HC Deb 28 February 1887 vol 311 cc842-4

Order for Second Reading read.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

In asking that this Bill be now read a second time, I need detain the House but a few minutes. It is a very short Bill, and its object is to relieve the taxpayers of the country of the expense of maintaining the new roads at Hyde Park Corner made a few years ago when improvements were undertaken there. That expense is £1,500 or £1,600 a-year, and it has hitherto been paid by Votes of the House; but if this Bill passes, the expense will in future fall upon the local rates—that is to say, as to one moiety, on the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, and, as to the other moiety, on the Metropolitan Board of Works. This Bill, or one similar to it, has been some years before the House, and has met with one misfortune after another. Last year the Bill passed a second reading in this House, and was referred to a Hybrid Committee, and, after being fully considered, passed through all its stages here. Unfortunately, it was not successful in "another place;" but I hope this year the Bill may have the same good fortune in this House, and meet with a better fate in "another place." The reasons for the Bill are briefly set forth in the Preamble, which recites that the new streets at Hyde Park Corner, formerly part of the Green Park, and, therefore, included in the parish of St. Martin, now practically form part of the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square. While everybody agrees that the maintenance of the streets ought not to fall on the taxpayers of the country, the parishes have not been able to agree amongst themselves as to the proportions of expense should be divided, and so we ask Parliament to pass this Bill. If the House should see fit to read the Bill a second time on the present occasion, I shall at once move that it be referred to a Hybrid Committee, where the details may be discussed. At the same time, if I may venture to make an appeal to those interested, I would say that as the Bill was fully considered before a similar Committee in the last Parliament I hope opposition will not be raised again, and that no great expense will be incurred.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. David Plunket.)

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I hardly agree with the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the probability of what may happen this year. I am afraid that, unless the present Government make a decided stand, the fate of the Bill will be the same as in the preceding year. It is perfectly true that all parties are agreed that the cost of the roads should not be thrown upon the Imperial funds; but, unfortunately, all the Metropolitan parties—the Board of Works, St. George's and St. Martin's—act on the principle that so long as they get the money voted by Parliament, so long will they allow it to be done. I should like the House to understand that we are paying £1,500 a-year for the repair of one of the handsomest streets in one of the wealthiest quarters of London. I can tell the House what the position of the late Government was in this matter. We would not ask Parliament to vote another shilling for the roads, and if the parishes would not agree—they could agree in half-an-hour—the roads should go unrepaired so far as the Government are concerned. I am sorry the Bill is again to be sent upstairs to a Committee. There is no necessity for such a Committee at all; it was settled last Session, though, unfortunately, in "another place" the arrangement was upset. I would take the Bill through Committee of the House, and send it up to "another place" before the Estimates come on. Whatever may be the fate of the Bill, I hope the Government will not ask Parliament to vote another shilling for these roads.

MR. PLUNKET

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I would willingly adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but I have been advised by the authorities on such matters that, from its character, it is necessary to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Two to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection."—[Mr. David Plunket.)

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

Should there not be Notice given of this?

MR. SPEAKER

It is not necessary to give Notice.

Question put, and agreed to. Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented not later than three clear days before the sitting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, be heard on their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill. Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. David Plunket.)