HC Deb 12 August 1890 vol 348 cc674-96

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

*(3.5.) MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

Nobody regrets more than I do that at this late period of the Session it should be necessary for the House again to consider the London Bars and Gates Bill, but I do not think that the fault lies with the London County Council. If the Bill passes in its present shape, I have no hesitation in saying that it will be absolutely nugatory and of no effect. It will be more than that, because, according to the learned counsel who appeared before both Houses of Parliament, it will establish a novel and vicious principle in legislation which will perpetuate what is proverbially acknowledged to be a public nuisance. I wish to call attention to the extraordinary procedure which has been adopted in the case of this Bill. The measure was considered first of all by a Committee of the House of Commons, and after the Second Reading it passed through all its further stages, and was sent to the other House, where it was considered by another Committee, who heard counsel and examined witnesses. It was then read a third time, and, on the Motion that the Bill should pass, Amendments were inserted in Clause 4, which incorporate the whole of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Those who advise the London County Council contend that the adoption of those Amendments open up a way to an unlimited number of claims on the part of the owners and occupiers in the neighbourhood of these street improvements to an unlimited amount of compensation. The words incorporated are those which deal with property which is injuriously affected within the meaning of the Lands Clauses Act, and no public body in London would venture to impose on the ratepayers they represent a liability so large and so indefinite as that which is undoubtedly created by the Lords Amendments to the 4th clause of this Bill. I do not know whether it is worth while arguing again the reasons which have prompted the London County Council to bring this Bill forward. If hon. Members will look at the evidence which was adduced and the arguments that were used before the Committee upstairs, they will see that tables were produced showing the vehicular traffic, and proving how public conveyances, and even fire engines, have been stopped by the existence of these barred gates. One of them is on the main road from Hampatead to Holborn, and another upon the main line of traffic from the great railway termini to the southern districts of London. But the real point at issue is, that Parliament is now asked for the first time to establish as a basis for compensation the creation, or the diversion, or the alteration, of a line of traffic. It was asserted before the Committee by Mr. Fletcher Moulton that this is absolutely a novel principle; and the learned counsel quoted a Judgment of Lord Westbury, to the effect that Parliament had never conceded any such claim to be a ground for compensation. Lord Westbury laid down that the owners and occupiers of property must take both the benefit and burden which attend the alteration of routes of traffic when public improvements are made. Such a ground of compensation has never yet been recognised; and in the western district we have had lines of traffic, particularly of omnibus traffic, diverted past our own residences without the question of compensating us having ever been dreamt of. There is this curious fact, that the lessees and occupiers of the houses in these streets have no covenant to protect them from the abolition of the gates and bars. Every one of the bars can be removed with the consent of the ground landlord, without the lessees having the right to claim anything. The Duke of Bedford, who is the ground landlord in the case of three of these gates, did not appear as a petitioner against the Bill in the House of Lords. Counsel before the Commons Committee said that he did not care whether the Bill passed or not, but that he only appeared in deference to the wishes of his tenants. 'The reason why these gates were originally set up was that, prior to 1855, London was a patchwork of Paving Trustees, the residents paying for the construction and maintenance of the streets and roads in each area. They did not wish them to be used by outsiders, because persons would get the benefit of them who contributed nothing towards their maintenance. In 1855 the maintenance of the streets of London was made a general charge. The Paving Trustees were abolished, and the Vestries and District Boards were made the authorities. It is quite true that a clause was inserted in the Metropolis Local Management Act providing that nothing should affect the existence of gates and bars. That, however, was for the protection of the residents for the time being, and must not be quoted as an argument in favour of compensation for the owners and occupiers. I propose to move that this House shall disagree with the Lords Amendments, because I contend that those Amendments introduce a novel and mischievous principle into our private Bill legislation. They impose a new and indefinite liability upon the ratepayers of London, and their adoption would probably postpone, for a long period, any action on the part of the Local Authority in opening up free communication between different parts of London which now so badly need it. I appeal with confidence to hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Metropolitan constituencies, and who are always deploring any tendency towards extravagance on the part of the Local Authorities to support us on this occasion, because it is clearly our duty to open up the lines of traffic which already exist rather than to construct others at an immense charge upon the Metropolitan rates. I beg to move "that we disagree with the Lords Amendments."

In reply to Mr. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin),

MR. SPEAKER said

The proper course, before taking the Motion of the hon. Member, will be to dispose of the Amendments on the Paper to the Lords Amendments.

*(3.15.) CAPTAIN VERNEY (Bucks, N.)

I beg to move, in Clause 4, page 3, line 20, after "if," to leave out "any lands," and insert— By the removal of any such gate, bar, rail, post, or other obstruction under the powers of this Act without the consent of the owner thereof, the adjoining lands of such owner. The House of Commons recommended that no compensation should be paid to any person at all, either to the owner or occupier of the lands that would be affected by the removal of these gates; Amendments introduced in another place do in effect give compensation to the owner and not to the occupier. I believe there is no dispute that that was the object of the additional words of the clause which were inserted by the House of Lords. The Amendment which I now move is one which entirely accepts that principle. I should prefer to have the words altogether omitted, and shall, therefore, afterwards vote for the Motion to omit them; but, failing that, I altogether accept the principle of the Lords Amendments and say that compensation shall be paid to the owner of the land if he demands it, but not to the occupier. That, as I have said, was the real object of the Lords Amendments; but there is some doubt whether the words themselves are sufficient to debar the claim of the occupier, while giving power to the owner. If hon. Members will look at the wording of the Bill they will see that, genuinely and bonâ fide, it is intended to carry out that object, and on that ground I ask the House to accept the Amendment. Page 3, line 19, "Provided that if any lands shall be taken or injuriously affected by anything to be done under or by virtue of this Act without the consent of the owner thereof, compensation shall be made for the same by the Council in the manner provided by 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same, the provisions of which Acts, so far as relates to lands taken otherwise than by agreement and to compensation for lands injuriously affected, shall be deemed for that purpose to be incorporated with this Act. 'The words,' injuriously affected' shall have the same meaning as in the said Act," the first Amendment, read a second time. Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment, in line 1 of the Amendment, to leave out the words "any lands," in order to insert the words— By the removal of any such gate, bar, rail, post, or other obstruction under the powers of this Act without the consent of the owner thereof, the adjoining lands of such owner."— (Captain Verney.) Question proposed, "That the words any lands' stand part of the Lords Amendment."

*(3.20.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved the Amendment when he says that the object which the House of Lords had in inserting this Amendment in the Bill was to protect the owners of the property; and anyone who reads the construction which was put upon it by the House of Lords at the time it was moved must be reasonably satisfied that that was the intention of the House of Lords in inserting it. The clause itself would probably only go to the extent which the other House intended, but I do think there is a possibility of its being interpreted rather more widely than it was intended to be interpreted by the other House; and there is also the possibility, as the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) has pointed out, that the occupiers of property in streets not directly affected by the removal of bars might claim to be injuriously affected by the diversion of traffic. For fear that the clause might be interpreted in that way it is desirable that it should be made clear, and that words should be inserted to make it clear that it is only intended to give to the owners of the land injuriously affected the right of compensation. I am, therefore, prepared to recommend the House to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks (Captain Verney), which, in my opinion, carries out to the fullest extent the intention of the other House. There is only one point of difference which I have with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He proposes, in his next Amendment, to leave out the words "taken or." I think their retention can do no harm. As far as the present Amendment is concerned, I am prepared to support it.

*(3.22.) MR. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

I have also upon the Paper an Amendment to this clause. We spent about a week in the Committee in discussing the Bill, and we failed to find that there ought to be any claim for compensation, even on the part of the owner. For that reason I prefer the Motion of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras, which is to disagree with the Lords Amendments altogether, to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks. There is no substantial claim on the part of the owner. We took nothing of value from him. We received everything with an open mind; heard everything that was to be said on the subject; and decided that neither the occupier of a house, nor the Duke of Bedford, nor any other owner should be able to make a claim for compensation. In the Lords Committee the owners did not put in any claim for compensation at all, and I am afraid that by accepting the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks we may be doing more than we have a right to do. It is a matter much to be regretted that the Bill should have been so materially altered after it had undergone the trying ordeal of consideration by Select Committees of this and the other House. Both Committees sat for a long time; and if the decision at which they arrived is to be upset, and their recommendations, which were a judicial finding in fact, are to be entirely disregarded, I do not see why we should appoint Select Committees at all. At the same time, I am prepared to accept the present Amendment, although I do so with a strong protest against the Amendments which have been inserted by the House of Lords.

*(3.25.) MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pahcras, N.)

I very much object to the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member has proposed. I believe it would open the door to large claims for very serious compensation. I understand that the House of Lords, when they considered the Bill and inserted this provision, looked upon it as the assertion of a principle rather than the giving of a title or the recognition of a serious claim to substantial compensation. If there is really a serious claim to substantial compensation, surely the occupiers and lessees would have a far greater claim to consideration than the Duke of Bedford, who will succeed to this estate 20, 30, or 40 years hence. I take it that the insertion of the clause was to prevent the establishment of a precedent that might be found to be destructive of the just claims of vested interests; but the alteration now proposed seems to me to convert the assertion of a principle into a very serious claim for compensation. The clause provides— That if by the removal of any such gate, rail, bar, or post, or other obstruction under the powers of this Act without the consent of the owner thereof, the adjoining lands of such owner shall be injuriously affected, compensation shall be made to such owner of the same for the injury inflicted on the adjoining lands of such owner. In this case the "adjoining lands" of the owner are the whole of the lands of the Duke of Bedford in Bloomsbury, and, as far as he can show that his estate is prejudicially affected by the removal of gates and bars, he will have, I take it, under the clause as it stands, a very serious claim to compensation. It is not merely the assertion of a principle, but the insertion of a proviso that will let in serious claims on the part of the Duke of Bedford in respect of the whole of his estate. If that is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means, then all I can say is that I do not sympathise with him. I do not sympathise with a proposal to compensate the Duke of Bedford upon any such principle or any such scale, and I put it to the Government whether it is not a very serious question for the consideration of the House? I would very much prefer the course recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras, that we should disagree entirely with the Lords Amendments. The outcome, then, would be a conference with the Lords, who would insert a clause more clearly defining the mere principle they desire to assert. Under these circumstances, I shall oppose the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Bucks and to support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras.

*(3.30.) MR. SHAW LEFEV (Bradford, Central)

The question now before the House is whether we are to amend the Lords Amendments. When they have been amended it will be for the House to say whether the Lords Amendments shall be agreed to or not. For my own part, I shall vote for the proposed Amendment, and when the Lords Amendments have been amended, I shall vote with the hon. Member for West St. Pancras in favour of the rejection of the whole provision. The object of this Amendment is, I take it, to make it clear that the leaseholders are not to get any compensation. The object of the Lords Amendments was to do that; but as it appears rather doubtful whether that object has been accomplished, and as the Amendment is to make it quite clear that the leaseholder or the occupier is not to get compensation, I shall vote for the Amendment. When the clause has been amended, I shall Tote for its rejection altogether.

*(3.31.) THE SOLICITOE GENERAL (Sir B. CLARKE, Plymouth)

I think that the speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) should be quite sufficient to satisfy the House that this Amendment ought not to be assented to. He says the effect of the Amendment is to make it perfectly clear that, while the Duke of Bedford is to be compensated, the leaseholders on the Bedford estate are to get nothing. I say that that would be the worst possible result we could arrive at, and I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member who spoke before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford that as the Bill now stands with the clause, as it came down from the House of Lords, there is a clear and intelligible principle. In 1845 the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was passed, and in the Preamble of that Act there is a statement that it is usual in private Bills to insert clauses giving compensation to those whose lands are taken or injuriously affected by anything that Parliament allows to be done; and that it is desirable to put similar clauses in other Acts passed for the furtherance of other purposes. Since the Lands Clauses Act was passed in 1845, in almost every Act which Parliament has passed, such as the Artizans' Dwellings Act, the Public Health Act, and so on, the Lands Clauses Act has been incorporated. No question is decided by that Act as to what person shall receive compensation; but the law has distinctly laid down the general rule, which I take to be indisputable, that whenever private interests are injured by the execution of works for the benefit of the public at large, the persons who are injured shall receive compensation. I am, therefore, surprised that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board should have accepted the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks, which proposes to do that which is absolutely unjustifiable. If the Amendment is accepted, it will give to the Duke of Bedford more than is given to him by the Lands Clauses Act, for the reason that he will not be under that Act, but will have new, special, and exclusive rights to compensation. I venture to say that that is absolutely unjustifiable. The Duke of Bedford's estate has been let on very long leases. I myself hold one of the leases on the estate far enough away from these gates and bars to prevent me from being seriously affected; but it enables me to know that all over that great estate very long leases are held, and that they were bought under conditions which then existed. But I think it is indisputable that if compensation is to be given, then all persons who hold leases under the Duke of Bedford, as well as the Duke of Bedford himself, should be permitted to claim compensation. Perhaps there are not any persons on the Bedford estate who would be able to establish their right to compensation under the Lands Clauses Act. I do not attempt to decide that question at all; but I venture to press on the House of Commons that if we are going to do what I think we ought to do, namely, make that provision in this case which is made in every other case, as far as I know, when land or property is taken for public purposes, then we ought to do it for all and not for one individual alone. I confess that there would be some difficulty in justifying this clause if it is to be cut down as the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes. It has been said that the House of Lords has guarded the interests of one of its own Members, and one of its own Members alone. The House of Lords has not done that; but as the Bill left the House of Lords, all the persons whose property was injured would have a right to come in. I can hardly believe that this House will make such an Amendment in the clause as to strike out all possible benefit' to the leaseholders on the Bedford estate, and to include simply the personal interest of the Duke of Bedford. I hope the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be accepted, but I trust that when the further question is put, the House will accept the Amendment of the House of Lords on the intelligible ground which I have stated, that it decides no question as to personal title to compensation, but applies to this case the same law which Parliament has already applied in the Artisans' Dwellings Act, the Public Health Acts, and other Acts which have been passed since 1845.

(3.40.) MR. COURTNEY

I am afraid we are rather at sixes and sevens, when I find the learned Solicitor General replying to the President of the Local Government Board. As far as I understand the case, I entirely differ from the view of the Solicitor General, and am of opinion that the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks, and supported by the President of the Local Government Board, is consistent with common sense and ordinary justice. What is the effect of this Bill? We have a clause—Clause 3—which enables the London County Council and the owners of any of these bars to come to an agreement. Supposing that they do, where are the leaseholders and the other persons who may be interested, and whose comfort may be at stake, in the removal of the bars? They would have no right to compensation at all, and would not be regarded at all. Here, on the one hand, is a person who possesses a gate. There, on the other, is a County Council who want to remove that gate. The two parties agree, and the whole thing is over. The next clause makes provision that, in a case in which the two parties do not come to an agreement, the County Council shall have their own way. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks simply says that if, despite the will of the owner of the bar, the County Council insist on removing the bar, then the owner shall be able to go to a jury and say, "For this act, done in my despite, and affecting my property, I claim to have compensation." The compensation may be considered to be worth nothing; but, at all events, the principle is simple, straightforward, and consistent with everything we have done before. I apprehend that, although many of the inhabitants might be able to show that their comfort and convenience were affected by the removal of the bars, they would have no legal status to demand compensation. If they have, then their remedy would be against the owner of the bar. The whole thing would be settled in that way. I shall certainly support the hon. and gallant Member in his Amendment. The House may then take issue upon the proposal of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras.

*(3.45.) MR. LAWSON

I rise for the purpose of making an appeal to some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. The Solicitor General says that he intends to vote against the Amendment, and then to support the Lords Amendments, which incorporate the Lands Clauses Act, so far as the interests of the landlord and the lessees are concerned. Now, I think that the view which has been expressed is founded upon an entire misconception. From one end of the Bill to the other there is no proposal to take property, and, therefore, the Solicitor General's argument founded on the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act falls to the ground. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read the evidence given before the Committee, he will find that in the Bedford leases there is no covenant for the preservation of that peace and quiet which some people contend is guaranteed by the keeping up of these bars. The Duke of Bedford did not think it necessary to oppose the Bill in the House of Lords, because he was, apparently, converted by the reasons which had been given before the Committee in the House of Commons.

*(3.46.) MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I should vote that we disagree with the Lords' Amendments, if that were the issue before us. But the issue presented for the moment requires a little more attention, because we are in a difficulty. The President of the Local Government Board and the Solicitor General absolutely disagree, and there are also some of the arguments of the Chairman of Committees which require close consideration. I always listen with great respect to all that falls from so high an authority, but in this case I am not able to follow him as I generally do. I understood him to say that if there is any right to compensation in the leasehold tenant at all, that right can be enforced against the landlord. Surely, if that were so, the probability of such an enforcement would be a matter to be measured in the compensation the Duke of Bedford would have a right to claim, if the clause, as amended by the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks, were carried. Therefore, I have not been so much convinced as I generally am by the observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees as to what it is my duty to do. I prefer to consider that there are other injuries that would have to be compensated for. I mean to act on the assumption that if there is injury, the person to be compensated is the person injured. A leaseholder who lives near one of those gates has written to me to say that the removal of the bar will reduce the value of his house from £150 to £120 a year. I do not know whether that would be so or not, but if it is, I understand the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks to say that the Duke of Bedford would have a right to claim compensation for the loss of that £30 a year, and deny it to the tenant, who would really suffer the injury, if injury existed. I regret that the House should have been embarrassed by the addition of the Amendment. The issue raised by the hon. Member for West St. Pancras is a clear and distinct issue that we can all understand; but, personally, I cannot understand the refusal of compensation to one of the persons, the tenant, who sustains an injury, while we grant it to another, the landlord.

*(3.39.) MR. GAINSFORD BRUCE (Finsbury, Holborn)

I also mean to support the Lords' Amendments, and to vote against the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks. I do not understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite should propose to give the whole of the compensation to persons who would not be injuriously affected. Wherever works are constructed which injuriously affect property, whether in the hands of the owner or occupier, the person really injured is entitled to compensation, and I do not see why we should make an exception in this case. Still less do I understand upon what principle the compensation should be given to the person whose interests are in the least degree injuriously affected. The persons most affected will be the tenants, and the Amendment objected to, do no more than give them the ordinary remedy conferred upon persons whose interests are injuriously affected. The observations of the Chairman of Committees always carry great weight in this House, but as to the suggestion he has thrown out, that the tenants would have a remedy against the Duke of Bedford, I venture to assure him that they would have no such remedy, because what the Duke may do pursuant to the provisions of this Act he will do under the compulsion of the law. I do not agree that it is necessary to prove a right founded upon express covenant in order to confer upon the lessees the right to compensation. If property is let to a tenant, and after it is let the approach to it is so altered as to affect the property injuriously, the tenant would have a right to compensation even in the absence of any covenant. The well-known case of Ford v. The Metropolitan Railway Company establishes that principle. I do not think that this House, in the present case, ought to make any exception from the recognised principles of the law.

*(3.43.) MR. M'LAREN

With the indulgence of the House I wish to explain that the evidence before the Committee showed that the Duke of Bedford has an absolute right under the Statute of 1885 to remove these gates at his own pleasure, without giving compensation to anybody, and that there is no covenant under which he is bound to maintain the gates.

(3.44.) MR. J. ROWLANDS (Fins-bury, E.)

The great advantage of this clause is that it will create a considerable crop of law suits by which the legal profession are likely to profit. We have had learned authorities on both sides giving different opinions, and all it comes to is that there are certain hon. Members who are anxious to afford as many facilities as possible for harassing the London County Council. I shall vote for the Amendment because it only gives to one person the power of harassing the County Council, and when the further question of disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments is put, I intend to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras into the Lobby. If we strike out the Lords' Amendments altogether, we shall, as far as possible, reduce the annoyance to a minimum.

(3.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 71.—(Div. List, No. 246.)

MR. RITCHIE

I beg to move "That the House do agree with the Lords' Amendments."

*(4.3.) MR. LAWSON

I wish to know whether my Amendment for the rejection of the Lords' Amendments, as a whole, comes in now?

MR. SPEAKER

The general rule is to put the Motion that the House do agree with the Lords Amendments. The hon. Member would vote against that Motion.

MR. M'LAREN

As a point of order, I wish to know whether I am not now entitled to move the proviso which stands in my name on the Paper?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member can move it now.

*(4.5.) MR. M'LAREN

Then I beg to move the following Amendment—Clause 4, at end, to add— Provided also that no claim for compensation under this section shall be made by any person other than the owner of such gate, bar, rail, post, or obstruction unless such person claims to have had at the passing of this Act a legal title to prevent the owner of such gate, bar, rail, post, or obstruction from removing the same. And provided also that if any person other than such owner of an obstruction shall claim compensation, and shall allege such title as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the County Council forthwith to refer the question of title for the determination of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice as if the same were a matter in dispute under Sectien 29 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and the claimant shall be entitled to adduce evidence and to be heard thereon, and such judgment shall be final and conclusive, and shall be binding on all parties for the purposes of this Act, and the costs shall be at the discretion of the Court. This Amendment does not traverse the same ground as the Amendment which has been rejected, and I think that it entirely meets the objection which was raised by the learned Solicitor General. The difference between it and the Amendment which has just been rejected is that the former would have prevented the tenants, under any circumstances, from obtaining compensation, and would have left the Duke of Bedford and the other owners the only persons who would have a right to claim compensation, whereas my Amendment allows the tenants to get compensation if they have any legal right to it, which is a very different matter indeed. My proviso is that no claim for compensation shall be made by anyone other than the owners of the gate, bar, rail, post, or other obstruction, unless such parson claims to have had a legal title to prevent the owner of the gate from removing it. It also provides a simple and inexpensive way in which the question may be tried by referring the question of title to the determination of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, as if it were a matter in dispute under the Local Government Act of 1888. That will prevent the County Council from being shot at year after year, and will enable them to have a case tried as a test case. I trust that the House will accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the said Lords' Amendment, to add the words— Provided, also, that no claim for compensation under this section shall be made by any person other than the owner of such gate, bar, rail, post, or obstruction, unless such person claims to have had at the passing of this Act a legal title to prevent the owner of such gate, bar, rail, post, or obstruction from removing the same. And, provided also, that if any person other than such owner of an obstruction shall claim compensation and shall allege such title as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the County Council forthwith to refer the question of title for the determination of the Queen's Bench Division of the Hight Court of Justice, as if the same were a matter in dispute under Section twenty-nine of ' The Local Government Act, 1888,' and the claimant shall be entitled to adduce evidence and to be heard thereon, and such judgment shall be final and conclusive, and shall be binding on all parties for the purposes of this Act, and the cost shall be at the discretion of the Court."—(Mr. Walter M'Laren.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

*(4.10.) SIR E. CLARKE

I hope in a very few words to be able to satisfy the House and the hon. Gentleman that this is not an Amendment which ought to be persisted in. The meaning of the Division which has just taken place is that the House has decided that if compensation is to be given at all it is to be given to all persons entitled to it. The hon. Member proposes to give compensation to those only who have legal rights, and he is endeavouring to put in new words instead of the provisions of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, which have been perfectly well understood for 45 years. In the last part of the Amendment the hon. Member endeavours to apply to the matter a procedure which is totally inapplicable. You would have a number of persons with different interests and different claims, and it is impossible to suggest that any any one individual could bring the question before a tribunal and take a decisiou that ought to he binding upon all other individuals whose interests and circumstances may be totally different. I hope that the hon. Member will not encourage litigation by putting in new words to define rights long ago defined. I submit that the Amendment is entirely inapplicable, and ought not to be persisted in.

*(4.12.) MR. LAWSON

I do not think it is desirable to put the House to the trouble of a Division. Most of us wish to divide upon the main question, but in the first instance I would ask the Government to explain their views npon the matter. In the last Division the Solicitor General voted in one Lobby, while the Leader of the House, the President of the Local Government Board, and the President of the Board of Trade voted in another. I may remind the House that there are 200 of these gates in London, and that this is merely putting an obstruction in the way of removing an obstruction. These gates will never be voluntarily removed, and you are laying down a principle which will prevent the Local Authority from putting the Act in force. If it rested with me, in the event of the Lords' Amendments being carried, I should abandon the Bill. I have no authority, however, to take that step, and the Bill will pass; but if it passes with this clause in it the House may rest assured that it will be a dead letter, and an irritating anachronism will be perpetuated for years to come.

MR. M'LAREN

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(4.15.) Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the said Lords' Amendment, to add the words— Provided, also, that no claim for compensation under this Act shall be made after the expiration of six months from the date of the notice served upon such owner under the provisions of this section."—(Captain Verney.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR E. CLARKE

I see no objection to the Amendment, but I would suggest that the proviso be amended by adding words to provide that the notice shall not only have been served, but "duly published."

*(4.17.) MR; H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I wish to ask what is exactly the position of the Solicitor General in this matter. For the first time in recent Parliamentary experience we have had a responsible Member of the Cabinet, representing the Government, suggesting that the House should take one course with reference to a Bill, and the Solicitor General speaking in opposition to this view, and then we have the President of the Local Government Board going into the Lobby against the Solicitor General followed by all his Colleagues in the Cabinet. [Cries of "No."] Well, I am told that two voted the other way; but that makes the matter still more marked, for we have the President of the Local Government Board, and some of his Colleagues going into one Lobby, whereas the Solicitor General and others went into the other. Under these circumstances I think we are entitled to ask what the attitude of the Government in regard to this Bill is. We have had a speech from the Solicitor General on behalf of the leaseholders of the Bedford Estate.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I rise to a point of order. Have the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman anything to do with the question before the House?

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the action of the Government, and is not out of order, as I presume he wishes to know what action will be taken by them in the case of the Amendment now before the House.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Then we have had the machinery of the Government put in force in support of the Solicitor General. [Cries of "No."] I am speaking of what I saw with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears. I therefore want to know what the Government intend to do, seeing that the course taken by different Members of it is absolutely contradictory. As the House of Commons has extended the right to claim compensation to anybody and everybody we have a right to ask what course Her Majesty's Government intend to take in reference to a matter of primary importance to the inhabitants of London. If the Division is to be followed up, and the Government intend to carry it to the bitter end, it means, in plain English, that no bar shall be abolished, and that the present state of things shall remain. The idea of compensation to every individual is absurd. The practical decision is that the bars shall continue, and that the public who maintain the roads shall have no right to use them.

*(4.20) MR. BRADLAUGH

I rise to a point of order. An Amend was moved by the hon. Member for the Crewe Division (Mr. M'Laren) to add a proviso in line 28, at the end of the clause. The Amendment now moved is to insert a proviso in line 27, and I ask, Sir, if it is regular?

MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division was not put to the House, but was withdrawn. It is quite in order to move the present proviso.

*(4.21.) MR. RITCHIE

I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton has taken a somewhat strong view of what has occurred. I regret very much, in the observations which I made, that I did not receive the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General; but it would be straining Party loyalty too much if Private Bills were made Party questions, and subjected to Party Divisions. Nothing of that kind was intended in this case. I only thought it respectful to the House that it should be made apparent that I, as President of the Local Government Board, had considered the matter, and I therefore stated what my view was. But before taking upon myself to speak upon a point which is, to some extent, a legal point, I consulted the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister upon the subject, and what I said was with the full concurrence both of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor. From what occurred between those Gentlemen and myself I am satisfied they both considered that when the House of Lords adopted the clause they did so on the clear understanding that it would only give compensation to those whom they deemed entitled to it, namely, the owners. I may add that it is believed that as the clause stands now it would only give compensation to the owners. That being so, I thought it was only fair and right to put in words to make the intention of the House of Lords perfectly clear. With regard to the present Amendment, I myself think that it is a reasonable one. It was a proviso which I was prepared to accept among the other Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks. I think the House will do well to assent to it.

(4.22.) MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

I think we have some reason to complain of the action of the President of the Local Government Board, because if he had said, in the first instance, what he has just said, I think the majority would have accepted the Amendment. He now informs us that, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor and of the Prime Minister, it was the intention of the House of Lords to give compensation to the owners only. If he had said so before I believe the decision of the majority would have been different.

MR. RITCHIE

I thought it was perfectly clear, from the discussion which took place in the House of Lords, that that was the intention of that House, and I stated so in my remarks. I did not, however, mention any particular individuals.

MR. GAINSFORD BRUCE

Is it in order to discuss the opinions expressed by noble Lords in another place?

MR. SPEAKER

It was .not unreasonable for the President of the Local Government Board to state the opinion of certain Members of the Government.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

It is to be regretted that while the opinion of the other House was in favour of oompensating the owners and no others a majority of this House should now have declared that all persons are entitled to be compensated.

*(4.25.) MR.T. H. BOLTON

The clause does not refer to the owners of the gates and bars, but to the owners of property in the wider sense of the word. The clause, as it would have been amended by the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks, would have clearly compensated owners of land—the Duke of Bedford, for instance. The clause refers to the owners of lands adjoining, and not merely the owners of the gates and bars. It is only leading the House off on a false scent to suggest that hon. Members opposite only mean that the owners of the gates and bars should be compensated in respect of those gates and bars.

*(4.26.) MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

I gather from the remarks of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. S. Buxton) that those who went into the opposite Lobby from him went there without a perfect knowledge of what they were doing. I want to make it perfectly clear that I and my friends knew very well what we were doing, and that no further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have induced us to do anything else. We voted not only against compensation to the landlords, but also to the leaseholders. We deny that either landlord or leaseholder ought to be compensated for the removal of these gates and bars, which for years have been of the greatest inconvenience to the Metropolis. In St. Pancras we long tried, but in vain, to effect some honourable arrangement with the Duke of Bedford for their removal, and now, after years of agitation upon the subject, it is endeavoured to set up a monstrous claim for compensation.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Surely we may accept the Solicitor General's addition to the Amendment and go to a Division.

CAPTAIN VERNEY

I am willing to accept the addition.

Proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment amended, by adding at the end thereof the words "and duly published."

Words, as amended, added to the said Lords Amendment.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."—(Mr.Ritchie.)

MR. LAWSON

It is our wish and intention to divide on this question, which raises the whole matter; and I hope the Government will say what course they propose to take.

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

It is not a matter for the Government to express any opinion upon. It is a Private Bill, and in matters of that kind the Government leave their supporters at liberty to do what they like, a rule which, I believe, applies to the supporters of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

(4.29.) MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I think, under the circumstances, that it would be wise to adjourn the further consideration of the Bill, which is one of deep importance to the London County Council. The decision arrived at is practically to give compensation to all persons whose interests may be interfered with, and the effect will be to prevent the gates from being removed at all. If compensation is to be given, the County Council will not take any action in the matter. I think it would be desirable to adjourn the Debate, at all events, for a day. The President of the Local Government Board has acted perfectly fairly in the matter. I understand he had an interview with the representatives of the London County Council to hear their views in the matter, and he then had an interview with the Lord Chancellor, and came to the conclusion that the course proposed was reasonable and right.

MR. RITCHIE

I think it as well I should say I have not had an interview with anybody.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

In any case the right hon. Gentleman has obtained the views of the members of the Council in writing, and it was arranged that the Amendment proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Verney) should be adopted, a course which met with the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as the House has come to a different conclusion, on the recommendation of the Solicitor General, I think some time ought to be given for consideration. I, therefore, beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

(4.33.) MR. COURTNEY

There is one reason for the adjournment of the Debate which I would submit for the consideration of the Solicitor General. I do not understand what the clause with the addition made by the Lords, and the addition agreed to be made on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Verney) means. Three references have been made to the owner, and all in a different sense. I really cannot understand the meaning of the clause.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

Allow me to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the words "such owner." "Such owner" refers to the owner previously mentioned. The words of the clause are "if any land should be taken or injuriously affected by anything done under or by virtue of this Act without the consent of the owner thereof"—that is the owner of the land. The word "thereof" here can only by any common sense interpretation of the clause apply to the owner of the land.

MR. LAWSON

It seems to me my hon. Friend relies too much on his common sense interpretation, because if hon. Members turn to the clause as amended, they will see that compensation is to be given for land injuriously affected, which may be land other than that of the owner of the bar. It is quite possible houses three streets off may be held to be injuriously affected.

*(4.36.) MR. H. H. FOWLER

For the sake of the efficiency of the conduct of the business of the House, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is wise that we should be forced to agree or disagree with theLords Amendments. This is a very difficult business, and the House is placed in a peculiar position. The Committee of this House refused to insert a clause for compensation. The Committee of the House of Lords refused to insert a clause for compensation. Subsequently upon the Third Reading in the House of Lords words were introduced in order to give compensation to the owner, not to the owner of the bar, but to the owner of the laud injuriously affected. Doubts have arisen as to what is the true construction of the Amendment inserted in the Lords, but there can be no doubt the President of the Local Government Board was right as to what was the intention of the House of Lords in introducing the words. This Amendment is proposed here in order to make clear beyond the possibility of doubt that the proposed Amendment shall not go further than we originally intended. In a snatch Division, without notice given, and under a great deal of misconception, and, by the narrow majority of six, this House has approved that compensation should be given to every possible claimant, whether he be leaseholder, or tenant from year to year, or anybody who may object to the removal of these bars. I do not ask the House to repeal anything the House of Lords has done, but simply to adjourn the Debate, in order that the meaning of the words that are to be inserted should be clearly seen, and that the London County Council may have an opportunity of determining what course they will take. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the County Council is not here, but I think the County Council is entitled to as much respectful consideration as any other public body. The Chairman of the County Council has a right to express his view on this question, and I shall support the Motion of my right hon. Friend.

MR. BARING (London)

The right hon. Member need not hope that the Chairman of the County Council will be able to express his view, because he has gone abroad.

MR. W. H. SMITH

This is a question rather for the promoters and opposers of the clause than for the Government; but so far as the Government are concerned, we do not object to the adjournment of the Debate if an adjournment is really desired by the House.

MR. LAWSON

We shall be glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer, and have the Debate on this question adjourned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till Thursday.