INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 14 March 1884)

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he rose to move the Instruction which he had put upon the Paper with reference to the Committee upon the Park Railway and Parliament Street Improvement Bill—namely, That it be an. Instruction to the Committee to provide for a junction of the proposed Railway with the Line of the Metropolitan District Railway between Westminster and Charing Cross, either by means of a physical junction or by an interchange station. As the House had a long discussion a few days ago upon this railway, it was not necessary that he should explain what the railway was. The House knew perfectly well the nature of the 1530 proposed scheme. On the Northern side there was to be a junction with the Metropolitan Railway; but on the Southern side the railway only ran just behind Parliament Street, and there was no connection with the Metropolitan District Railway. He thought the House would agree with him that if they could make some arrangement by which they could have this connection it would be of great advantage to the travelling public. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), when the discussion was on the other day, said it would be a great advantage to a considerable number of working people who would use the railway, and especially those who wanted to get to the Strand and to the City by way of the Embankment. They would find it very disagreeable, under the present circumstances, to get out and walk 100 or 120 yards from one station to the other. Perhaps it was necessary that he should explain the meaning of the words of the Instruction which referred to a "physical junction "and an" interchange station." He understood from the promoters that it would be difficult to have a physical junction at present. That was to say, a junction of rails that would allow of an interchange of traffic. Therefore, on the assumption that an interchange, by means of a physical junction, would be inconvenient he suggested in the Instruction the alternative of an interchange station. The House would know perfectly well what that meant. It would be necessary for passengers arriving by one train to get out of the train and go to another train upon another platform; and he left it to the Committee to say whether the junction should be a physical junction or by means of an interchange station. It had been suggested to him by one or two hon. Gentlemen that perhaps this Instruction might violate some of the Standing Orders of the House; but he had found on inquiry that such was not the case. The action of the Committee, assuming that the House adopted this Instruction, would be to obtain a pledge from the promoters of this railway that they would next year introduce a Bill to make this junction between the railways that would be necessary to connect the two stations. He understood that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dover (Major Dickson), speaking on 1531 behalf of the Metropolitan District Railway, objected to the words "between "Westminster and Charing Cross," and wished the Instruction to say "between St. James' Park Station and Charing Cross." If his hon. and gallant Friend would move that as an Amendment, he was quite willing to accept it. He was told that there would be no opposition to the Instruction on the part of the promoters of the railway, and he therefore hoped that the House would assent to it. He could not conceive a proposal of a more reasonable character.

§ MR. O'SHEA
seconded the Motion.

MAJOR DICKSON
said, that if the new railway was to be of any service at all to the public, it was absolutely necessary that there should be a physical connection. He therefore wished to move, as an Amendment, to leave out, after the word "between," the word "Westminster," and to insert "St. James' Park Station." His hon. Friend said he had no objection to that Amendment, and therefore he (Major Dickson) would simply move it.

MAJOR DICKSON
said, he had next to move the omission, after the words "Charing Cross," of the word "either," in order to insert, after the words "physical junction," the words "if practicable."

§ MR. CUBITT
said, he rose to move the Instruction which stood in his name— 1532 That it be an Instruction to the Committee, to inquire to what extent the present block of traffic at Albert Gate will be affected by the proposed station there, and to make such recommendations as they may deem necessary. He did not think there would be any opposition to it. It referred to a matter which was not considered by the House the other night. It would be in the recollection of the House that it was proposed by this Bill to have a station on the East side of Albert Gate, between Albert Gate and Hyde Park Corner. The House would be aware that the block in the traffic at that part of the West End was very great, and the locality was constantly under the supervision of the police, in order to relieve the block as much as possible. Every afternoon in the summer it was necessary to station at least four policemen at that point. It was quite clear that a railway of this kind could not have a station at Albert Gate without very much increasing the block; and he was told that the residents of the neighbourhood were greatly alarmed at the serious inconvenience they were likely to be subjected to, unless something was done to relieve it. The House was aware that certain improvements which had been made recently had widened Hyde Park Corner; but at Albert Gate the roadway was still contracted like the neck of a bottle, and there was much obstruction in regard to vehicles proceeding up the Knightsbridge Road. In moving this Instruction, his Motion was not made in a hostile spirit, but in order to guard against the inconvenience which might arise if additional traffic was thrown upon a locality already congested.