BETHLEM HOSPITAL BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER). (Hansard, 17 June 1901)

§ *MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)

said it would not be necessary for him to move the motion standing in his name for the rejection of the Bill, but as a matter of public interest he desired to explain why he originally opposed the measure and now withdrew his opposition. The hospital was situated in the borough of Southwark, the buildings and grounds covering an area of about fifteen acres, and forming a most valuable breathing space in the neighbourhood described by Mr. Charles Booth as the most crowded part of London. The site of the hospital was held under leases from the City Corporation dated 1810 and 1838, and under the Bill before the House the governors sought powers to lease a part of their possessions. The Borough Council of Southwark vigorously protested against the powers being given, and petitioned against the Bill. Since notice of opposition had been given the governors had been in communication with the Borough Council, and had given an assurance that they had no intention of parting with any portion of their Southwark possessions, the real object of the Bill being to enable them to sell some land in Kent, somewhere between Margate and Westgate. They had also given an undertaking to introduce in Committee a clause to the effect that nothing in the Act shall empower the governors to demise for any term of years for building or any other purposes, or to sublease or otherwise effect a deal with, any of the, lands comprised in the leases, and the Borough Council were satisfied that that clause would prevent the governors dealing with the land without obtaining further powers. He might add that a large proportion of the cost of erecting the present hospital was found out of money 535 provided by Parliament. Although he should have liked the proposed clause to be in somewhat stronger terms, he was so far satisfied with the undertaking of the governors that he should not move his proposed motion.