HC Deb 11 June 1883 vol 280 cc188-96

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. ANDERSON

, in moving— That the Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection, said, that the object of his Motion was to secure that the Bill should be referred, not to an ordinary Private Bill Committee, but to a Hybrid Committee; and he could hardly understand how there could be any reason for objecting to a Motion such as that. His desire, of course, was to enable persons to appear before a Committee, without being compelled, in the first instance, to establish a locus standi. That was the usual course in cases in which the public interests were involved —namely, to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, for the purpose of having the public interests properly represented. Nobody would pretend that the Metropolitan Board of Works represented the public interests, or the interests of the ratepayers. Nor would anybody contend that the London Commissioners of Sewers represented the public interests. The interests of those who travelled by the District Railway were not likely to be served by the rejection of the present proposition, which was simply to enable persons who were interested in the question to appear before the Committee, without being obliged, in the first place, to establish a locus standi. So far the House had taken a most unfortunate course with regard to these Bills. It had deliberately suspended the Standing Orders, in order to undo legislation which it had approved of and sanctioned a very short time ago; and the mode in which it was proposed to undo that legislation was, in his opinion, of a most objectionable character. The Bill simply provided that these ventilators should be closed, and that the expense of closing them should be borne by the public. Not only was the expense of closing them to fall upon the public, but the original expense of opening them was also to fall upon the public. It was estimated that the expense of opening, and the expense of closing them, would reach altogether the sum of £40,000; and it was proposed by these Bills to throw this burden upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. The ratepayers of London had, therefore, every reason for opposing this Bill; and it was desirable that persons who professed to represent the ratepayers, other than the Commissioners of Sewers and the Metropolitan Board of Works, should be able to appear before the Committee, and state their objections to this proposal to throw upon them a charge of £40,000. Unless his Motion were agreed to, the ratepayers would have no means whatever of opposing this exorbitant and improper charge upon them. But if the Bill were referred to a Hybrid Committee, the ratepayers could come before that Committee, and give evidence to show what their opinions were; whereas, before a Private Bill Committee, they would be obliged, in the first place, to establish a locus standi. He thought it would be a most objectionable course if the public were not to be represented in the same way as they were upon occasions when the general public interests were at stake. It was frequently the case that the Board of Trade represented the public, and the Board of Trade insisted on Hybrid Committees, in order that the public interests might be properly protected. On this occasion the Board of Trade had neglected its duty. It ought to have dome forward in the interests of the public; but it had failed to do so, and the only thing he could do was to move that these Bills be referred to a Hybrid Committee. He had spoken of the burden of £40,000 which it was proposed to throw improperly upon the public. There was, however, another burden—namely, that of suffocation, which was to be thrown upon the travellers by the Railway; and yet they were to have no power to appear before the Committee of their own Motion, but were to be at the mercy of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers. He said nothing about the Railway Company. He desired to leave the Railway Company to fight its own battle. He had nothing to do with them, and he was speaking solely in the interests of the public, upon whom it was proposed to inflict the burden of £40,000, and in the interests of the travellers by the Railway, whom it was proposed by the Bill deliberately to suffocate. He intended to propose, in the case of both of these Bills, that a Hybrid Committee should be appointed, instead of an ordinary Private Bill Committee. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill he referred to a Hybrid Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection."— (Mr. Anderson.)

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, his hon. Friend had made an extremely good speech, no doubt; but it was a speech which ought to have been made upon the second reading of the Bill. The object of his hon. Friend was to secure an independent representation of the public before the Committee to whom the Bill was referred. It appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere) that if they were to have four Members of the Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection, the Metropolitan Board of Works would represent the ratepayers before that Committee. He was certainly surprised to hear from his hon. Friend that the Metropolitan Board of Works did not represent the ratepayers of the Metropolis. So far as he knew, the Board of Works was the only representative the ratepayers of the Metropolis had. Not only would the Metropolitan Board of Works be heard, but the Commissioners of Sewers would also represent the interests of the public; and, on the other side, the Railway Com- pany would naturally seek to oppose the Bill, and would call all witnesses who would be able to speak on their behalf. Of course, they would call a reasonable number of travellers on the Underground Railway in support of their case, who would be able to say whether or not the contention of his hon. Friend, that they were likely to be suffocated by the passing of the Bill, had any foundation. There was no reason for saying that other evidence would not be submitted to a Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection; whereas, if the proposal of his hon. Friend were agreed to, there would be a Committee of seven, three of whom would be appointed by the Committee of Selection and four by the House, who would consist, he presumed, of two advocates on one side and two on the other. That was a fair presumption, and it was what was done when a Committee was appointed in this manner. After the Railway Company had given evidence, and after evidence had been heard on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers, if the Committee was a hybrid one, any gentleman who had a fad about this Railway would be able to come forward and give evidence. Now, he was a ratepayer of the Metropolis himself, and he objected to spend the public money in feeing counsel in order to examine all these amateur witnesses. Even when the case was closed they would have to discuss and settle the matter between two advocates on the one side and two on the other. There was, therefore, no reason, he thought, for departing from the usual course of procedure in these matters. And he would beg to move that all the words of the Amendment after "That the Bill be referred to a" be struck out, and "a Committee of Four Members" be substituted.

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out that au Amendment of that nature was not necessary.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he would confine himself, therefore, to opposing the Motion, as he understood the same object would be gained by negativing it.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, he had not much to say in addition to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); but he felt bound to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee. The question raised was not whether the course taken by the Railway Company was right or not. In point of fact, the Company had taken powers under a previous Bill, and they had misused them. His objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow was simply that, as a rule, a Hybrid Committee represented a particular interest; whereas it was essential, in the inquiry they wore about to enter into, to consider the question in a merely judicial spirit. The Metropolitan Board of Works and the Corporation of London were not represented upon the Committee, but were perfectly content to submit the matter to an ordinary Committee, in which they had complete confidence. It was because he believed that all the questions at stake would be much more fairly discussed, and that much less waste of time and expense would be involved by referring the Bill to an ordinary rather than to a Hybrid Committee, that he opposed the Motion.

MR. CROPPER

said, he rose to support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said the speech of his hon. Friend ought to have been made on the second reading. He (Mr. Cropper) thought that speeches to a similar effect had been made on the second reading. At any rate, he had said all he could on the second reading against the proposal to close the ventilators. He thought it was an important point now that they should select as good a Committee as possible. The question was settled, and therefore was not worth arguing, whether these ventilators should be retained or not. But it was important that some good system should be proposed and adopted. He thought, if that question were well put before the Committee, and if the Committee were as large as possible, some good result might be brought about in the interests of the millions of people who travelled underground, and whose welfare ought to be considered in the question. His opinion was that the ventilators themselves were an improvement. He did not think they were any eyesore to speak of; and he thought that all the weight which could be given to the Committee should be given to it. He supported the Motion, because he believed that a large Committee would be able to act more satisfactorily than a small one.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

hoped the House would not adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) that they ought to have a good Committee; but his experience of the House did not teach him that the goodness of a Committee consisted in the fact that it was composed of an extreme number. All they wanted was an intelligent Committee, who would devote their time to the consideration of the questions referred to them. Such a Committee would be able to come to a much better decision than a Hybrid Committee; upon which there would probably be two advocates on the one side and two on the other. For instance, if he were placed upon the Committee—which he presumed he would be—in such a case everybody would know how he should vote, and the only effect would be to leave the decision of the question to the Chairman and the other two Members of the Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection. Before an ordinary tribunal the Railway Company could call what evidence they liked, and the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers would also be able to call any amount of evidence to show that these ventilators were a disfigurement to the Embankment, and that in the City they were dangerous to the traffic. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had observed that the expense to the ratepayers of pulling down the ventilators would be about £40,000. He wanted to know if the hon. Member had ever thought over, in his own mind, the sum which the Embankment had cost the ratepayers of the Metropolis? It was much nearer £2,000,000 than £1,000,000; and it would be a great mistake to allow the Railway Company to take land for which they had never paid, but for which the ratepayers had paid for the enjoyment of the public. Surely, then, it was a matter of great importance to the people of the Metropolis that the Railway Company should not be allowed to take away a largo portion of the Embankment from the enjoyment of the public, for which the Company did not propose to give one farthing in return. Nor had they made any use of their own property for the construction of these ventilators; but their sole desire seemed to be to put money into the pockets of their shareholders. He hoped the House would adhere to their original intention, and send the Bill to an ordinary Committee in which they would all have confidence. The Committee of Selection would take care to appoint good men upon it; and four men were, in his opinion, much better than seven or 17. He hoped the House would negative the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow; and that both in regard to this Bill and the Bill brought in by the Metropolitan Board of Works they would appoint the ordinary Committee in the usual manner.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had supplied his opponents with an argument in support of the Motion, because he said that if an ordinary Committee was appointed, he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would certainly be placed upon it.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he did not think the hon. Member had rightly heard him. What he had said was, that he had no desire to be upon a Hybrid Committee, because his views would be known, and his vote would be known, and he wished to have an independent Committee consisting of men who would have no interest in the matter except that of the public good.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, the answer to that was that an independent Committee had already allowed these ventilators to be made. He thought a Hybrid Committee, selected with ordinary care, would take into consideration the interests which the public had in the matter; and in the event of a Hybrid Committee being appointed, an opportunity would be afforded to the Committee of hearing a large number of persons who could not appear before an ordinary Private Bill Committee, and who, therefore, could not otherwise make their complaints known. It was said, he did not know with what justice, that a large number of working men in London considered that some system of ventilation ought to be adopted, in order to secure their health and comfort in travelling along the Railway in crowded trains. It therefore might be worth while, during the sitting of the Com- mittee, to ask some questions of the working men themselves, in order to ascertain what their views upon the matter wore; and, therefore, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had done well in bringing the question forward. Then, again, he did not look very favourably upon the alliance between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the City of London. He did not think that the Metropolitan Board of Works was the most popular Body in London at the present time; and he did not think it would do much good to prevent public opinion being heard before the Committee. He should certainly support his hon. Friend if he carried his Motion to a division. He was bound to say that, under the circumstances of the case, it would be the duty of the Committee to ascertain the best means by which the Railway could be ventilated.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, the Corporation of London, the Commissioners of Sewers, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were all agreed that the best way to bring this matter to a speedy termination would be to refer it to an ordinary Committee in the usual way. These who opposed the introduction of the Bill now moved that the Committee should be appointed in a different way from the usual way, and it was plain that their object was to delay the measure. His hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) said there were millions of people travelling by this Railway, and it was the duty of the House to see that they were not smothered by the smoke which the Railway Company emitted from their engines. At the same time, his hon. Friend pointed out that the ventilation might be conducted in a better manner than it was at present. No doubt, the Railway could be ventilated in a different manner from that which was now adopted. He therefore hoped the House would not be led away by those who opposed the Bill, and that they would not, by adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), shunt the Bill to another Committee.

MR. STEWART MACLIVER

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow had travelled for a good many years upon this Railway, and he did not see that his hon. Friend had suffered very much in consequence. Until the Railway Company took steps to promote the ventilation of their Line, he hoped the House would persist in the course they were taking of preventing them from ventilating it at the expense of the public. He hoped the House would reject the Motion, and refer the Bill to an ordinary Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 171: Majority 98.—(Div. List, No. 124.)

Bill committed.

Forward to