SECOND READING. (Hansard, 29 March 1887)

§ MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

I am one of three hon. Members who have put a Notice down on the Taper in opposition to the second reading of this Bill. I therefore trust that I may be allowed 1762 to explain the reasons which prompted me to take that step. Several of the London Vestries, and among them the Vestry, of the Parish of St. Pancras, have petitioned against the Bill, not because they object to the construction of this railway, but because they did Dot believe that it was a genuine enterprise or that the promoters intended to carry it out within a reasonable time. They say in their Petition— That great inconvenience and loss has been caused by the Company delaying so long the commencement of the work, and that in these circumstances their application for an extension of time should not be complied with, unless they can show that they have a reasonable prospect of commencing the works within the ensuing 12 months. The House will be aware that the line was originally authorized to be constructed on the recommendation of a Hybrid Committee in 1882. For the construction of the railway a certain sum of money was raised, and the purchase of the Regent's Canal which is now worked by the Company was virtually completed; yet, down to 1885, nothing further was done to carry out the work for which the permission and authority of Parliament had been obtained. In that year an application was made to have the Standing Orders set aside in order that the Company might pay interest out of capital. On that Motion a debate took place in this House. The opposition to the Motion was led by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease); but the second reading was carried after a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), who was then President of the Board of Trade. In urging the House to pass the second reading of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said there was another consideration which at that moment was not altogether unworthy of the attention of the House. If permission were given to this Company to raise capital and the capital were raised as was proposed, a very large amount of employment would be given to the working classes of London of which they were sorely in need. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he thought the House would do wisely to pass a Bill of this kind, the proposal of which was undoubtedly a bonâ fide one. The promoters urge exactly the same reasons now. They say that if the Bill is passed 1763 there will be a further extension of time; for three years for the construction of the line, and that— The amount of money to be paid for wages and the purchase of materials cannot fail to benefit trade most materially. To that proposition I am perfectly agreed; but what induced me to sot down on the Paper a Notice of opposition to the Bill was, that during the whole of this time the neighbourhood affected by the proposed railway has been kept in a state of suspense, and the owners and occupiers of property have been most prejudicially affected. I could give many instances of this, but I will content myself with one—the example of Christ's Church in Maida Vale. I believe that that Church stood in need of repair, but the congregation have been unable to place it in a proper condition owing to the uncertainty which existed in regard to the progress of this Bill; for the Church, being in the prescribed area of the provisions of the Bill, would have to be under-pinned. This is only one of the cases of inconvenience and injury which the Bill has occasioned owing to the promoters not having taken steps to acquire possession of the property scheduled in the Bill. As a necessary consequence, a considerable amount of property has suffered most severely. Assurances, however, have been given to me and to other hon. Members that if this Bill is passed there will be a genuine attempt to commence the work within the next 1'2 months, and that the capital will very shortly be raised.