§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1:—
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved to omit the provision proposing that Section 133 of the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 should not be incorporated in the Bill. To his mind that was a very reasonable section, and he did not see why, if that section applied to people generally, it should not also apply to the Post Office. He had no objection to compulsory powers being given to the Post Office to acquire new sites, but he thought the Committee had a right to say that those compulsory powers should be administered in a just way, and that no advantage should be given to the Post Office that was not 1033 enjoyed by other people who desired to acquire land by purchase.
Amendment proposed—In page 2, line 11, to leave out from the word 'Act,' to the word 'shall,' in line 13."— (Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there was no intention by the incorporation of the words proposed to be left out to limit the effect of the Lands Clauses Act. This was merely a question of land tax and poor rate. As the hon. Gentleman was aware, the Government, although not assessed, made a contribution to the poor rate. So far as the land tax was concerned there was no desire to avoid that. When the State had taken over this land with the existing liability for land tax it was proposed to redeem the land tax, because the payment of a tax by one Government Department to another only led to unnecessary book-keeping. There was nothing behind it, and the omission had been a common thing in all these Bills for years past.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETTthought that in a technical matter of this sort the Committee ought to have the assistance of the law officers of the Crown before proceeding further in the discussion. He appealed to the Attorney-General to give the Committee the benefit of his assistance.
§ MR. GRETTONsaid he did not quite follow the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman for the inclusion of these words in this particular clause. He hoped the hon. Baronet would proceed to a division.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the explanation as to the land tax was more or less satisfactory, but one difficulty was bound to arise, namely, that this method would prevent their getting proper accounts from the Post Office. He was inclined to think the payment of this small amount of land tax by one Department to another might give unnecessary trouble, but he would like to have the opinion of the Attorney- 1034 General upon it, as it was rather an important point. He would point out that while the property was being acquired the poor rate was still to be paid, and he wished to know whether that was paid by the Post Office or by the vendor or landlord.
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid the Postmaster General settled the contribution to be paid in respect of the rates by Section 133 of the Act of 1845. Composition in lieu of rates he knew existed, because there was a regular Vote on the subject brought before Parliament. But the local authorities who received these sums would much rather have the poor rate assessment on Government buildings than this contribution, and he would like an assurance that the local authorities would not suffer by this subsection. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance which would satisfy the local authorities that the income for the rates would not be prejudiced.
§ *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)said the Crown was not liable to be taxed or rated. They, however, made a voluntary contribution in aid. With regard to the poor rate, the Treasury negotiated with the representatives of the union to which the rates were payable, and arrived at a sum which it was thought fair to contribute in lieu of a parochial assessment. That was, he believed, the practice which had now obtained in regard to all public buildings for a number of years.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
§ Clause 6:—
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved to omit Subsection (1)—
The Postmaster-General may divert, alter and stop up any street, roadway, or passage within the limits of any land shown on the deposited plans, so soon as such lands are acquired by him.That seemed to him to be an extremely arbitrary provision. In times gone by a great deal of injustice had been done by stopping rights of way all over the 1035 country; and there had been a great movement in later years to prevent roadways being blocked up. No one had been more assiduous in supporting movements in this direction than hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and yet their own Government were now asking for power to divert or stop rights of way. He could not conceive that they would support such a clause, nor that a proposition involving such a policy would be allowed to go through Parliament in any Bill whatever. It must be remembered that this Bill did not apply to sites in rural districts or country places; it applied to London, Chester, Bournemouth, Eastbourne, and Dublin. When they took these towns one saw what a tremendous power this clause gave, and it seemed to him absurd that in a democratic House of Commons the right hon. Gentleman should propose such a clause for acceptance. Even if the clause was to operate only for a certain time he would not accept it; but, for all time the Postmaster-General of the day was to have power to divert or stop rights of way. Why should they give the right hon. Gentleman such a power? There seemed to be an idea that an official had some prescriptive right to do what nobody else was allowed to do. That was not his idea of the manner in which the affairs of the country ought to be conducted. Therefore he moved the omission of the subsection and he hoped he would have the support of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway in his endeavour to secure the lights of the people.
Amendment proposed—In page 4, line 30, to leave out Sub section 1."—(Sir F Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he hoped, as on the previous Amendment, that the hon. Baronet would be persuaded to withdraw his proposal. The position was this, that if there was a well known right of way over a site acquired, it was put into the Bill, so that the House might have an opportunity of considering whether the Crown ought to be allowed to block a well-known 1036 and recognised right of way. In the process of building there was nothing to prevent anyone complaining if a right of way was interfered with. But this provision was inserted to guard against contingencies which might involve years of litigation. There was no desire whatever on the part of the Post Office to stop recognised rights of way with out compensation, and he entirely sympathised with what the hon. Baronet had said in that regard. It was necessary, however, to have some provision of this sort in order to prevent proceedings being undertaken probably by some cantankerous person.
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid in this matter the Postmaster-General seemed to be afraid of some cantankerous individual, but whether he was cantankerous or not he had the right to protest against any right of way being shut up. What was the use of the Postmaster-General's promise to consider the matter, or his guarantee? They did not want that, because when the Bill was passed the right hon. Gentleman would have no power, and no amount of consideration by the right hon. Gentleman could affect the question. It had been said that if in the opinion of the Post Office there had been any rights of way they would have been shown in the schedule. He knew of one instance, at least, where such rights did exist. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman in one breath assured the House of his sympathy in maintaining such rights and in the next breath put into a Bill a clause which gave the Government power to close up all these rights of way. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should be desirous of taking powers to override these public privileges. The opposition to the Amendment had been put upon a wrong basis when it was argued that it would cause delay in the erection of a public building. Of course it would, and delay would be quite right if a public right was being destroyed. Unless more solid reasons were given for maintaining this clause he should support the Amendment if it was pressed to a division.
§ *MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hampshire, Basingstoke)said it appeared to 1037 him from the statement made by the Postmaster-General that the words of this clause were exceedingly ill-chosen. If the only desire was that no cantankerous individual should be heard why was it necessary to give the Postmaster-General power to divert, alter, and stop up any street? Upon the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman alone this subsection was either superfluous or oppressive. Either these public rights of way existed or they did not. He objected to these general powers being given to the Postmaster-General. Should it be necessary to stop up public rights of way, let it be done in each case by Act of Parliament after a public inquiry. If that were done the public could come forward and establish the right of the King's subjects to pass down a certain passage or street; but the effect of passing this subsection would be that the right hon. Gentleman would have power by statute to do away with any such public rights. Parliament had always been exceedingly jealous about public rights of way. He protested against granting the Postmaster-General any powers to shut up public highways which might or might not exist. When they shut up the rights of way belonging to a private individual there was not the same danger, because he could recover compensation, but they could not compensate the public for the loss of such rights. He hoped this question would be very seriously considered, because it raised a question of principle of great importance.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the Government had seriously encroached upon the rights of the House of Commons. By this arbitrary and tyrannical clause they proposed to encroach upon the rights of the people themselves. They had been told that these words were put into the Bill to secure the position of this Department during building operations, but there was not one word about building operations in the clause.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONpointed out that the clause appeared in previous Sites Bills passed by the late Unionist Government. It was intended for the protection of the Crown, and would not, of course, be used in a tyrannical manner. It was absolutely necessary that the clause should be retained.
§ MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)said that post offices were generally erected at central places where time was of the greatest value, and it was not desirable that under the powers proposed to be taken short cuts and rights of way should be closed, and inconvenience thereby caused to the public. He had in his mind a short cut into Lombard Street in the City which was used every day by thousands of people. If the Post Office authorities bought the Land on the other side of that narrow passage and put up buildings, chat way would be closed, and a large number of people would have to go round about. That was one of the reasons why the Post Office should not be granted these extraordinary powers. Where streets or rights of way were acquired, and gas mains and electric cables interfered with, compensation would have to be paid, but even when compensation had been paid the disturbing of their arrangements in densely populated parts might be a very serious matter to the companies, and therefore the Committee should take the greatest care in granting powers to the Post Office.
§ MR. CARLILEsaid that Southgate, between Middlesex and Hertfordshire, was one of the districts which would be affected by the subsection. As the representative of the district he protested against this arbitrary clause. The right hon Gentleman had stated that it was in other Bills in regard to sites; but that was no reason for retaining it here. If injustice had been done before, that was a reason why the same form of injustice should not be continued now. The right hon. Gentleman had argued for the retention of the subsection on the ground that it would not be administered in an arbitrary way. But the right hon. Gentleman would not always be the head of the Post Office, and the administration of the Bill, when it became law, might fall to others who would act in an arbitrary way. It was not un-reasonable, therefore, to ask that the sub-section should be removed. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman meet the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment by agreeing to a modification which would limit the operation of the subsection to a certain period? If the Postmaster-General would agree to lay a schedule on the Table, they would really know what they 1039 were doing. He objected to the interests of districts like Southgate being handed over to any hard-hearted Minister who might occupy the position which the light hon. Gentleman held now.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that what was now proposed had been done on previous occasions by the Party to which he had the honour to belong. He would point out, however, that it had been done by means of a schedule. Every Party made mistakes, and if his Party had done something with which he disagreed, that was no reason why he should assent to a similar wrong being done now. It was no
| AYES. | ||
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Glover, Thomas | Meagher, Michael |
| Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Menzies, Walter |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Money. L. G. Chiozza |
| Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Mooney, J. J. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Gulland, John W. | Morley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Murnaghan, George |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Murray, James |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Hart-Davies, T. | Myer, Horatio |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire,N. E.) | Nicholls, George |
| Beale, W. P. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Higham, John Sharp | O'Grady, J. |
| Boland, John | Hobart, Sir Robert | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hudson, Walter | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hyde, Clarendon | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Brigg, John | Illingworth, Percy H. | Price,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central) |
| Brunner. J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Jenkins, J. | Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Buxton,Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jones, William(Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Cherry. Rt. Hon. R. R. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Rees. J. D. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Kekewich, Sir George | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Clough, William | Kelley. George D. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Rose, Charles Day |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd | Laidlaw, Robert | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Crombie, John William | Lambert, George | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Crooks, William | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester) |
| Davies,David (Montgomery Co. | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.) | Seddon, J. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington) | Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N. | Lewis, John Herbert | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lundon, W. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lupton, Arnold | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Elibank, Master of | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lyell, Charles Henry | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Macpherson, J. T. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.) | Summerbell, T. |
| Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford.S. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Gilhooly, James | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Toulmin, George |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Maddison, Frederick | Verney, F. W. |
§ answer to say, as the right hon. Gentle-man had done, that because the Unionist Party did something it must be right. The argument generally advanced on the other side of the House was that because the Unionist Government had done something it must, there-fore", be wrong. He once more appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. He did not think that officials, however efficient they might be, should be entrusted with the powers asked under this Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 26. (Division List No. 292.)
1041| AYES. | ||
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Glover, Thomas | Meagher, Michael |
| Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Menzies, Walter |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Money. L. G. Chiozza |
| Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Mooney, J. J. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Gulland, John W. | Morley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Murnaghan, George |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Murray, James |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Hart-Davies, T. | Myer, Horatio |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire,N. E.) | Nicholls, George |
| Beale, W. P. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Higham, John Sharp | O'Grady, J. |
| Boland, John | Hobart, Sir Robert | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hudson, Walter | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hyde, Clarendon | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Brigg, John | Illingworth, Percy H. | Price,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central) |
| Brunner. J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Jenkins, J. | Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Buxton,Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jones, William(Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Cherry. Rt. Hon. R. R. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Rees. J. D. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Kekewich, Sir George | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Clough, William | Kelley. George D. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Rose, Charles Day |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd | Laidlaw, Robert | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Crombie, John William | Lambert, George | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Crooks, William | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester) |
| Davies,David (Montgomery Co. | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.) | Seddon, J. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington) | Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N. | Lewis, John Herbert | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lundon, W. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lupton, Arnold | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Elibank, Master of | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lyell, Charles Henry | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Macpherson, J. T. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.) | Summerbell, T. |
| Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford.S. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Gilhooly, James | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Toulmin, George |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Maddison, Frederick | Verney, F. W. |
| Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | Watt, Henry A. | Young, Samuel |
| Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds,S.) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Wardle, George J. | White, Luke (York, E.R.) | |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | White,Patrick (Meath, North) | |
| Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | |
| Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras. S.) | |
| Waterlow, D. S. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Forster, Henry William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Balearres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Barbury, Sir Frederick George | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Helmsley, Viscount | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C. W. | Pease,HerbertPike (Darlington | Younger, George |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr Gretton and Mr. Liddell. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Salter, Arthur Clavell | |
| Fell, Arthur | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
§ MR. GRETTON (Rutland)moved to omit Subsection (2). The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he thought there were no rights of way over the sites scheduled in the Bill, but ho happened to be one of the governors of Christ's Hospital, one of the sites included in the Bill, and so far as he knew it had always been the opinion of the governors that there were certain rights of way over that property which were used by the public, as well as one or two private rights of user. It therefore appeared that the matter was one which required some further investigation. Another point raised by the subsection was the question of pipes and drains affecting general rights of easement. It was a serious thing to do away with old rights of easement. In the two following subsections the Postmaster-General took power to regrant them or to make payments, but it was entirely within his discretion, and whilst they, of course, had entire confidence in the present occupant of the office, it was not reasonable to trust entirely to a public official. These matters would really have to be dealt with by the Post Office officials, for they would never specially come before the Postmaster-General unless some serious objection was raised, and there was a very serious objection to granting to public officials the right to stop up and divert pipes, sewers, and drains connected with important and complicated sites, particularly in the City of London. Legal opinion was really very little better than lay opinion, so diverse had been the decisions of different Judges. This confiscation of the rights of ease- 1042 ment included the rights of light and air — a very important matter in a congested place like the City of London. The buildings which might be erected under the subsection would seriously affect large and considerable sums. It therefore appeared to him that these powers should not be granted to the Postmaster-General unless he could give some further and more satisfactory explanation as to why he required them, and particularly the power to stop up rights of ways.
Amendment proposed—In page 4, line 34, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Mr. Gretton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the sub-section was inserted in the Bill so that the Crown should have the right of seeing that the public interest in the purchase of the sites and in the buildings to be erected upon them was not jeopardised. There was no intention of dealing harshly with the questions of easement and other rights. The clause was one which appeared in all previous Acts, and it was really necessary for the effective purchase and the carrying out of these public buildings. He hoped under these circumstances the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
§ MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)said there was one question which the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with, and that was the question of the rights of way, 1043 in regard to which his hon. friend had raised the specific case of the Christ's Hospital site. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell them what he proposed to do in reference to that particular site?
§ *MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)said he should not be disposed to support the Amendment if it objected to the acquisition by the Post-master-General of private rights of way, but the subsection was extremely ambiguous. It proposed to vest in the Post-master-General private and public rights. What public right would become vested in him under the subsection? Perhaps he would also tell them to whom compensation would be paid for the acquisition of public rights.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there might be some rights in the possession of some local authority, but he did not anticipate that any question of compensation would arise.
§ MR. FELLsaid he supposed the Post-master-General would have to undertake the upkeep of the sewers and drains which he acquired and thus relieve the local authorities. It was perfectly true the present Postmaster-General was exceedingly conciliatory, and would doubtless do everything possible to make things work smoothly, but there had been Post-masters-General in the past who had not been very conciliatory. In many cases rights as regarded light and air were affected by the immense height of post office buildings, and while they would always be disposed to trust the present Postmaster-General, they might not always have him in office. He thought, therefore, they ought to secure these rights in the future. He also asked what would become of the drains under the roads affected.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the hon. Member was pretty safe, for although the tenure of office of the Government was no doubt very precarious according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, still he considered that they would remain in office a few months longer, and there was still a large number of Members of the Opposition to look after them. Various public authorities had consider-able interest in drains, and he did not 1044 think the hon. Gentleman could anticipate that the Post Office would do anything to interfere with the rights of the public.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the only question in which his constituents were interested was that of light, and the difficulties in regard to it arose from the height of Post Office buildings. It was a very serious thing in the City of London if the rights in regard to light were to be taken away. He asked what powers there were in regard to the right to light in the City of London. The question was most important, because, the City not being a residential quarter, if there was not sufficient light the deprivation rendered offices valueless.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONquite agreed, and said the Post Office had been in communication with the Corporation of London in regard to the rights of light, and he did not think there would be any difficulty in regard to that matter.
§ MR. GRETTONsaid that having regard to what had taken place he did not think it wise to press this Amendment to a division. He thought that this was a Bill which might have been referred to a Committee upstairs, as it was very suitable for investigation by a Private Bill Committee.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Bill had already been before a Committee upstairs. It occupied the very exceptional position that it had gone to a Committee upstairs and then to a Committee of this House. It would then go to the House of Lords where it would be examined again in detail.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 7:—
§ MR. GRETTONsaid he did not want to move the rejection of the clause, but he wanted to know why the rights and jurisdiction of the London County Council and of the citizens of London were specially preserved under the Bill, while no powers were taken to preserve the rights of the citizens of Middlesex, Hertford, and Northampton.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONreplied that in the case of the borough councils their rights were preserved, and as far as ho recollected the right of county councils outside London were also preserved.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
§ Clause 10:—
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved the omission of Subsection (2). Subsection (1) was an extremely good subsection. It provided that no purchase should be made by the Postmaster-General under the authority of this Act without the sanction of the Treasury. That was a most excellent sub-section, and one of which all on that side of the House would approve. He was sorry to say, however, that the next subsection of which he was moving the omission absolutely contradicted it, because it said that any such sanction might be given either generally or in respect of any particular purchase. The meaning of that as ho read it was that the Post-master-General might, go to the Treasury, and exercising his blandishments over the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, get him to agree to give him any powers which he desired. Supposing the Postmaster-General said that he wanted,£20,000, the Treasury might say that was a reasonable sum, and grant it; but unless this particular subsection was omitted it appeared to him that any sum of money might be given by the Post Office for any particular site for a post office. If the Committee were going to enact that sort of thing they might as well leave out the clause altogether, and not require the Post Office to ask for the sanction of the Treasury. If the sanction of the Treasury was to be of any use it should have some reality, and he did not see any point in this subsection unless it was intended to deceive the House. He did not think that was intended by the right hon. Gentleman,
§ but it seemed to him that it destroyed the effect of the clause. He begged to move.
§ Amendment proposed—
§ "In page 6, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (2)."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the only object of the subsection was to secure that the application of the rate-payers' money should be safeguarded by Treasury sanction being obtained. If the hon. Gentleman had to do what he had had the honour of doing for the last eighteen months, he would know that the Treasury were not open to any blandishments. He might take it that this subsection would not be used in a manner in any way detrimental to the taxpayer. Its only object was to give elasticity to the working of the clause.
§ MR. FELLthought that the hon. Baronet's proposal would safeguard the public from any general sanction being obtained from the Treasury in order to enable the Post Office to make general purchases in the course of the year. To give the Postmaster-General a general power was to give him an authority which was extremely great, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman should be compelled to go to the Treasury and give them particulars of what he wanted. He suggested the omission of the word "generally."
§ SIR F. BANBURYdid not think that the omission of the word "generally" would have the effect he desired.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 293
1047| AYES. | ||
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone, N | Branch, James |
| Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch) | Beale, W. P. | Brigg, John |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Bennett, E. N. | Brunuer, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh) |
| Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Burns, Rt. Hn. John |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Black, Arthur W. | Buxton,Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Bottomley, Horatio | Byles, William Pollard |
| Barnes, G. N. | Boulton, A. C. F. | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Bowerman, C. W. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Cleland, J. W. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Clough, William | Laidlaw, Robert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Clynes,J. R. | Lambert, George | Robertson, SirG. Scott (Bradf'rd) |
| Collins, Stephen Lambeth, | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Collins SirWm. J.(S. Pancras W | Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E. | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington | Rose, Charles Day |
| Corbett, CH(Sussex, EGrinst'd | Lewis, John Herbert | Rutherford, J. H. (Brentford) |
| Crean, Eugene | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Samuel,Herbert L.(Cleveland) |
| Crooks, William | Lundon, W. | Schwann,C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.) | Lupton, Arnold | Schwann,SirC. E (Manchester) |
| Dickinson,W. H.(St.PancrasN | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Seddon, j. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Macpherson, J. T. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Elibank, Master of | MacVeighCharles(Donegal,E) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrina,S.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Farrell, James Patrick | McKillop, W. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Maddison, Frederick | Stanley,Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh. |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Markham, Arthur Basil | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Gardner,Col.Alan(Hereford,S. | Meagher, Michael | Strauss, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Gilhooly, James | Menzies, Walter | Summerbell, T. |
| Gladstone,RtHnHerbertJohn | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Montagu, E. S. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Mooney, J. J. | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Grant, Corrie | Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Toulmin, George |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Murnaghan. George | Verney, F. W. |
| Gulland, John W. | Murray, James | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Myers, Horaio | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Napier, T. B. | Wardle, George J. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire,NE. | Nicholls, George | Warner, Thomas CourtenayT. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Nicholson,CharlesN. (Doncast'r | Wason.RtHnE. (Clackmannan |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney |
| Helme, Norval Watson | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire |
| Hodge, John | O'Graly, J. | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | White, Patrick(Meath, North) |
| Hudson, Walter | Parker, James (Halifax) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Pearson,Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Whitley,John Henry(Halifax) |
| Jenkins, J. | Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk,Eye) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rthn |
| Jones,Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wilson, HenryJ. (York,W.R) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Price,C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central) | Wilson, P. W (St. PancrasS.) |
| JonesWilliam(Carnarvonshire | Priestley,W. E. B. (Bradford | Wilson,W.T. (Westhoughton) |
| Joyce, Michael | Rainy, A. Rolland | Young, Samuel |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Raphael, Herbert H. | |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Redmond, John E.(Waterford) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Kelly, George D. | Redmond, William(Clare) | |
| Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Rees, J. D. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Forster, Henry William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gardner,Ernest (Berks, East) | Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gretton, John | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harris, Fredrick Leverton | Valentia, Viscount |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Liddell, Henry | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Cavendish,Rt. Hon. VictorC. W. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | |
| Corlett, A.Cameron (Glasgow) | PeaseHerbertPike(Darlington | TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Fell. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Salter, Arthur Clavell | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
§ On the Question that the Bill be reported without Amendment to the House,
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not wish to divide the House on the Question which had been put from the Chair, 1048 but he wanted to express the regret which was felt on that side of the House at the refusal of the Postmaster-General to accept the Amendments which they had moved in the most conciliatory manner. They had done their best to facilitate and to assist the passage of the Bill through the House, and he thought they might have been met by the right 1049 hon. Gentleman on the very small but important Amendments which they had proposed. If they had been accepted they would not have interfered with the carrying out of the Bill or with its object. Of course, the measure would have to be considered on another stage, but then he supposed in all probability nothing would be done to meet them. With regard to the Bill itself—
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the only Question before the House was the Motion to report the Bill without amendment to the House, and the hon. Member was not in order in rediscussing the Bill.
§ SIR F. BANBURYasked whether it was not in order on the Motion to report the Bill to express an opinion on the Bill itself.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid it would not be in order. It would only be in order to ask a question, or to give some special reason why the Bill should not be reported.
§ Bill reported without Amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time.''
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid it would now be in order to put forward the arguments he had attempted to address to the Committee a few moments previously. Ho regretted very much that the Amendment moved on Clause G was not accepted, because he thought it was wrong that public rights of way should not be safe guarded on the usual lines. At the present time attempts were being made to alter the law with regard to public rights of way and to make it more difficult than at present to abolish them. Ho did not see why a Government Department without recourse to law should be allowed to close streets and public road ways in the way proposed by this Bill.