§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:—
§ Question again proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid)said there were two points in the clause to which he wished to refer. The first was with regard to Sub-section (a). When the Secretary of the Treasury looked at the reasonableness of the proposal he had to submit he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would consider there was any ground whatever for making an exception in the case of the Post Office. The Land Clauses Act very properly prescribed that where an undertaking would change the character of the land, the same land tax and poor-rate as before should be paid from the time of demolition until the property could be rated again in the ordinary way, and he saw no reason for exempting the Post Office from the operation of this principle. That was a reasonable position, and he hoped it would commend itself to the Secretary of the Treasury. Of course they could not take it out of the clause at the present moment, but the right hon. Gentleman might give them an assurance that the point would be considered in another place. With regard to the sub-section which provided 388 that claims for compensation by tenants from year to year or by leaseholders having unexpired terms of not more than eighteen months to run should be determined under Section 121 of the Land Clauses Act, 1845, he pointed out that that section only referred to those holding from year to year, and he wished to know why it had been thus extended.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,) PrestonThe hon. Member has perfectly correctly stated the law under the Land Clauses Act. The law is that in the case of demolition of buildings the same land tax and the same poor-rate are to be paid as were paid before the demolition took place, and should continue to be paid until the new buildings are erected. But the land tax is paid to the Government, and it is absurd to say that the Government should pay the land tax to itself. There is no necessity to pay that tax at all. As to the poor-rate, I agree that the Government ought to go on paying the same poor-rate, but, at any rate, in theory, the Government is not liable to pay rates at all, and the words of which the hon. Member complains are simply inserted to protect that right of the Crown. That having been done, I agree that the practice of paying on the same basis as other ratepayers should be adopted, and I will undertake to see that the principle is adopted in this case. The object of introducing leaseholders with not more than eighteen months to run into the other sub-section is to save legal expenses. The Government consider that a leaseholder with no greater interest than that is practically in the same position as a yearly tenant.
§ MR. WARNERsaid the principle had now been conceded that the Government were to pay rates like other people.
§ MR. HANBURYThe hon. Member is entirely mistaken. We do not pay rates. the same as other people. The Government has its own valuer, and if we were to strike out the words regarding the-poor rate in this case we should depart from our universal rule of having our own valuer.
§ MR. WARNERsaid it was not a serious thing whether the valuer was paid by the Government or the district. He thought his hon. friend was justified in raising this question.
§ MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL (Stockton)said the reply of the Secretary of the Treasury was rather inconsistent, for this reason. He said in reference to the laud tax that it was a case of the Government paying the tax to the Government, but in this case it was not so. This Bill was promoted by the Postmaster General. The Post Office was a remunerative Department of the State, and the Post Office if called upon to pay taxes at all should pay like other business concerns the taxes due upon the property it owned. If the Post Office were run by a private company they would be liable for this tax. Therefore he thought the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was very illogical. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman argued in a different sense some time ago. If a corporation owned gas or water works the rates upon the undertaking were paid over to the corporation. It should be the same with a Government Department making about £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year. It was unfair that they should demolish buildings in any locality, and that they should for the time being withdraw from the locality the rates which would have been payable on the buildings demolished. He thought the Government got off very cheaply indeed with reference to rates. He held in his hand the last Return issued to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. Anyone reading the Return and knowing the buildings in the different towns would see that the buildings were rated far below their value, and did not contribute to the local rates what they ought to pay. He thought, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman ought to give a pledge that he would consider this subject with the view of having the law changed, so that this State Department, like any other Department, private individual, or company in the country should be held responsible for the rates and taxes it was entitled to pay.
§ MR. RECKITT (Lincolnshire, Brigg)It may interest the House in connection with this subject to know upon what basis the valuer for the Post Office assesses the value for rating purposes,
§ because there are a variety of different rules of assessment throughout the country, so that what is a perfectly fair assessment in one locality may be a very unfair one in another. If you have a, hard and fast system you may have a post office in one county properly rated by the contribution paid by the Department to the local authority, while in the very next county you may find that the assessment put on by the Government officials is ridiculously disproportionate to the general assessment of other property in the same place. I think the time has come when the Post Office should allow the assessments to be made by the locality, and if the Government still maintain the position that they are not compelled to pay rates, but are willing to make a grant in lieu of rates, that grant should approximate to the assessment made by the local assessment committee. If that were done a great deal of friction and ill-feeling would be removed.
§ MR. CALDWELLwas surprised that the Secretary to the Treasury had not given a more favourable answer. This was not a question of the local or the Government valuators; the amount was fixed by the statute and not by the valuator at all. The question of valuation did not enter into the matter; it was simply a question of justice to the poor rate authority. The object of the law was to protect everybody whose interest was affected, and the poor rate interest was here undoubtedly affected. It was astonishing that the Secretary to the Treasury did not see the difference between the question of the rating of Government property generally, and this question of protecting the interest of the poor rate. Nothing could be more reasonable than that a Government Department should in this respect be put in the same position as any other undertaking, but here Government property was to be treated quite differently.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 225.)
391| AYES. | ||
| Aird, John | Balcarres, Lord | Blundell, Colonel Henry |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) | Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Brassey, Albert |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Banbury, Frederick George | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John |
| Arrol, Sir William | Bartley, George C. T. | Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A. (Glasgow) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. |
| Baird, John Geo. Alexander | Beckett, Ernest William | Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Gunter. Colonel | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. | Powell Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cecil Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hardy, Laurence | Purvis, Robert |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.) | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Pym, C. Guy |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r) | Helder, Augustus | Rankin Sir James |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. |
| Coddington, Sir William | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Houldsworth, Sir William H. | Robinson, Brooke |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Howell, William Tudor | Round, James |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles R. | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham) |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Cooke, C. W.Radcliffe (Heref'd) | Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex) | Rutherford, John |
| Corbett A. Cameron (Glasg'w) | Kimber, Henry | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Cruddas, William Donaldson | Knowles, Lees | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn) | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Curzon, Viscount | Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H. | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Leighton, Stanley | Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a) | Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D. | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. | Lowe, Francis William | Smith, Hon W F. D.(Strand) |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Lowles, John | Spencer, Ernest |
| Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Stanley, Hon A. (Ormskirk) |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man'r) | Macdona, John Cumming | Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset) |
| Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.) | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart |
| Finch, George H. | M'Killop, James | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J. | Strut, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Marks, Henry Hananel | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Fitz Gerald, Sir Rt. Penrose | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Tomlinson, Wm. Edward M. |
| Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Middlemore, John T. | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | Milward, Colonel Victor | Welby, Lt. Col. A. CE.(Taunton) |
| Flower, Ernest | Monk, Charles James | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Fry, Lewis | More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) | Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L. |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Garfit, William | Morrell, George Herbert | Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm) |
| Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Goldsworthy, Major-General | Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Wyndham, George |
| Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Parkes, Ebenezer | Young Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) | Pease, H. Pike (Darlington) | TELERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Sir William Walrond and |
| Gull, Sir Cameron | Pierpoint, Robert | Mr. Anstruther. |
| NOES. | ||
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dalziel, James Henry | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) |
| Asquith Rt. Hon Herbert H. | Doogan, P. C. | Kay-Shuttle worth Rt. Hn Sir U. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Duckworth, James | Kitson, Sir James |
| Bainbridge, Emerson | Dunn, Sir William | Loubouchere, Henry |
| Baker, Sir John | Emmott, Alfred | Langley, Batty |
| Bavley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'bl'nd) |
| Billson, Alfred | Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Birrell, Augustine | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Lough, Thomas |
| Brigg, John | Fenwick, Charles | Macaleese, Daniel |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Ewan, William |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | M'Laren, Charles Benjamin |
| Burns, John | Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis | M'Leod, John |
| Burt, Thomas | Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbt. John | Maddison, Fred. |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Mather, William |
| Cameron. Robert (Durham) | Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley | Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Gurdon, Sir William Brampton | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Scale- | Moulton, John Fletcher |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Hazell, Walter | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Clark, Dr. G. B. | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Colville, John | Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Commins, Andrew | Holland, William Henry | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| Crean, Eugene | Horniman, Frederick John | Oldroyd, Mark |
| Crombie, John William | Humpbreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | Jacoby, Alfred James | Palmer, George W. (Reading) |
| Daly James | Joicey, Sir James | Pearson, Sir Weetman D. |
| Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) | Shee, James John | Wallace, Robert |
| Perks, Robert William | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) | Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.) |
| Philipps, John Wynford | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T |
| Pickard, Benjamin | Souttar, Robinson | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs. S W) | Spicer, Albert | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Price, Robert John | Stevenson, Francis S. | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'ddersfd) |
| Provand, Andrew Dryburgh | Strachey, Edward | Woods, Samuel |
| Reckitt, Harold James | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Reid, Sir Robert Threshie | Sullivan, T. D, (Donegal, W.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Tanner, Charles Kearns | |
| Scott, Charles Prestwich (Leigh) | Tennant, Harold John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) | Mr. Caldwell and |
| Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Ure, Alexander | Mr. Jonathan Samuel. |
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
§ MR. CALDWELLpointed out that though this was nominally a Government measure, it was really a private Bill. It was, therefore, necessary that the plans and books of reference should be put in the Tea-room or elsewhere in such a way that those interested in the various constituencies affected might have an opportunity of seeing the plans, and knowing exactly what were the proposed alterations. In this particular case, a number of rights-of-way were to be closed, but it was a very peculiar thing that, so far as the Corporation of London was concerned, great cave was taken that no rights-of-way should be shut up there. He wished for an assurance that in future, when the House was practically considering Bills of this character in Committee, the plans should be placed in the Tearoom, so that any Member in whose constituency the proposed compulsory powers were to be granted might have an opportunity of seeing whether local interests were affected by the Bill.
§ MR. HANBURYpointed out that this was practically an unopposed Bill, and Members had had an opportunity of seeing the plans and books of reference which did not occur in the case of ordinary unopposed Bills.
§ MR. CALDWELLasked why the Committee should be dealing with the Bill clause by clause and line by line if it had been dealt with upstairs. The position was altogether different from that of a Committee on an unopposed private Bill. If the form was to be kept up of making the House responsible for the wording of the Bill by passing the measure through the House sitting as a Committee, Members ought to have the materials for carrying out their duty properly. He, therefore, thought the assurance for which he had asked ought to be given.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)I think there is something to be said for the demand of my hon. friend. At any rate, I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance of some sort that local opinion will be consulted in the future when land is to be taken for Post Office purposes. In my own constituency land has been purchased, but no heed whatever has boon paid to local opinion. A position has been selected which, in my judgment and in the judgment of the mercantile community, is altogether a wrong one. Instead of being in the centre of the town it is some distance away, and no notice whatever was taken of the representations of the most representative bodies in the constituency. The plan suggested by my hon. friend is a most reasonable one, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the assurance asked for should be refused. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is always ready to meet representatives, hoar their views, and as far as possible to consult them, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman is not the supreme authority in connection with the matter. I wish he were, as probably then there would not be so much opposition to these matters. I think we are entitled to have the assurance that where lands are to be bought the greatest possible care should be taken to consult local opinion, and that the opportunity should be given for Members interested to see exactly what is intended to be done with regard to post offices in their constituencies.
§ MR. HANBURYsaid that no doubt in the case of a Bill such as that under consideration where the purchase was one of property by the Government it was a little different from that of an ordinary Railway Bill. He would therefore consult those who advised him in these matters and see whether there would be any objection to allowing the plans in future to be placed 395 in the Tea-room. He could not himself see why there should be any great objection, and if possible it should be done.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSThe right hon. Gentleman has consented to do what two or three years ago the Chief Commissioner of Works promised to do in relation to other Government buildings. I wish to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy by giving an illustration. Three or four years ago I made representations to the Chief Commissioner of Works that wherever a post office was to be erected, the local authority should be consulted, not only as to the site, but upon all matters relating to the position of public buildings in relation to other buildings in the town. For instance, it sometimes happens that the Postmaster General is advised that a post office should project eight or ten feet beyond the line of frontage of adjacent buildings, and the local authorities very properly resent that. Government buildings ought to comply with the local authority's regulations as to line of frontage, sewage, drainage, and sanitation. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult the First Commissioner of Works, he will find that three years ago he promised that whenever a post office was to be erected in London, before the site was finally determined upon the line of frontage should be submitted to the local Building Act authority, and that their regulations should be complied with. I would respectfully suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should carry out that promise of throe years ago. In the clause under discussion, as in Clauses 6 and 7, the City Corporation is selected for special reference, and to that particular body extraordinary deference is shown. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to cut out the references to any particular city, and say that whenever a post office is built the local regulations should be complied with. If he makes a general reference of that kind he will get his Bills through much more easily, because he will then not have Member after Member for towns specially mentioned getting up and making speeches, and other Members who are excluded protesting against these special references.
§ MR. WARNERI hope the right hon. Gentleman will really carry out the half- 396 promise he has made to bring the plans into some place where we can see them, and also arrange that we shall be able to see them in sufficient time. The great difficulty is that plans are very often not deposited in time for people to realise that great injustice is being done to a, locality. There have been two or three instances in my own constituency where the post office has not given complete satisfaction in regard to site, etc., and where, if the plans had been deposited in time, a satisfactory arrangement might have been; arrived at.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
§ Clause 5:—
§ MR. CALDWELLpointed out that in regard to this clause there was another difficulty connected with the want of plans. The policy of Parliament had been that when powers were granted to any undertaker to pull down dwellings beyond a certain number the occupants should be rehoused. Owing to want of plans, however, it could not be seen what the effect of the proposals of the Post Office would be on the dwellings of the working classes.
§ MR. HANBURYsaid the objection of the hon. Member had been met to a certain extent by the promise to look into the matter of the laying of plans. He did not think, however, that any houses would be taken under the Bill which, in the case of an ordinary private Bill, would have come within the operation of the clause to which the hon. Member had referred.
§ MR. CALDWELLthought the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury was a very general answer indeed. It really amounted to saying that the right hon. Gentleman did not know anything about it, and the Committee were asked to pass the Bill without any of the information to which they were entitled. He would suggest that some slight Amendment should be made in the Bill, in order to necessitate a Report stage, and before that stage was taken the necessary information could be given. It was evident, however, that the Govern- 397 ment intended to carry the Bill without amendment, but they could not expect to get it through as easily as they would do if they were perfectly frank in the matter. Why should not a paying concern like the Post Office pay in a business-like way, instead of seeking to escape the ordinary liabilities that Parliament imposed upon everybody to whom compulsory powers were granted?
§ MR. HANBURYthought the hon. Member was wrong in not accepting his statement with regard to the number of houses to be pulled down, but he would undertake to have the matter again looked into, and the fullest information should be given on the Third Reading. If there were cases which in a private Bill would come within the operation of the clause referred to, he would undertake that that clause should be made to operate in regard to this Bill.
§ MR. STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S)said that the effect of this clause taken with Clause 1 would be that in some districts the assessable value of the district would be reduced. The Post Office might pull down buildings valued at £300 or £400 and erect a building which the Government valuator might assess at only £100, with the result that there would be a decided loss to the local authority. This clause again proved how unfair it was that a local authority should not be allowed to assess these buildings on the same basis as other property in the district.
§ MR. HANBURYpointed out that the hon. Member seemed to assume that the property to be erected by the Government would be of less value than that to be demolished, whereas really the buildings to be erected would be much more valuable. It was quite possible to say the buildings would not be assessed at the same rate, because as a matter of fact the Government were exempt from rates altogether. The hon. Member should however recollect that, at any rate, within the last few years, the Treasury had seen to it that the valuation made by the Government valuer should be at least equal to that made by the local authority, and he challenged any hon. Member to point to a single case in which there had been any complaint in that respect from the local assessment committee.
§ MR. JONATHAN SAMUELexpressed his willingness to respond to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman. In Stock-ton-on-Tees the post office, customs house, Inland Revenue house, county court,. telephone wires, and other items were all rated at the small amount of £470. If they were assessed by the local valuer the amount would be much higher, and he believed the post office alone would be assessed at over £400. When the right hon. Gentleman asserted that Government property was assessed at the same value as other property was assessed at by the local authorities, if he would look through his own Return he would see that that was not the case.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 6:—
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that in this clause there was a general proviso that the Postmaster General might divert, alter, and stop up any street, roadway, or passage within the limits of any of the lands shown on the plans. In the case of this Bill they were dealing with two comparatively poor districts in London, and they were dealing with public rights. Sub-section 2 of Clause 6 provided—
Nevertheless, nothing in this Act shall authorise the Postmaster General to stop up or close the public passage or footway between Lombard Street and King William Street, known as Post Office Court, in the City of London.He was not complaining of that, but it showed the different way in which London was treated as compared with other parts of the kingdom. He wanted to know exactly the effect of closing up that passage, because they had not the plans before them. Not having those plans they could not allow a passage to be closed without knowing exactly how and in what respect the public interests would be affected.
§ MR. HANBURYThe hon. Member must know very well that this passage could not be closed without the assent of the public authority, and that assent would not be given if it was against the public interest. The public authorities have had the fullest opportunity of seeing the plans and of knowing everything that was to be done. They had the power of presenting petitions against the Bill, but 399 no such petitions have been presented, and no opposition whatever has been raised on the part of the local authorities. Therefore I think it is very strange that the hon. Member should repeat, on clause after clause, his want of confidence in the local authorities. The local authorities must know the circumstances of the locality better than anyone else, and they have had the fullest opportunity of seeing the plans. They have had the fullest information possible. The only real basis for any complaint which the hon. Member makes is apparently the sub-section which provides:—
Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Postmaster General to stop up or close the public passage or footway between Lombard Street and King William Street.That is a very important passage, which the Post Office would never have thought of closing up, and therefore they have no objection whatever to this proviso.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 7:—
§ * MR. MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)With regard to this clause I notice that both Clauses 7 and 8 are clauses very general in form. They have no particular application to this Bill, but they are special protective clauses which relate to the Corporation of the City of London, and to it only. Are these special protective clauses put into this Bill by reason of action by the Corporation of London during the pendency of this Bill, or is there any understanding between the Government and the Corporation that in the case of Post Office Bills these protective clauses shall be put in? It seems to me most important that this House should know what are the reasons why the Corporation of the City of London is treated differently to the other great corporations.
§ MR. HANBURYSo far as I know the only reason for putting in this clause with regard to the City of London is that it has been the practice for a great number of years to put it in. I am quite ready to admit that I do not think there ought to be any distinction drawn between the Corporation of London and other corporations. I will consult the solicitor to the Post Office on this subject, and I shall be perfectly willing to have amendments 400 introduced in another place to put the other corporations affected by this Bill in exactly the same position as the Corporation of the City of London.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 8 agreed to.
§ Clause 9:—
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that a period of three years for the compulsory purchase of lands was a rather long period, and he wished to know why it was necessary.
§ MR. HANBURYI cannot admit that three years is a long period. I should have thought the argument would have been rather to extend the time.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 10:—
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid it seemed very strange that they should ask for a special exemption only in the case of one particular district in London. He thought the onus was upon the Secretary to the Treasury to justify this exemption. In the case of Whitechapel it was densely populated, and if they took more ground than they required an open space might be made in that overcrowded district. He did not see why, if they were going to-put a post office up in a place of that kind, they should have any special exemption.
§ MR. HANBURYThe hon. Member can hardly be aware of what is the ordinary practice in Railway Bills. In Railway Bills a clause to this effect is inserted, but the difference between a Government Bill and Railway Bills is that when the clause is inserted in Railway Bills it applies generally to all the purchases made. They do not pick out one particular property, hut they carry a sweeping exemption over the whole properties purchased by them. The Government have not done that in this Bill, but they have reserved this clause for one piece of land only. With regard to other purchases, we are perfectly willing to leave our case within the four corners of the Act. This 401 Whitechapel case has nothing to do with the City Corporation. The property we require has upon it a house with a large timber yard at the back. We do not want to buy the whole of this property, and it is under those circumstances that this clause has been inserted in the Bill. Of course the case has to he referred to a jury, and if the jury decide that we have to buy the whole of it we shall have to buy it.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid the reply which had been given only showed the necessity for making the inquiry, because they had not had the plans and consequently knew nothing about this land. They knew that as regarded Railway Bills that general proviso was put in, and if it had been put in this Bill in a general way perhaps it would not have needed any explanation. But when the Government applied it only to Saint Mary, Whitechapel, they were entitled to have an explanation.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 11:—
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that in this case the Government had taken land for the post office, and the clause contained a proviso which would prevent them disposing of the land except by the permission of the railway company. In case of disagreement as to price it was to be settled by arbitration. Why was it necessary to bring in the Arbitration Act of 1889 to settle the compensation to be given? Why could this matter not be taken under the Lands Clauses Act? He thought some little explanation was necessary, for there might be a special reason. The mode of settlement was rather different. He believed that under the Arbitration Act of 1889 the arbitration was done by one arbitrator, whereas under the Lands Clauses Act there would be two arbitrators.
§ MR. HANBURYThe hon. Member must recollect that, after all, we are acting in friendly concert with the London and South Western Railway Company in this matter. The method provided by the Arbitration Act of 1889 is the mode of arbitration which they prefer, and really there is very little difference between the two. This is the 402 mode which the railway company prefer, and the Post Office is willing to agree to it. After all, I think the two parties concerned are the best judges of what the mode of arbitration ought to be.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid his idea was to make the Bill symmetrical, although his proposal did not substantially alter the, clause in any way.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 12, 13, 14, and 15 agreed to.
§ Bill reported, with Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.