators. He would give the House an extract from the Evidence given before the Committee, of which his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) was Chairman. It was stated to the Committee that 10 tons of coal were used every day on the railway, and that that coal gave forth 600,000 cubic feet of carbonic acid gas, which went all over the River and the Gardens, and destroyed the trees and flowers and every description of vegetation. It was quite evident, therefore, that the hon. Member could not have read the scientific evidence which went to prove the amount of damage actually done. His hon. Friend said that he represented the opinions of the working classes. All he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) could say was that he had had as many representations from one sort of people as from the other, and that he had received a considerable 1193 number of persons who represented the working classes. He knew, however, how much value to attach to the testimony placed before him, because he was well aware that there were a certain number of people who, instead of representing a class, only represented themselves. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to pass, and would accept the decision of the Committee, although they were not getting one-tenth part of what they ought to have got. On behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he was prepared to accept the conclusion of the Committee; but the Board reserved to themselves the power hereafter of taking further steps in the matter.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill considered; to be read the third time.