CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [BY ORDER.] (Hansard, 6 May 1907)

§ * MR. MORTON,
in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said he had to oppose this railway Bill on the Second Reading because the Corporation had no locus standi before the Committee. The Bill proposed to confer powers upon the Central London Company in regard to their undertaking, and it was opposed by the Corporation, not because it did any work within the City, but because a necessary work which should have been included had been left out. As long ago as 1897 they were considering the question of subways in front of the Royal Exchange, and how they could be connected up with the railways. If they took the trouble to road the minutes of the Corporation they would find that in 1897, when this matter was being considered, they received notice that a station was about to be built at the corner of Lombard Street, also called the Bank Station on the City and South London Electric Railway. When the plans were submitted for that station they objected to them, and called upon the South London Company to connect up their station by a subway with the Central Railway Company's station, on the level of the booking office, and also a deep level subway. When the matter was being considered Sir Benjamin Baker wrote to them stating that the terms asked by the Central London Railway Company made the carrying of the Corporation's proposals practically prohibitory on account of the very large sum which they were asked by the Central London Company to carry it out. The Corporation eventually got the deep level subway connection which had been of great use to the public and the Companies; but not desiring to press the City and South London Railway too harshly they gave up for the moment their demand for the booking office level subway. In 1901 the Central Railway Company themselves came before the Corporation committee, and at that time they intended to present a Bill to Parliament to complete their circle as they called it. The Corporation thereupon told the railway company that they would not consider their Bill until they had settled the question of communication between their own line and the City and South London Railway and King William Street. Thereupon the 1434 company agreed to construct the subway, making only one condition, that the City and South London Railway should agree to it. They went so far as to submit a plan of this subway and the Corporation approved the plans and considered the matter settled. The position of the matter now was that although five years had gone by, nothing had been done to construct the subway. Those who knew anything about city traffic knew how necessary it was that everything should be done to make use of these subway facilities. A letter was written by the Town Clerk to the City and South London Railway in regard to this subway, and they replied that they had no objection to it, and nothing was said about their paying any part of the expense. Ever since the year 1902 they had been unable to get the subway built, and the reason the Corporation were opposing the Bill now was that the construction of the subway ought to have been included in the Bill as promised. He knew they argued that the construction was subject to a concession that another subway should be taken over by the Corporation, but that had nothing to do with the matter. Instead of constructing the subways as promised, the company now repudiated the matter altogether. The City Corporation were acting in the interests of the public, and he made no excuse for bringing the matter forward. He regretted to say that corporations got little sympathy from Parliament with regard to matters which were not personal to the corporations, and he was sorry that the Board of Trade had seen fit to attack them as if they had some personal interest in this matter. The first duty of the Board of Trade ought to be to protect the public against all those companies. When these consessions and monopolies were granted to railway companies it was assumed that they were not granted for the benefit of shareholders, speculators, or adventurers, and he hoped the Corporation of the City of London would get some assistance from the Board of Trade in this matter. He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

§ * MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)
said it was the duty of the Board of Trade to protect the interest of the public, and he denied that they favoured companies. He thought it was very wrong of the hon. Member to make any accusation of that kind. The Board of Trade had a duty to perform in connection with these matters, and they always acted impartially, leaving their mind open and affording opportunities to both parties to state their grievances. They had always endeavoured as much as they possibly could to deal fairly with both sides. In regard to this Bill he had had the advantage of seeing the chairman of the Central London Railway and their solicitor, who had informed him that when they made their railway in 1897 they arranged for the construction of certain subways. But the Corporation of the City imposed that obligation on them and they had carried it out. They had also made a footpath under the street to avoid heavy traffic under the Mansion House. Further than that they had laid a subway into which all the water pipes, post-office wires, and other pipes were gathered together. The Corporation was the authority for underground pipes, but in regard to this particular pipe subway the Central London Railway were mainly responsible. In November 1901 the company lodged notices of their intention to carry on the existing railway to such an extent as to convert it into a circular railway, and they opened friendly negotiations; with the Corporation of the City of London on the basis of getting the Corporation to take over the pipe subway in return for which they were willing to make the underground connection described as the King William Street subway. The basis of the negotiations was that a circular railway should be made, and if that was not done the negotiations were to come to nothing. They agreed to make a subway, and certain conditions were undertaken by the Corporation. The 1902 Bill for a circular railway was rejected by the House. At that time all the railway 1436 Bills affecting London were hung up in consequence of the appointment of the Commission on London traffic. He had read at considerable trouble the enormous amount of correspondence which had passed between the two parties, and he was bound to say that he saw nothing in it which would substantiate the case which his hon. friend sought to make. There was an undertaking to make a subway, with conditions. He knew nothing of the rights and wrongs of the case; he formed the opinion he had stated from the correspondence and from a paragraph in a letter written by one of the partners of the solicitors of the company, in which he said— I have no hesitation in saying that there is not, and never was, an unconditional agreement on the part of the Central London Railway to construct a subway. That was the impression which he got himself from the correspondence. Seeing that this Bill sought to extend the f Shepherd's Bush end of the line by a few chains, he thought his hon. friend would be well advised if he withdrew his opposition at this moment.

§ MR. MOORE (Armagh, N.)
said he believed he could speak on this matter with absolute impartiality. He congratulated the Parliamentary Secretary on the fair way in which he had put the matter. He thought the statement of the hon. Gentleman would convey absolute conviction, but for one circumstance, namely, that he appeared to have collected his entire information from one side only.

§ MR. KEARLEY
May I correct the hon. and learned gentleman? The Board of Trade have gone into both sides of the case in detail, and I have looked into both sides.

§ MR. MOORE
said he was far from saying that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in the conclusion arrived at. He probably was right. From the statement, made by the hon. Gentleman it occurred to him that he had only received the account of one side of the case. He accepted the statement of the hon. Gentleman that he had been to both parties. If he had not interviewed the Corporation, as well as the Central London Railway, although he might be right in the conclusion he had 1437 arrived at, it would be a conclusion arrived at on an ex parte statement.

§ MR. KEARLEY
I read the whole of the correspondence between the parties. I did not go further.

§ MR. MOORE
said the hon. Gentleman had interviewed the solicitors of the Central London Railway, and as he understood he had had no communication with the representatives of the Corporation.

§ * MR. MORTON
None whatever; he has not consulted us in any way.

§ MR. MOORE
said that was the only point which he thought defective in the fair statement which the Parliamentary Secretary had placed before the House. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire had asked the House not to allow advantages to be given by the railway company in one part of London because of a breach of agreement alleged to have been committed in another part. He understood that was the entire case put by the hon. Member.

§ * MR. MORTON
That was the only way I could put it.

§ MR. MOORE
said he was glad he had not misunderstood the hon. Member's remarks. Surely all this matter depended on a question of fact. The strength of the hon. Member's position depended on two things, first, that there was an agreement between the two parties, and, secondly, that the agreement was not carried out. The ascertainment of facts was a matter which this House left to be dealt with by Committees upstairs on the evidence brought before them. The question whether there was or was not an agreement was one which the House could not decide. If there was an agreement which the railway company had not carried out, the corporation could during the past six years have brought an action to enforce it before the Railway Commission or in the Chancery Division. The hon. Member had said that the Corporation represented the public. If this agreement was in the interest of the public, the Corporation had grossly neglected its duty to the public for six years in not taking steps to enforce it.

§ * MR. MORTON
May I tell my hon. friend that the Corporation had no sealed agreement. It is all contained in letters, and they had hoped they might trust to the honour of the company.

§ MR. MOORE
said he did not think that a technical objection, that the agreement was not sealed, would weigh for much with the Chancery Division or the Railway Commission if equity was against the company. The Corporation had not attempted for six years to enforce the agreement. He thought, therefore, it would be contrary to the dignity of the House and ordinary fair usage between company and company, and man and man, if the House were to agree to the Motion which the hon. Member had made to penalise the company in respect of a dispute of such very ancient origin. He was quite prepared to agree to the Bill going upstairs in the ordinary way for examination by an independent Committee.

§ * MR MORTON
asked whether he might be allowed to correct a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, which was entirely incorrect?

* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member cannot be allowed to make a second speech unless it is merely a personal explanation.