LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [BY ORDER]. (Hansard, 17 April 1902)

§ (3.15.) MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
said the Bill was, in fact, the identical Bill which was presented by the Company last year for the consideration of Parliament, and it would be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that on that occasion Parliament rejected the measure, not because of its merits or demerits, but because of the circumstances surrounding certain clauses which savoured of proceedings which he did not hesitate to describe as proceedings such as of low-class City company promoters. He had no desire to hinder the railway company in the conduct of its 478 legitimate business, and if the rumour which he had heard was well founded, it would seem that the contention which he had put forward last year had had good effect, and had borne excellent fruit, because he Understood that the company had undertaken to rebuild certain houses, and put into repair other houses, and not to use a particular site until Parliament had given its sanction for the purposes of the railway. He would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the rumour to which he had referred was, or was not, correct. If it were correct, it would be the fact that the company had, under pressure of Parliament, tardily recognised its duty according to the law of the land. There had been a good deal of assiduous lobbying in connection with the Bill, but he hoped the effect would be to prove that the directors of railway companies could not expect to be successful when they were seeking to avoid their responsibilities in these matters. It was not his intention, providing he got an assurance that the rumour to which he had referred was correct, to further oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. His action had been dictated by motives of public policy, and all he had desired was to insist that public bodies should not evade their obligations under the law. He did not, consequently, propose to press the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper, and all he wished to do was to ask the Home Secretary if he could confirm the rumour he had before alluded to.

§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,) Croydon
said he had received a communication from the London and North Western Railway Company to the effect that the buildings, the acquisition of which was one of the causes of the action taken by the House last year, would be repaired and let to the same class of tenants as before.

§ MR. CLAUDE HAY
asked if there was any guarantee that the rents of the houses would not be raised.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said there was none, but no doubt the railway company would 479 recognise it was not to their interest to raise the rents. He wished to point out, however, that the Bill before the House was of quite unobjectionable a character, and he thought his hon. friend had exercised a wise discretion in not pressing his opposition to its Second Heading.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
said it was rather difficult to judge on the spur of the moment whether the assurances of the company, as conveyed by the Home Secretary, were sufficiently satisfactory. He thought that the Committee should have an opportunity of considering the matter, and of deciding whether or not some clause should be inserted in the Bill to secure the particular object they had in view.

§ MR. RITCHIE
That is nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
said that was unfortunately the difficulty they had to face, and it certainly should not be lost sight of. It was quite clear that this powerful railway corporation had practically intended to drive a coach and four through a statute of the House of Commons, and he congratulated the hon. Member on having so successfully raised an obstacle in their way.

§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)
said he did not intend to reply to the offensive epithets which had been thrown across the floor of the House in regard to the company. If hon. Members wanted any guarantee that they would carry out their word, surely the good name of the London and North Western Company was in itself a sufficient guarantee.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
pointed out that there were certain duties imposed by law upon the company in regard to the housing, or rather the rehousing, of persons whom they dishoused, and it was essential that care should be taken to see they carried out their statutory obligations. He hoped the Home Secretary would see that the railway companies fulfilled their obligations, which had not always been the case in the past.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I must point out that that is not the question before the House. The question of the housing of the working classes has nothing whatever to do with this matter.

§ * MR. RITCHIE
protested against the language of the hon. Gentleman, and against the assumption that the Government had not compelled the railway companies to carry out their statutory obligations.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said he had pointed out that in the past the Home Office had not fulfilled its duty in regard to this matter, and to that statement he adhered, although he did not suggest that it was necessarily the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible. He could not be responsible for the mistakes of his predecessors in office.

§ MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)
suggested that it was important to include some provision in the Bill to prevent the undue raising of rents on the houses.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
pointed out that the matter hardly arose on the Motion before the House.

§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)
said the opposition to Bills of this kind was a good thing, because it caused the companies to recognise that the House of Commons had a certain amount of authority in these matters, and was not a machine for the mere passing of legislation on their behalf. He had made several inquiries into this matter, and he thought that if the company gave an assurance to the President of the Board of Trade that the tenants of this property would not be dispossessed, the Bill ought to be allowed to pass its Second Reading. The suggestions of hon. Members opposite could be dealt with in Committee.