§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ (4.41.) MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. I think the House hardly knows what this Bill proposes. Under cover of a Railway Bill this Bill will empower the Railway Company to establish places of what they call "instruction, recreation, and amusement;" in other words, "Barnum" shows or Cremorne Gardens; and that I think is not the proper business of a Railway Company. The company have rights over two pieces of land, one of which has been used for the "Wild West" Exhibition, and the other is a triangular piece of ground west of Gloucester Road. The company, under cover of this Bill, propose to take power 1226 to convert this triangular piece of road into, as they term it, "a place of instruction, recreation, and amusement," and they will injuriously affect surrounding property in the same way as the Kensington Exhibitions proved a serious detriment to the property in their neighbourhood. I repeat it is no part of the work of a Railway Company to establish such places. Another and equally important point is that in Clause 7, the company actually propose that they shall have power to get rid of and rescind all the agreements they have made with respect to this land. That is a course the House of Commons will hardly sanction. These two acres of ground have been planted by the residents on the understanding that the land shall not be used, or the trees cut down, except for purposes of the railway. If the land is wanted for railway purposes, no one can possibly object; but it is reasonable to expect, inasmuch as Parliament has given compulsory powers to the company to acquire the land, that it shall be used simply for the purposes of the railway itself. I think we cannot pass the Bill or allow it to proceed to another stage unless we have a distinct understanding that all the clauses relating to the Metropolitan District Railway Company, starting or causing to be started a place of amusement of an evening fête or Cremorne nature, shall be cut out of the Bill. It is quite certain, if this proposal had been made in the early days of the company, it would not have got power to acquire the land. For these reasons, I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Bartley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ (4.46.) MR. J. R. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)I bag to second the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. As one living in the neighbourhood of this triangular piece of ground, I may say that it can be of no good except for the purposes of the railway or an open space. There is practically no access to it. There was a period when those who lived in the houses abutting on it hoped 1227 it would be devoted to the purposes of a recreation ground in connection with a large educational establishment, but unfortunately that hope passed away with Mons. Capel, and since then there has been much anxiety on the subject. I do not wish to say anything against the Exhibitions which were held upon the land, more than that the residents have been exceedingly annoyed by the scenes that have gone on there, and they look with the greatest possible anxiety upon what they believe would be nothing less than another Cremorne in that part of London. I think the residents have a great right to complain, for the land was acquired by the company compulsorily for railway purposes, and there ought to be no deviation from the arrangement. I trust the House will not allow a precedent to be created which will allow a Railway Company to be the means of half ruining a neighbourhood by establishing a centre of immorality at a point where it would be worse than in almost any other part of the Metropolis. I may add that that neighbourhood is not over well supplied with open spaces. We had hoped this piece of land would have been set apart as an open space; and I think that if this House refuses to allow the company to do as they propose, the time may yet come when the land will be utilised as an open space for the benefit of the very large population in that neighbourhood
§ (4.50.) MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)I hope the House will not occupy much time in the discussion of this question. This is an omnibus Bill, and the hon. Member for Islington opposes only one clause, the question involved in which has been raised by the Petition lodged against the Bill, and which can be argued before the Select Committee to which the Bill will go. It is not the ordinary practice of the House to object to the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind upon objection to one clause. But any persons who may have rights in this land will have them protected, because the company, in answer to the objections of the residents in the neighbourhood, have agreed to insert words in the clause, which will leave their present rights and powers in the land absolutely unaffected. I hope the 1228 House, therefore, will at once reject the Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed.