COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 4 June 1885)

§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND
said, he begged to move an opposition to this Bill on the ground that it was of an inadequate character, of an expensive character, and of a dangerous character. The Bill brought in was to increase the accommodation of the Post Office. A Select Committee was appointed to sit 1318 and consider that question; the Committee had met and had concluded its labours; but its Report was not yet in the hands of Members. It would be in the hands of Members to-morrow. It seemed to him a most unusual thing that the House should be asked, the first night it met after a long holiday, to vote on a question which had been considered by a Select Committee, without the Report of that Committee being in the hands of Members. The whole of the evidence had not yet been printed, so that Members had no power to form an opinion on the matter. When a Committee was appointed to consider a subject, it seemed to him to be the intention of the House that the Committee should thoroughly investigate that subject; but, as a Member of the Committee in question, he could say that every effort had been made by certain Members of the Committee to prevent evidence being received which seemed to go against the Government policy. Every plan that independent Members had brought forward had been objected to on the part of the Government; and on several occasions, owing to the attitude of the Government and their supporters, private Members had been obliged to say that they could not go on with the evidence they desired to submit. More than that, it had been sought to call before the Committee a gentleman whose evidence on this matter would have had the greatest weight with the country— namely, Captain Shaw, of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade; but the Chairman, by his easting vote, had prevented the calling of that gentleman. It was believed that if that evidence had been received by tho Committee it would have boen so damning to the Bill that the House of Commons, on reading it, would have refused its assent to the Government proposal. What he (Mr. Dixon-Hart-land) wished to bring before the House of Commons was that, even if the Bill were passed, the arrangement it would effect would only be of a temporary character. It had been shown by Mr. Blackwood, Secretary to the Post Office, that the Bill would only give accommodation for five or six years, and that at the end of that time a new scheme would have to be introduced and other premises sought for. To carry out a temporary arrangement, which would 1319 only last five or sis years, the country was asked to provide something like £400,000, and at the end of the five or six years the whole question would have to be reconsidered. He doubted whether the arrangement proposed would last even five or six years, because at that moment the accommodation was so unsatisfactory that the Telegraph Department was driven to the third and fourth floors at the west side of the St. Martin's-le-Grand Post Office. Those offices had, during the day, 1,400 or 1,500 people in them— sometimes 1,800 people were on those floors at one time; and during the night, when less work was going on, there were 400 or 500 people on them. Water, in ease of fire, could only be thrown upon those floors when the mains were at high pressure, which was only two hours out of the 24, so that if at any time, either by accident or malice, fire reached that Department, there could be no doubt that the whole telegraphic communication of the country would be thrown out of gear and destroyed for days, during the time it would take to restore the instruments and appliances. He need not remind the Committee of the value of telegraphic communication to the country. It was incalculable; and, therefore, everything which was likely to interrupt it should be evaded or amended. If the Committee could bring it home to its mind that if a fire occurred in the Post Office under existing arrangements the whole telegraphic communication of the country would be destroyed, he was sure it would never consent to the present system going on, but would insist on a Post Office site being purchased which would enable the Telegraph Department to be rendered secure from fire or any other accident. The Postmaster General had endeavoured to make out that those who opposed the Bill did so on the ground that they were connected with Christ's Hospital, and believed that it would be to the advantage of the hospital to find a purchaser for it. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) disclaimed any such idea. The Committee had called the authorities of Christ's Hospital before them to speak on the subject; but they found them tin-willing witnesses. This was one of the things the House would see for itself if it was allowed to see the evidence taken 1320 by the Select Committee, which at present it was not. The House would see that the authorities of Christ's Hospital were unwilling witnesses, and that they did not wish to sell their property. They thought they could do better than sell it to a Departmental Committee. What he, and those who went with him in this matter, contended was that the Post Office, in this Christ's Hospital site, had a favourable opportunity which would never occur again, and that the Government were pursuing a penny-wise and pound-foolish policy to purchase a site at the rate of £250,000 an acre when the Christ's Hospital site could be bought for half as much. The extent of the Christ's Hospital site would be about five acres. That would give ample space for increasing Post Office requirements. There would be abundance of room to put the new Offices on it. The Postmaster General said, simply—"That is too large a site." If the site was too large for the purposes of the Post Office, that need be no objection to its purchase, for it would always be competent for the Government to sell off a portion. St. Bartholomew's Hospital wanted land, and doubtless they would buy a portion. At any rate, he should consider it a much better venture for the Government to buy more land than they wanted at a small sum than to buy only enough to accommodate them for five or six years at a very high price. Mr. Blackwood had given his evidence very fairly, and he (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) thought the subject was one which should have the full consideration of the House before hon. Members were asked to vote upon it. No such demand as that contained in the Bill had ever been made to the House without the Report of the Select Committee being presented, or without, at any rate, the evidence being delivered to Members before they were asked to give an opinion on the measure. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would do well if be were to allow hon. Members to receive the Report and read the evidence of the witnesses called before the Committee before he sought to take a vote upon this important question. On those grounds he would move the adjournment of the debate, so that hon. Members might have an opportunity of considering the subject in the light of the evidence 1321 taken by the Select Committee before voting on it.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
said, he rose to second th.9 Motion. He considered the House placed in a most ridiculous position. A most important question had been raised, a question involving the expenditure of a largo sum of money, and the House felt it could not give an opinion on it without having the matter carefully inquired into, and therefore appointed a Select Committee to consider it. That was done, and now the Bill was brought forward before hon. Members had heard of or seen the evidence taken by the Committee, or knew anything of what had been done. Assuming that everything his hon. Friend (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had said was wrong—that the Postmaster General did not keep out an important witness by his casting vote, and so forth—how could the House tell whether the view of the Postmaster General, as expressed in this Bill, was right or wrong, and in accordance with the evidence before the Committee? He hoped the House would not consent to the present violent and extraordinary proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the Bill was for the acquisition of five different sites, only one of which was objected to by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) should be perfectly ready to give the House an opportunity of discussing this particular site objected to in Committee, all he wished to do now being simply to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, he should at once move to report Progress, so as to give the Committee full opportunity of discussing the details of the Bill. If he allowed the present opportunity of moving the Speaker out of the Chair to pass, it might be a long time before another presented itself. It was important that the Bill should pass that House in reasonable time, in order that it might go to the House of Lords early enough to be carefully considered. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) was really one of detail, which could be considered in Committee. As he had said, there was only 1322 opposition to one site—namely, the proposal to take additional land adjoining the existing building.

§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND
What are the totals for the other sites?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, they were for buildings at Birmingham, Bristol, and Newcastle, and for a Savings Bank in London, and would involve a considerable expenditure. No objection was taken to them, the only objection being to the site in the City of London—namely, immediately adjoining the Post Office.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must remind the right hon. Gentlemen that the Question before the House is that this debate be now adjourned.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he knew he was not entitled to go into the merits of the case. He would ask the House to allow him to move the Speaker out of the Chair, and would promise to give hon. Members an opportunity of raising the question of the City site in Committee.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had failed to see that this was not really a question of detail, but a question of principle, and one so important that the House had appointed a Select Committee to consider it, which Committee had sat and reported, but whose Report the House was not yet in possession of. The House really did not know anything whatever about the proceedings which had taken place before the Committee, and on that account an adjournment of the debate was asked for. Speaking for himself, he thought it very likely that when he saw the Report of the Select Committee he should be of opinion that the majority of the Committee had acted wisely in the course they had taken; but he had not seen that Report, and other hon. Members had not seen it, so that, so far as the House was concerned, the labours of the Committee were of no avail whatever. As involving a question of precedent, the matter was of great importance to the House, and he thought a case had been made out for adjournment. No doubt, when the House was in full possession of the Papers, it would recognize the strength of the arguments the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General put forward, and would assent to further proceeding with the Bill; but at present 1323 they had no information on the matter?—they had nothing but the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and if that statement was to be held sufficient, it was clearly a work of supererogation to appoint the Committee at all.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, he did not think it was correct to say that the House, by taking the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would be depriving itself of the full advantage of the Report of the Select Committee. The Bill dealt with five matters; and even if the objection taken to the City of London site were sustained, he did not suppose that it would also apply to the other four sites. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) seemed to think that the Committee had reported on all the matters dealt with in the Bill; but that was not so. The Committee had been appointed to deal with one site, and one site only. The four other sites were not dealt with by the Committee, and the Report would not throw the slightest light on those questions. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had, therefore, considered that the reasonable course would be to go into Committee on the Bill, and give ample opportunity on that stage for the consideration of the one point of detail objected to by the minority on the Select Committee. The Committee stage would, of course, be put off a sufficient time so as to enable the point in question to be dealt with exhaustively.

DR. CAMERON
said, it appeared to him that the action proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General was that best calculated to facilitate the discussion of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who bad proposed the adjournment of the debate was one who had been most energetic in the Select Committee in the advocacy of his own scheme, as he had been energetic on other occasions in connection with subjects in which he was interested. The hon. Member was exhibiting great zeal on the present occasion; and he (Dr. Cameron) could not help thinking that if the House did not allow Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair now, in all probability the hon. Member would place himself in communication with the Clerks at the Table, and place a useful barrier in the 1324 way of proceeding with the Bill on future occasions.

§ MR. PULESTON
said, he thought the two speeches they had just heard made out a very strong case for the adjournment of the debate. If Committees of the House were of any use at all, the House ought to have their Reports before it, before attempting to legislate upon the subjects dealt with in those Reports. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would not seriously contend that because someone holding a strong view on the subject of the Bill—it might be adverse to that entertained by the Government—might cause the discussion to be procrastinated hereafter, therefore they were now to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair at once, and go into Committee without seeing the Report of the Select Committee. It was true that there were four other sites dealt with besides that objected to; but all those four were not nearly so important as the one objected to. He should certainly vote for the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND
I will give my word to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will bring the Bill in at a proper time some other night I will not challenge it—if he does not attempt to proceed with it at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
I will undertake not to do that.