HC Deb 13 March 1883 vol 277 cc351-9

Order for Second Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

MR. J. R. YORKE

begged to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months. He was under the impression that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Derbyshire (Admiral Egerton) intended to move the rejection of the second reading; but as he did not see the hon. and gallant Member in his place, and as he certainly thought the Bill ought not to be allowed to go any further, he would take the liberty of making that Motion himself. The main fact upon which, he relied in making the proposition was that a Committee last year rejected the most material and important part of the present Bill after a full consideration of the whole matter on its merits. Indeed, he might say the Committee rejected it unanimously, in view of all the circumstances of the case, and nothing had occurred since last year which ought in any respect to alter the position of affairs. He did not think that it was necessary that he should go at length into details, because they were amply discussed before the Committee last year; and if his contention was right, that no Bill, which had been rejected on its merits by a Committee, in one year, should be introduced into the House in the following year without any new circumstances to justify its re-introduction, it certainly was not necessary that he should go into the details of this Bill. The Holborn Board of Works were the road authorities having control over the roads in the St. Andrew's district through which these lines were projected, and they themselves opposed in the Session of 1879 a proposal to introduce tramways into their district, alleging— That the construction of tramways in the district would of necessity prove a great obstruction, and be fraught with danger to the large vehicular traffic which would use the thoroughfares, and would depreciate the value of the property along the entire route. That there existed no public necessity for the construction and making of the tramways within their district, sufficient to justify the damage, danger, and inconvenience which would result therefrom to the public interested in or using the thoroughfares. Now, nothing had happened since that time to alter the fact, or to induce anybody in the district to change his mind. The only alteration, if there were any was in the large increase of vehicular traffic which had taken place over these roads in the interim, and that could only result in the proposed tramways becoming much more dangerous to the public than they would have been in 1879. The Tramways Company had been endeavouring, year by year, to get possession of this district; but no such tramways had yet been sanctioned by Parliament He had before him a Petition very largely signed by the frontagers throughout the district, in which they alleged the inconvenience and danger which would accrue to them if the Bill were allowed to pass. And they also said that the Western terminus of the proposed tramway was in a most objectionable position. It was close to the entrance of a new fire brigade station, and was badly placed for affording access to the main thoroughfares; and as it had already been decided by Parliament that tramways could not be continued further West, in that direc- tion the proposed tramway could not be prolonged westward, as the Company hoped to carry it in the direction of Oxford Street, to any central point in London, or to form a junction with any other line? In point of fact the promoters were stopped, by a Private Act, from going beyond their Western terminus; and, therefore, they could not afford the facilities which they might reasonably be hoped to afford. He submitted that after the decision of the House of Commons last year, rejecting a Bill almost entirely identical with this—namely, the Tramway Lines No. 1 and la, it was quite ridiculous that the opponents of the Bill should be put a second time to all the trouble, expense, and inconvenience of opposing a Bill before a Committee upstairs, an important part of which was thrown out unanimously upon its merits by a Committee last year. This was an attempt, such as they often had to resist in these days, on the part of the Companies to endeavour to starve out individuals who were opposed to their schemes. The House would be aware that recently the public had suffered very much by an omission to protect public interests, which ought to have been dealt with at the time the Bill of the Metropolitan District Railway Company was passing through that House. Instead of doing so, the Bill of the Metropolitan Company was sent upstairs, and there objectionable provisions found their way into it. He (Mr. J. E. Yorke) thought it would have been far better if the Bill had been dealt with on public grounds in the House, and never sent upstairs at all. He was sorry that his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'GarelHogg) was not present, because he should have liked to ask him what the opinion of the surveyors of the Board was upon the matter. In regard to the present Bill, he would suggest to the House that the only alternative to the throwing of the Bill out altogether was that the promoters should consent to abandon all that part of the scheme which was submitted last year to a Committee upstairs, and unanimously rejected by them. If they chose to abandon that portion of the Bill he would not have a word to say against the remainder of the measure. But unless he had an express declaration from the promoters that they proposed to take that course, he trusted the House would agree with him that the Bill ought not to be allowed to go further. It was alleged, in a statement circulated in support of the second reading of the Bill, that the local authorities having jurisdiction over the proposed roads, with the exception of St. Luke's, had given their assent to the Bill. That was the case, and it was in view of having that fact in mind that the Committee unanimously determined last year to reject the Bill. The promoters said that this year the lines had been altered and laid out with a view to meet the objections raised by the opponents last Session. It was quite true that the present Bill contained one slight divergence; but the proposed deviation was more apparent than real. The same offer was made to the Committee last year; but the Committee having that alternative clearly in view, nevertheless declined to accept it, and threw out the Bill. Therefore he submitted, on the ground of public convenience, and on the ground that it was wrong for two years running to put people to the great expenditure and inconvenience of fighting Bills of this kind, that these were matters which ought to be dealt with by the House instead of being sent to a Committee upstairs. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.

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. J. R. Yorke.)

Question proposed. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. FIRTH

said, he was not prepared to contest many of the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke), because he had no special knowledge in regard to them; but he should like to say a word as to the facts of the case. He believed it was true that the Metropolitan Board of Works and the frontagers on the road were in favour of the Bill, and that they had sent in a joint Petition in its behalf. The Holborn Board of Works, by a majority of 20 or 30, passed a resolution in favour of the Bill on the 8th January, and there had also been two Petitions in its favour, signed by the frontagers. He therefore thought that the Bill, which proposed to construct tramways for the advantage and convenience of the public, ought to be enquired into by a competent representative authority, and that it should, therefore, be submitted to a Committee upstairs.

MR. RAIKES

said, he thought that this was a case, judging from what he had heard from his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke), which would justify the House in departing from the usual course that was generally adopted in dealing with the question of Private Bill Legislation. The proposal to reject a Private Bill on the second reading was generally deprecated both in that House, and by the public out-of-doors; but in this case it appeared that the matter had already been inquired into by a Committee, and the House ought to respect, as far as it could, the decision of its-own Committees. If in any such case they adopted a contrary course, the practice was not unlikely to grow up of the House becoming slack in maintaining the authority of its own Committees, and of allowing abuses of the Forms of the House to the injury of private individuals, owing to the great expense that attended investigations of this kind. They had heard from his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke) that last year the Committee to whom the Bill was referred unanimously threw it out. The alternative scheme for a deviation, which was the only difference in the Bill submitted on this occasion and the Bill of last year, was at that time submitted to the Committee; and the Committee, having that deviation before them, nevertheless took the extreme course of throwing the Bill out. The House was now invited again, in the course of the present Session, to send upstairs to another Committee a Bill, to all intents and purposes, exactly identical with the Bill they had rejected last year. He asked the House to consider whether that was a course that was likely to maintain the credit of their Committees or of the House itself? It would certainly fail to show that there was anything like harmony between the House and its Committees. In regard to the question of expense, it was notorious that the proceedings upon Private Bills in that House were very costly, and it was quite possible that private individuals, having once maintained their opposition, might eventually find themselves crushed by a great Company coming down to the House, year by year, and endeavouring gradually to extinguish an opposition which any private persons might be in a position to offer. He hoped, therefore, although he should be sorry that the House should make it a practice generally to refuse the second reading of a Private Bill, that they would consider that his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire bad made out a case, and had given sufficient reasons, on the present occasion, why they should take a step which might be regarded as a precedent by parties outside the House interested in the promotion of Private Bills. Such persons ought to be made to understand that the Forms of the House would not be allowed to be used to the injury of private interests; and the rejection of the Bill upon the second reading would thus teach a salutary lesson. Reluctant as he was to consent to the rejection of a Bill upon the second reading, yet, after what he had heard, if his hon. Friend chose to go to a division, he would certainly support him.

MR. W. M. TORRNS

confessed that he had listened with some surprise to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes). Hitherto the advice the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House had always been in opposition to the course proposed to be taken by the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke), and very wisely so. Bills of this nature ought to undergo the investigation of a Committee upstairs; and, for his own part, he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had very seldom consented to vote for the rejection of a Bill on the second reading. He gathered, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the House was invited not only to treat this as an exceptional case, but to convert it into a precedent. He certainly thought that was a proposal to change the well-known and especial practice of the House upon rather illogical grounds. He would remind the House of the difficulties which the Member for a Metropolitan constituency was under in a case like this. He had been asked 10 days ago, on behalf of certain frontagers in Holborn, to present a Petition from many very respectable people in their parish against the second reading of the Bill. But it became necessary to inquire somewhat further into the merits of the case, and to ascertain what the conflicting claims were. A numerous deputation represented to him that the interests both of the frontagers and of the employers and employed throughout the district of Clerkenwell would be best served by supporting the Bill; and he held in his hand a Petition from that district exactly in the contrary sense to the one which worthy people in Holborn had asked him to present. He would, therefore, suggest, whether, seeing in the localities chiefly affected that there was such a difference of opinion upon the subject, the House would now consent to alter its practice and set a new precedent, or whether it would not send the Bill to a Committee upstairs, to form a judgment upon it after hearing the evidence, and after having had the assistance of counsel, and so to decide what ought to be done with the Bill? His own opinion, speaking perfectly impartially, because he had no interest in the matter, except to see that justice was done, was that the objectors to the Bill were considerably outnumbered by those who thought that it ought to be read a second time. He, therefore, advised the House not to change its practice and set up an exceptional case. They did not know yet what the arguments were which brought about the unanimity of the Committee in rejecting the Bill last Session. For his own part, he had no objection to urge against the case which had been made out against the Bill by the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire; but he certainly did dissent very widely from the proposal to alter their Constitutional practice and to establish a new precedent.

MR. GREGORY

said, he happened to be a resident in the neighbourhood through which it was proposed these tramways should pass; and, in fact, he would have to cross one of the lines of the proposed tramways daily in his way from his house to his office. He, therefore, knew the inconvenience to which the public would be put by the construction of them. It was proposed to carry them down a street which had been recently formed and thrown open to the public. If the Bill passed, tramway lines would occupy a considerable portion of the street which was originally contemplated to provide a great main artery between the East and West of London; and he ventured to think that the persons who had to traverse that street would be subjected to considerable danger. A large number of the inhabitants of the district objected to the Bill, and one of the grounds of their objection was that they had already been put to considerable expense in opposing a similar measure. As it was desirable that they should not be put to more expense a second time, he trusted that the House would reject the Bill.

ADMIRAL EGERTON

said, that as he was Chairman of the Committee which threw out the Bill last year, he hoped he might be allowed to say a few words on the subject. The case was this. The opposition to those lines of tramways came, to a great extent, from those who were living on the road. They were intended to take a particular route, and they were opposed by the owners of a brewery, which the line proposed to pass; and the fact that the line now diverged, to a certain extent, from the front of that brewery was the sole excuse for bringing the Bill before the House again. He might say this, as far as the brewery was concerned—that that was not the fatal objection upon which the Committee decided to reject the Bill. If it had been, it was probable there might have been a difference of opinion among the Committee. But the question the House had to consider now was this—was this line of tramways precisely the same as that which was inquired into by the Committee last year? He thought that no case, although he had only seen the statement on one side, was made for bringing the matter again before the House. Of course, if there was any essential difference between the Bill now before the House and the Bill of last year, the Petition for the Bill ought to be referred to a Committee; but if the two Bills were practically identical, then he could only state what the opinion of the Committee was last year, and leave the House to decide the matter.

MR. HICKS

said, there was one fact connected with the Bill to which he wished to draw the attention of the House, and which seemed to have escaped the notice of those who opposed the Bill. He did not think it necessary to say anything to strengthen the ground? which the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke) had taken up in moving the rejection of the Bill, which was that a similar measure had not met with the approval of the Committee to which it was referred last year; but, as far as he had been able to gather during the noise which had prevailed almost throughout the discussion, he had not heard one word as to the state of the roads or the streets through which it was proposed to carry these tramways. He believed it was intended to bring these tramways through two roads which had been made at great expense during the last two years, and through a very populous neighbourhood, formerly occupied by very narrow streets. This new road had been constructed for the purpose of facilitating the traffic between the East and West of London, and the improvements had been carried on up to the present time, a Fire Brigade depot having been established in one part of them. It was proposed to carry the improvements further West by way of Bloomsbury Square and Portland Street, and he believed that in the course of a few years they would have a thoroughfare through Oxford Street to Piccadilly Circus. He would only ask the House if it was right that this new road, which was being made for the purpose of relieving the congested traffic of our thoroughfares, should be monopolized by a private Company for private gain? He considered that there was a great principle involved, and he hoped the House would not allow these new streets to be handed over to a private Company, merely because, on their first formation, the traffic was not so great as there was reason to expect it would ultimately become.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 139: Majority 39—(Div. List, No. 33.)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

Forward to