HC Deb 02 August 1887 vol 318 cc935-7
MR..J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the debate at the Metropolitan Board of Works on Friday last, and to the statement of Mr. Lawrence that "after long inquiry he had come to the sorrowful conclusion that the office was corrupt;" whether his attention has been drawn further to the fact that a motion was made requesting the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the past dealing of the Board with respect to laud, & c., and that such motion was only defeated by 17 to 16; and, whether, under these altered circumstances, he will re-consider his deter- mination not to recommend the appointment of such a Commission?

THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), (Strand, Westminster)

in reply, said, the attention of the Government had been called to a debate of the Metropolitan Board of Works which resulted, as he had been informed, in the appointment of a Committee to investigate the charges of corruption made against officials of the Board. The Government were aware of the serious character of the allegations contained in those charges; but, seeing that a Committee had been appointed, they must reserve to themselves time to consider whether it would be necessary to take any further steps. The hon. Member recommended or suggested a Royal Commission. He was aware probably that an Act of Parliament required to be passed in order to give a Royal Commission power to examine witnesses on oath.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

asked whether, pending the Report of the Board's Committee, and the Government deciding what ought to be done, any further progress would be made with the Bill extending the borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, it was quite obvious that that Bill must proceed, unless all the works which had been undertaken in the Metropolis were to be suspended during the next year. the passing of the Bill could have little to do with the question whether there was corruption, which ought to be punished, in the Office of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was quite sure hon. Members would not desire to put an entire stop to the improvements in London for a whole year.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

asked whether, if the First Lord of the Treasury should discover by the usual means that there was a general agreement in the House in favour of the Commission, he would be disposed to bring in a Bill to give the necessary powers to a Royal Commission?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, so serious a matter as the appointment of a Royal Commission, with statutory powers to investigate the conduct of officials in the Office of the Metropolitan Board of Works, required notice and consideration before it could be answered.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he would repeat the Question on Friday.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)

asked, if the Home Secretary could now answer his Question as to whether he would continuo to reply to Questions affecting the Board of Works which might be put in the House?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

said, he had communicated with the Chairman of the Board of Works, and had pointed out that he thought it was not convenient for the Home Department to answer Questions in that House for the Metropolitan Board of Works.