HC Deb 29 March 1887 vol 312 cc1763-7
MR. LAWSON

resumed. There can be no doubt that the works proposed to be constructed under this Bill will be of great convenience and utility to the inhabitants of the Metropolis generally; and I think the promoters have made a weighty statement when they assure the House that the capital has already been almost subscribed, and that they propose to commence the works at once, and certainly within the present year. If that be so, and I believe they mean to commence the undertaking, I shall be very glad to withdraw my opposition to the second reading of the Bill.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

I thought it necessary, last week, on behalf of my constituents, to put down a Motion for the rejection of the second reading of the Bill which I now wish to withdraw, for very similar reasons to those which have been given by the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson). There has been a considerable amount of anxiety in the neighbourhood through which this railway is to be constructed, to secure the commencement of the works. It is now some five years since the original Act was passed; and the House will fully understand the great disappointment which has been felt, especially since 1885, by those who looked forward to a largo amount of employment in consequence of the construction of the railway. I have, however, been privately informed by the promoters that there is now every reason to believe that they will be able speedily to go on with the work, and therefore, I beg to withdraw my opposition to the present stage of the Bill. I shall, however, be prepared to renew it if I find at the next stage that matters are not in a satisfactory state.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

I also beg to withdraw the Notice of opposition which stands in my name on the Paper, partly on the same grounds as those winch have been advanced by the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for East Finsbury (Mr. J. Rowland;; but partly on another consideration, and one which I think also requires attention. This intended line will pass through the North Western portion of Regent's Park, and will practically divide it into two. It is feared that the construction of the line may inflict a great deal of damage upon this neighbourhood, and unless great care is taken in carrying out the works, permanent injury may be done to one of the principal resorts of the Metropolis, which in the spring and summer months is the delight of many thousands of the London people. The walk along the side of the canal extends for about half-a-mile in that part, and is really very attractive. In the summer time you will see crowds of children and grown-up people disporting themselves there for a holiday. This railway, it is feared, may destroy the amenities of this part of the Regent's Park altogether. I believe that this objection was taken when the Bill was originally brought forward, but after this neighbourhood, as well as others in the Metropolis, has been kept in a state of suspense and uncertainty, and has suffered so much damage during the last five years, I think they have a right to ask the Committee who will deal with the Bill to take such additional precautions as may be necessary to provide that these parts of the Regent's Park shall be secured for the enjoyment of the people. I do not wish to press my opposition to the Bill at the present moment, but I reserve to myself the right of doing so in ease the duties which, in my opinion, lie on promoters of the measure are not properly fulfilled.

MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

I think it is satisfactory to find that the opponents of the Bill have practically withdrawn their opposition. Trade in this locality has been considerably depressed, and it will be of great advantage to the working classes that the line should be constructed. Owing to the depression of trade, the Company have not hitherto been able to raise the capital which they were authorized to raise. But I am now informed that if this House will give them an extension of time, they will be able to raise the necessary capital; and the construction of the line will no doubt afford a very useful means of communication between this district and the Great Western system, the London and North Western system, the Great Northern at King's Cross, and the Midland at St. Pancras. By means of this line, communication will be opened between all those important railway systems and the London Docks, and there will consequently be a considerable decrease in the cost of bringing coals from the Midland Counties to the London Docks. The line will also be of great advantage to the working classes, seeing that they will also be able to be conveyed for a distances of 12 miles at ¼d. a mile. It will also give a large amount of employment to the unemployed, because I understand that the promoters propose to spend something like £3,000,000. When the Bill goes before the Committee, and if it is found that the promoters are in a position to raise the capital, I am told that the passing of the Bill will result in an expenditure of £10,000 a-week among the working classes of the Metropolis. I am, therefore, glad to see that hon. Gentlemen have withdrawn their opposition to the Bill, and I venture to hope that it will be sent up to a Select Committee, by whom, no doubt, it will be carefully considered and sent back to this House.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that when the Bill was brought in, there were circumstances connected with it which induced me to oppose it. The proposition which I most strongly objected to was one for the payment of interest out of capital. I maintain that that was a provision which ought not to receive the sanction of this House. The proposal was defended by the right hon. member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), who was then President of the Board of Trade, on the very plea which has been put forward now—namely, that the construction of these works would provide a largo amount of employment for the poor of the Metropolis. Since then, no doubt, years of depression have passed over our heads; but the employment anticipated has not been provided, and the principle of paying interest out of capital has been found to be inoperative. I venture to say that as long as fraudulent principles of this kind are sanctioned in a Private Bill, the public will continue to treat them with the discredit they deserve. I do not desire to oppose the further progress of this Bill; but if capital is to be used in this country in the employment of the poor, it must be spent in those things which are productive and not dead, and when the capital reproducing again finds employment for other people. Many of the speculations sanctioned by this House have, in my humble opinion, interfered with the interests of those who have to send traffic over the railways. No doubt this House has the right to grant monopolies; but it should take care that those monopolies, when granted, are carefully and properly used. When you begin to spend double the amount of capital which is required for performing a particular object, it is plain that the principle is one which must in the end be detrimental to the best interests of the trading community. I will not occupy the time of the House with further observations upon this Bill; but as long as these clauses remain in it for paying interest out of capital. I believe the shares will not be taken up by the public

MR. THOMAS (Glamorgan, E.)

I am very glad that the hon. Members have withdrawn their opposition to this Bill at this stage. I support the Bill for this reason: Hon. Members will notice that the Great Western is the great coal-carrying railway to and from South Wales. The Great Western Company carry coals from places in South Wales for something like 6s. 3d. per ton; but in order to take them from Paddington down to the London Docks, they are charged at such a rate as practically prevents them from using the Great Western Railway for the carriage of coals. Therefore it is that I am so much interested in this Bill, and that I am glad that the opposition is withdrawn. The charge of 2s. 6d. per ton now imposed will, I believe, be reduced to 1s. 1d. if this Bill is allowed to proceed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.