§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,) Lancashire, RossendaleAlthough I sacrifice my right to reply to any criticisms which may be made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think they would really wish that I should shortly explain the object of this Bill, and having done so I shall ask them to pass it practically without objection through this stage. Its object is in fact a continuation of the late Government's plan, which is founded on the Report of the Committee of 1897. It is a plan to complete the block of new public offices which has just been finished and uncovered at the corner of Whitehall down Great George Street as far as St. James's Park. In the process we shall abolish Delahay Street, which will be no longer wanted as a public thoroughfare. We have acquired the building of the Institution of Civil Engineers, making an arrangement to rehouse them on the south side of Great George Street, at the corner of Princes Street, a small accommodation road leading from Storey's Gate to Westminster Hospital. We shall take advantage of that operation to widen Princes Street, which will be a considerable public convenience. The whole terms of purchase of the Institute of Civil Engineers have now been settled by friendly negotiation between them and myself. I was obliged to give notice of this Bill, which is in the nature of a hybrid Bill, under the Standing Order last November. At that time the agreement with the Civil Engineers was not complete, and therefore I was obliged to include in the Bill a notice which would apply compulsion to the acquisition of their site, though I never had any intention of using compulsion, because, as hon. members know, the Institution of Civil Engineers have always had the impression that they had had some under-taking from the Government that their site Would not be required. The Office of Works has never been able to accept that contention, nor is there any written proof of it, but the final and friendly agreement I have described having been come to, the compulsory clause may disappear from the Bill in Committee upstairs. 1177 In the new building we shall house the Board of Trade, and, if possible, some of the smaller offices, such as the Office of Works or the Board of Agriculture, which are greatly in need of further accommodation, though, of course, I cannot pledge myself as to what at the completion of the building four or five years hence may be the requirements of the Board of Trade, or of the Education Office or Local Government Board, which are going to be placed in the new building now complete. What perhaps will interest the House most is the fact that the money for the acquisition of the whole site is available under the loans provisions of the Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1903, Most of the freeholds have already been acquired by agreement and voluntary sale, though there are a few leaseholds and some freeholds still to be acquired. The cost of erection is provided for in the Budget, and a clause setting aside £600,000 out of the realised surplus of last year will appear in the Finance Bill. Under the arrangement, therefore, no capital outlay at all will be entailed upon future years. In addition there is a provision for making an enlargement of the Patent Office, which is required owing to the greater amount of work entailed upon them by the Act of 1907. This addition of site and building is estimated to cost about £90,000. That is to be provided for out of annual Votes, and the House in Committee has already provided £10,000 this year on account of that sum. Then there is one other provision of interest relating to Scotland yard. The Bill takes power to stop up part of a nominal road in Scotland yard, really a service or accommodation road which passes behind a disused police building, and by an agreement which the Commissioners of Woods have been able to make with the Westminster City Council we shall have an improved thoroughfare through old Scotland yard leading to Whitehall and the Embankment for the use of the public. By doing this and stopping the part of the disused road and using the old police building I shall be able to accommodate on the site a new Army recruiting station, and in that way I shall get rid of a large remnant of St. George's Barracks and of the recruiting station behind the National Gallery. I shall remove from the neighbourhood of the National Gallery and the National 1178 Portrait Gallery a building which has always had some element of risk from I fire, and I shall gain a site also for the extension of both these galleries in the future. Persons interested will be able to appear before the Select Committee, upon which I shall myself sit, by counsel or agents. I beg to move.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the details of the proposals in this Bill, and I should say in the first place that the scheme to extend the public offices down to St. James's Park is one which possibly will be approved of generally throughout the House, and one which is necessary owing to the growth of Government Departments. But the point which impresses people irrespective of the needs of these public departments, is as to the financial liabilities that may be involved. I understood the First Commissioner to say that this Bill will cost no money.
§ MR. HARCOURTwas understood to say that there were no future capital liabilities.
§ LORD BALCARRESOf course, it is rather important to make oneself clear on that point. In saying that it involves no capital liabilities the right hon. Gentleman must, in looking at the present year, see that it involves a capital liability of £600,000, which is capital belonging to the nation, and it is going to be diverted from one branch of the national service to another. There is a precedent for intercepting money which would otherwise pass to the reduction of the National Debt, and that is the case of the erection of public buildings. These public buildings are, happily, of a substantial nature and likely to increase in value. In view of the enormous increase which is likely to take place in the value of sites it would probably pay the nation better to spend this half a million upon public buildings than to devote it to the repayment of the National Debt. I am quite ready to approve of the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he must 1179 not state that this Bill involves no capital charge. The initial capital charge is £600,000, and that has to be found during the present year. It has been the policy of the Government for the last ten years to acquire as many sites as possible with a view to the ultimate and inevitable increase of departmental requirements. I do not think that the whole of these sites belong to us at present. Then there is the provision of a new building for the Institution of the Civil Engineers. I should like to point out to the House—and I am limiting myself to the financial aspect of these questions—that it is a very serious thing when a Government has to come forward with a proposal of this nature that it should have to pull down a building which was erected only about ten or twelve years ago. It is a building of a most substantial character, and the cost of its erection was something fabulous. In this Bill, while we take the right, to demolish that structure, the Government undertake the responsibility of finding an alternative site elsewhere. The site found already belongs in part to the Government; that is to say the new building will be placed upon land upon which some capital outlay has already been incurred. But this Bill only provides for the site. I presume the Government is going to erect the new building, and I wish to know what it is going to cost. Let me here congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having adjusted rather a delicate operation with the Institution of Civil Engineers. I understand that we are going to pull down their building and use their site, and we are now providing a new site for their new building to be erected upon. Who is going to erect that new building? The Civil Engineers are not, because they paid a quarter of a million for the erection of a structure from which they are now going to be removed. I presume that we shall have not only to pay for the erection of our own Government building upon the site of the Civil Engineers' building, but also to rehouse that assembly in a building equal to that which they now occupy. I cannot help thinking that the cost of that will amount to a very substantial sum. How is that money provided? My right hon. friend beside me and Lord Windsor passed three Bills in 1895, 1898, and 1903, providing money for public sites analogous to these and buildings for public purposes. 1180 I do not think that in any of these three years—certainly not in the last—we took power to borrow money for the erection of buildings other than public buildings. I cannot help thinking that a somewhat pessimistic tone ran through the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He declared that no capital outlay was to be incurred in future years. We recognise that as a doctrine strongly supported by the present Administration. Rosyth, which by means of a loan would have been concluded within three or four years, has been placed upon the Votes and it is going to take ten years. Barracks, which used to be built out of loan money, were rapidly completed and the troops placed in them; but now, owing to the abandonment of the loan system, we have not got the barracks at all, for they have been sacrificed to this new canon of financial purity, although it is extremely bad for the service. If the right hon. Gentleman precludes us from borrowing money and no financial outlay is to be incurred, he runs a very serious risk of checking the development of these buildings. When is the new building for the Institution of Civil Engineers to be commenced? The building at present occupied by this institution will, in the course of the next few months, be pulled down. It is rather alarming that in ten years a Minister should have to come to this House to pass Bills of this character, because it marks what is really an alarming growth in the numbers and personnel of our public service. I agree with the Attorney-General as to the efficiency, zeal, and good spirit shown by our public servants, but at the same time I think we can be over-governed. During five years we covered five or six acres with public buildings within 300 yards of this Chamber, and in the subsequent two years we have built over more than two acres, not to mention vast expenditure on public buildings under the supervision of the right hon. Gentleman all over the country. That very fact in its political and social aspect is one which is well brought home to the community by Bills of this character. I know that is not the responsibility of the First Commissioner of Works, because the various departments have turned to him for accommodation, and this has stimulated him to activity. With regard to this question of finance, I do not remember in 1181 the last three Bills what the total outlay was, but I rather think it ran into millions. As a rule I know the estimates are exceeded. I should like to say that the Office of Works is not responsible for the fact that estimates are often so largely exceeded; the Treasury is primarily to blame for cutting down those estimates to the minimum figure. The House ought also to remember that when you deal with interests of this character and this size, when you undertake to erect buildings on from two to four acres of ground, the scale of operations is so enormous, and the period necessary for their completion is so long, that it is difficult and in many cases impossible for the contractor correctly to estimate what the rise or fall in wages and materials may be during the years he is carrying out his contract. I wish to have a more specific statement as to the cost. We have not very great confidence in this Government and its economical supporters on questions of finance. Pledged to economy, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, reinforced and stimulated by his hon. friends behind and around him, have now committed the country to an expenditure little short of gigantic, and exceeding by many millions annually the total sum which it fell to the lot of the late Conservative Government to submit to the House of Commons. In the last two days we have learned that their financial righteousness is going to be somewhat sullied next year, when in order to meet all these obligations principles are to be abandoned and the sinking fund raided.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. I think the noble Lord had better postpone those criticisms until we reach the Finance Bill.
§ LORD BALCARRESI think it is desirable that so far as possible the right hon. Gentleman should tell us actually what the annual expenditure is which he anticipates apart from this present capital outlay upon the block of buildings and upon the buildings to be placed upon the site in Princes Street during the five years which it will probably take to complete them. There is one small further comment I should like to make. In Clause 6 the Commissiosners take power to erect an archway over Downing Street. I have no doubt there is a good technical reason for putting that clause in the Bill, 1182 but I cannot help thinking that the First Commissioner had the right to erect this arch without taking a clause to entitle him to do so. The First Commissioner acting as he does in harmony and co-operation with the Commissioners for Crown Estates and Woods and Forests seems to me to possess powers over these Government and Crown Estates far in excess of the powers belonging to the ordinary private individual, and, although the latter part of the clause is obviously necessary to authorise him to close the street while the structural alterations are being made, I cannot help feeling that in the other part he is asking for a right which he already possesses, and to that extent he is prejudicing or discounting the rights and privileges which, as First Commissioner, he already holds. So long as the right hon. Gentleman in making this arch does not endanger the life and limb of London citizens, I think he has the right to make the arch, and unless it is necessary to have this provision in the Bill, I think it would be on the whole wise to omit it.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months. The Bill appeared to him to be one to carry out an ambitious and costly scheme for the erection of public buildings on sites that were extremely valuable. Within 300 yards of this House there was land available for the purpose of housing the most important Departments of the State, and that could be obtained for less than a tenth of the value of the particular sites now proposed to he acquired. A very great change had during the past two or three years come over the appearance of the surroundings of this House. Owing to the praiseworthy action of the London County Council large portions of slum property which stood on land to the west of the Houses of Parliament had been pulled down, and there were now sites which could be acquired for the purpose of public offices quite as near this House as most of the expensive and elaborate buildings put up in Parliament Street. One would have thought that a Parliament pledged to retrenchment and economy in every possible way would have considered whether they could not make some improvement on the unnecessarily extravagant plans of their predecessors. When in opposition they 1183 said they were going to do it, and yet when they got into office one of the very first things they proceeded to do was to carry out schemes which, when initiated by their predecessors, they had described as extravagant. Moreover, they were doing so in a very much more extravagant manner than there was any occasion for. If those responsible for the housing of the public departments would look at the marvellous sites which were made available in the neighbourhood of the Church of St. John they would find there ground sufficient for any reasonable extension of most of the public departments for years to come at a very small outlay. One reason why he very much objected to this Bill was that it involved the acquisition and pulling down of buildings which had not been up for twenty years. He referred to the Institution of Civil Engineers. Everything that skill from the engineering and architectural point of view could do in connection with that building had been done, and yet, forsooth, because it was supposed to stand in the way of some set of plans it was proposed to pull it down and, at enormous cost, to erect another building in its place. One could hardly imagine how, without regard to the common feelings of ordinary property owners, a Bill of this kind could be brought before the House. For instance it was proposed by subsection (a) of Clause 2 that—
The provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land and access to the special Act and section one hundred and thirty-three of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (relating to land tax and poor rate) shall not be incorporated with this Act.On the face of it that looked harmless enough, but what did it amount to? If these most valuable sites were acquired for public offices, and if a few yards of land were left unused at Some corner or at the side of the property, the Government would, under section 128 of the Lands Clauses Act, be obliged within a specified period to allow the previous owner of the property to take back the unused portion. Subsection (a) meant that the Government would be placed in a position superior to the ordinary law of the land, and that they would not be obliged to give the previous owner the offer of the unused portion. What was the meaning of the words "access to the special Act" in the sub-section? Section 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act would 1184 oblige the Government if, having acquired these sites and pulled down buildings, they caused a temporary loss on the land tax or the poor rate, to make good the amount of the loss. By slipping the words of the sub-section (a) into this Bill the Government would be relieved from that obligation with respect to the land tax and the poor-rate. Sub-section (c) was in the following terms—The bond required by section eighty-five of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be under the common seal of the Commissioners, and shall be sufficient without the addition of the sureties mentioned in that section.He did not think the Government when they acquired sites for public offices should be relieved from the obligations to which public bodies were subjected by Section 85 of the 1845 Act. Why not bring in a measure to strike out that clause in the main Act, if that was a proper thing to do, but why should the Government solemnly seek to be relieved from a statutory obligation which they imposed on every private citizen? But the most objectionable clause was in subsection (e), the effect of which was that if a claimant did not send in his claim at a particular time, and with the particulars of his demand in a statutory form, to enable the Commissioner to make a proper offer, he was saddled with the whole costs. He had had experience of these matters for forty or fifty years, and he had never seen a suggestion equal to that in its audacity from a property point of view. When he saw Bills like this—Post Office Sites Bills, for instance—and saw a public department, for petty purposes of their own, trying to relieve themselves from the statutory obligations which private citizens and other public bodies were under throughout the whole kingdom, he was inclined to resent it. These were minor or subordinate grounds for moving the rejection of the Bill, but there was a much larger question involved. In housing our public departments, when sites could be got for a trifle compared with the cost of the land proposed to be taken, it was the duty of those concerned with the administration of the country to have some regard to economy as well as efficiency. Cheaper sites should be selected, and the departments housed in a less gorgeous manner. In the present case that was all the more necessary as the proposed 1185 buildings would shortly require to be altered or pulled down altogether, because of the utterly inadequate supply of light to many of the rooms. The whole project was capable of being criticised and condemned on other grounds than those to which he had referred, but he would content himself with these observations, and formally move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment. He was glad to see the hon. Member for Sutherland in his place, for that hon. Gentleman should have something to say on the proposals of this Bill on the ground of economy. He knew that the hon. Member had no fear of criticising his own Party, and as he would show the House that the expenditure proposed by the Bill was extravagant, he trusted to have the support of the hon. Member in the division lobby. He objected to the Bill because he was inclined to think that it was unnecessary. It was a self-evident proposition that up to the present time they had got on very well without this building. He did not know that the efficiency of the public officers had, in any kind of way, been lessened on account of the inadequacy of the housing provision. They seemed to have got on very well with their work. He did not gather from the remarks of the First Commissioner of Works that he considered the accommodation now existing not sufficient for the staff, but rather that the proposed building would be part of a finished plan and no doubt would be more comfortable for the staff. So far as he could see, the work carried out by the First Commissioner had been extremely good and very artistic, but he was afraid very expensive. He was inclined to think from the observations he had made of the right hon. Gentleman's career, that from his love of art and his desire to get his own way he was rather apt to outrun his discretion, and to spend more money than was absolutely necessary. He really thought that they should be careful before they sanctioned any expenditure of this sort. The object of the Bill, of course, was to acquire sites, but before acquiring sites 1186 they must fix upon a plan. Nothing was so expensive as a London building. There was nothing nicer than to look at a plan and see how it could be carried out in an excellent way. It was very charming and very seductive; but when it was all carried out and they found that the expenditure had exceeded the estimate, the taxpayer would be inclined to say that he would rather see the older building retained than a new building erected and great expense incurred. He wished to ask what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do with the existing Board of Trade buildings. They were very good buildings and had been in existence for a very considerable time. He was not at all sure that the buildings put up years ago were not, if not so ornamental, more simple and more suited to their purpose than the new buildings. Take, for instance, the Law Courts, which had been described in very strong terms by the people who passed their lives in them. The present Board of Trade buildings were very excellent for their purpose and were much quieter than the new building would be. Then, it had to be remembered that there was a tendency to increase the public service with the erection of new buildings; and the bigger the buildings the more that tendency increased. New buildings had a direct tendency to create new posts and on that account he would rather see the present buildings somewhat congested. The right hon. Gentleman had not used the argument that there was no room in the present buildings for the existing Government officials. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that there was a public-house at the corner of Princes Street, and what compensation he was going to give to the owner?
§ *MR. HARCOURTWe are not going to touch it.
§ SIR F. BANBURYOh! I am very glad.
§ *MR. HARCOURTHear, hear.
§ SIR F. BANBURYFor the sake of the Government and of the owner of the public-house. The question of the 1187 cost of the new building had been dismissed in a very airy way. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was to be sanctioned out of capital expenditure. He was rather surprised at that. He would have supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would have put the cost on the Estimates, for his Party always said that that was the proper way of carrying on the finances of the country. After all, it came to this, that when he and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had a desire to do something their financial purity disappeared and they took the way that was open to the least resistance and obtained the money by borrowing rather than by putting it on the expenditure of the year. There was an important provision in the Bill alluded to by the hon. Member for one of the Liverpool divisions; and that was as to the question of rates. He was not a lawyer, but, as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman had introduced some very innocent-looking words in a clause which would deprive the City of Westminster of a large amount of rates. Pending the construction of the building on the site, the Government would not be liable for the rates. That was rather a good thing for the Government, but was rather hard upon the citizens of the City of Westminster. Why should the Government put themselves in a different position from that which would have to be occupied by a private person, and by an alteration of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act evade the payment of rates during the erection of the building? One of the reasons he objected to this Bill was the destruction of the building of the Civil Engineers, and he would like to know why that building could not be adapted. It was a very fine one it was erected only some ten or twelve years ago, and might be made suitable for the Board of Trade. The ornamental outline might not be as fine, but in these days, even if their finances were better than they were, they might sacrifice ornament for utility. The President of the Board of Trade was going to have an increased salary, and he did not think he wanted a very ornamental building; he might content himself with the office which had been suitable for 1188 the Civil Engineers, and at a very much less cost than was provided for in the Bill a very suitable office might be obtained. He did not propose to ask any questions about Clause 2, because it was all legal and he did not understand it. This again was one of those Bills which were full of references to other Acts. The meaning of the Bill could only be learnt after one had gone through all those Acts, and referred to all the clauses. He thought that was a very bad way of drawing up a Bill, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen when they were on that side complained of it, but when they were on the other side they continued the bad practice, and it was waste of time to endeavour to get them to alter it. He wanted to know why subsection 2 of Clause 3, which gave power to stop up public thoroughfares, was inserted. The power to stop up public thoroughfares was a very great one to give even to the right hon. Gentleman. It looked quite simple, and gave the Commissioners power to do this, but provided that they should not exercise it in respect of any thoroughfare unless they were owners in possession of all the houses and land along both sides of the thoroughfare. On the face of it, it looked a very reasonable provision, but he would like to know what advantage it would be to the public that the Commissioners owned the land on both sides of the street. The public did not want to go into the houses on both sides of the street, but to walk down the street, going in at one end and coming out at the other. He believed that this statement about the Commissioners owning both sides of the street was one of those extraordinary things which were put into Bills, but he could not see that it had anything to do with the stopping of public thoroughfares. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them an assurence that this power would not be exercised if it was in any kind of way objected to by the people who were likely to use the street. Then, again, he saw in Sub-section 3, the Commissioners of Woods might stop up part of Scotland Yard, but he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that this really did not stop up the thoroughfare 1189 practically and that he was going to give a thoroughfare to Whitehall. Therefore, as far as that was concerned, his objection fell to the ground. Then he came to Clause 5, which dealt with the extinction of rights of way and other easements. The Bill was exceedingly full of provisions about rights of way being vested in the Commissioners, but it was provided that men might recover from them such compensation, if any, as they were entitled to. But people might want to retain their rights and not want to be compensated for them, and he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should take these particular rights away from the holders. Clause 9 seemed to him to be a very extraordinary clause, giving power to the Commissioners to widen a portion of Princes Street within certain limits. The cost of repaving that portion of the street when widened, it was provided, should be borne by the council of the City of Westminster. Why should not the Commissioners pay for the repaving of the street which they wanted to widen for their own objects, instead of seeking to put it upon the council of the City of Westminster? He did not know whether there was any hon. Member who represented the City of Westminster present, but if there was he hoped that he would have his attention drawn to this clause and endeavour to get the Government to delete it when it went to a Committee. He thought that the Bill was unnecessary, and would cost a great deal of money and, so far from its doing any good, he was inclined to think it might do a great deal of harm, because it might induce the Government to create a large number of officials to fill up the beautiful rooms. Under these circumstances he would prefer not to have any officials or beautiful rooms, but to keep what little money was left in his pocket by the right hon. Gentleman. He begged to second.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. W. W. Rutherford.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
1190§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's)I desire to say only a few words, and I am afraid not in support of my hon. friends who have moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill. I think the Bill is a desirable and necessary Bill, and I do not think it is open to the charges which my hon. friends made in disparagement of it. I think that for its purpose the cost is extremely moderate. The First Commissioner said that the whole cost of the site had already been provided for by the Act of 1903, which also provided for the removal and rebuilding of the Institution of Engineers. We have also heard from the Prime Minister and the First Commissioner of Works to-day that the funds for the new building are largely if not entirely provided for by this £6000,000 out of the Budget surplus of the present year. If any culpability attaches with regard to this policy I am as fully culpable as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. This Bill is carrying out the policy which it appeared to me to be my duty and my pleasure to initiate some ten or twelve years ago in this House. If I in most things share the views of my hon. friend the Member for the City of London, I certainly do not share his views, as to æsthetic matters. He would like to go back to the time when King Street existed and the condition of Parliament Street was such that it was almost impossible to getto the House of Commons; there was always a great block of traffic, and certainly one of the most beautiful thoroughfares in London had not been created. I do not wish to go back to those days. I think the policy which was put forward some ten or twelve years ago really satisfies me, and I am only anxious to support the right hon. Gentleman in the effort he is now making to complete that building, and also the wing which is to extend to St. James' Park. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment suggested that there were much cheaper sites, which might be obtained in the neighbourhood of the House, and rather suggested that we should purchase slum property in the neighbourhood of Millbank in order to erect these buildings. But he has entirely, I think, overlooked the convenience of public offices, that they ought at all events to be handy to each 1191 other and in the same neighbourhood, and he has entirely set aside the whole æsthetic part of the question. Then the hon. Gentleman complained of the buildings which had been erected, and for which I was responsible, by saying that they were badly planned and that there was a great want of light and accommodation. Certainly that is news to me. I have always heard from those who moved into those buildings that the arrangements were extremely good and that the accommodation was of a character which spoke well for the work of the department. Then the hon. Gentleman said that he thought the old buildings were as suitable for public offices as the new buildings that were going to be erected. If he had served, as some of us have, in temporary offices, I think he would find he is mistaken. The Minister who is generally housed in the drawing-room in an old house has a very good office, but the unfortunate clerks and draftsmen who are in cellars and attics certainly would not be so comfortable. The work will also be carried out better in a building where you have your staff ready to hand. I remember, in regard to one of the former Bills, being able to state to the House that one of the recommendations was that it was convenient, from the staff point of view, to bring them all under one roof; in the case of one office the staff was under seventeen different roofs. It is quite impossible that business can be properly administered under such circumstances. I do not see much force in the remark of my hon. friend that we should do better to remain as we are. I maintain that all the chief administrative departments ought to be close together. By placing them close together the general efficiency of the service would be promoted. I wish to make one or two remarks with reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. The First Commissioner told us that he has taken power in this Bill to connect the public offices in Downing Street by an archway. That would be extremely convenient, and will tend to improve the alignment of Whitehall. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has come to a friendly settlement with the Institution of Engineers. 1192 There was an impression prevalent that there had been some sort of promise made to them, but it was not made through myself, nor has there been any understanding of that character given with my sanction. I am glad that we have not had to use compulsory powers, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having arrived at a friendly settlement. It will be a great improvement if, during the re-building of the new Institution for the Civil Engineers, Prince's Street is widened, because that will tend to relieve the congestion of traffic a good deal, and will certainly improve that locality.
§ *MR. HARCOURTI thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said about my negotiations with the Institution of Civil Engineers. I ought first to correct a misapprehension which might arise from my previous speech. In relation to the Institute of Civil Engineers, what I intended to convey was that a friendly agreement having been arrived at with them I hoped that there was no prospect of the compulsory powers of the Bill having to be put into operation against them. But owing to the terms of our agreement it is desirable that the Bill should be passed in the form in which it is presented, and no amendment will be necessary. I hope that after I have replied to the various points which have been raised the House will be willing to come to a decision upon this measure. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London made several observations and asked several questions, and I should have been glad to have given him the information personally, if he had been here to receive it. He said it was an extraordinary proposition that the cost of re-paving Prince's Street, consequent upon the widening of that thoroughfare, should be paid by the Westminster City Council. I may point out that we are offering to the City of Westminster a valuable accommodation for which we have to pay, and all we are asking in return is that the council shall undertake the paving of the piece of ground we are offering them for the convenience of the traffic. The idea that it would be the more economical course to adapt the building of the Civil Engineers to the purposes of the Board 1193 of Trade would, I think, be dispelled by a visit to that institution. Unless it had been found absolutely necessary it would not have been proposed to destroy so valuable a building. I regret that owing apparently to some misunderstanding it should have been erected on a site which to many people must have seemed more or less earmarked for Government purposes. The present distribution of the work of the Board of Trade among many private houses in many parts of London greatly hampers the efficiency of the office. When the Board is accommodated in one building, there will be a saving of the rent of other buildings which will be surrendered. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool asked several legal questions on Clause 2, but I should have thought, from the point of view of convenience, they would have been dealt with best in Committee, because they were mere technical points of procedure. With regard to the point raised on subsection (a) of Clause 2 by the hon. Member, I may say, if it is any satisfaction to him, that there will be no superfluous land, and if there is it will go into the street. There is no departure under subsection (a) from the ordinary course. The hon. Member also made an allusion to subsection (e) of Clause 2, which he thought was unusual. I can assure him that is not so, for the provision is a common one. The noble Lord the Member for Chorley put some questions to me, and he expressed some doubts as to whether it is necessary that I should take power to construct an archway over Downing Street. I am not sure that it is necessary, but I have certainly not sacrificed or prejudiced any right in the future by inserting this provision. I have, however, made the position of my successors easier. If they wish to construct an archway, no doubt can be cast on their power to do so. The noble Lord also referred to the proposal to pull down the building of the Institution of Civil Engineers as an extremely costly course. It has been suggested that the building probably cost £200,000. I do not know what the original cost was, but I know how much is being accepted for it. [An HON. MEMBER: How much?] Roughly, £40,000. This money has been provided out of the Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1194 1903, passed for that purpose by hon. Gentlemen opposite and their Government. It is not the case that out of that money the Government are constructing a new building for the Civil Engineers. With the money paid to them, the latter will erect a new building. It is not the erection of a new building which the Government undertook, but the purchase of a building which for our own purposes we wish to destroy. It is a mistake to suppose that I am arranging in this Bill for some borrowing in the future. The borrowing is all done under the Act of 1903. The £600,000 from the realised surplus of last year produces without borrowing the money necessary for building on the site when it has been acquired. The moment the Bill passes I will proceed to the acquisition of the site, after which the demolition of the old buildings and the erection of the new one will follow without delay. The building, which will be completed in accordance with the designs of the late Mr. Brydon, will not be in addition to existing accommodation. It will take the place of a large number of existing buildings, but it will provide better accommodation than they do. The cost of the buildings—which I hope may be completed in a few years—with other incidental expenses included, will be covered by the £600,000. I think I have answered the questions put to me by hon. Members, and I hope the House will now be not unwilling to go to a division.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)said he did not think very much remained to be said on the merits of this proposal, but, after the criticisms they had heard, it appeared to him that there was some evidence of what they might call bungling. He thought the Office of Works ought to have had their eyes open to the fact that this site was suitable for a public building, and could have been obtained ten or twelve years ago, when it came into the market. It was allowed to go to the body of Civil Engineers, and £40,000 had been entirely thrown away. It might be that the First Commissioner was not personally responsible, but the Office he represented was responsible, and the House would be wrong if it allowed the Bill to pass without criticism 1195 of the fact that a valuable site had been permitted to go, and that now a building worth £40,000 was ruthlessly to be pulled down in order to erect buildings which at the time the site could have been got it might have been conceived would speedily be required. Apart from that, they had the broad fact that something like £600,000 was going to be added to the capital of the public debt in order to carry out this new scheme. That might be a small sum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Commissioner, but to him it appeared a very large sum. He would have expected the First Commissioner to commence with an apology in regard to the sum of money involved. He respected the clear statement which the First Commissioner had made; but he might have commenced, at all events, with a reference to the broad fact that £600,000 had to be spent on the building. He was not at all satisfied with the explanation of his right hon. friend on the Front Bench, who would forgive him for suggesting that there was a certain contagion which came from the occupancy of a public office, and that probably he sympathised with the particular expenditure which was now under criticism. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine's said he thought that this expenditure was reasonable and that he had undertaken it. But it came to this, that this expenditure was to carry out an elevation plan. He did not think it could be said that there was any particular merit about the elevation plan. He agreed with the criticism of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that the building might have been designed for the purpose of looking æsthetic and pretty, an architect's elevation plan, but he was perfectly certain that for ordinary everyday office work the building was not suitable nor well ventilated. Even the new public offices were not well ventilated; they had heavy stone points, great mullions, and small windows. He was entirely of the opinion of the hon. Member for the City that a considerable saving might have been effected. What the hon. Baronet said was quite correct, that they would have lots of demands from officials for more and more accom- 1196 modation—rooms for porters and all sorts of things. It was the usual story. They were acquainted with it in private firms. The head clerk wanted a room, and then he needed a porter to open the door. But in public departments the abuse was infinitely worse. This House had been built for the transaction of public business, but there was scarcely a room to which a Member could take a friend to discuss any matter. It was the same no doubt at the Board of Trade offices, and in a year or two they would be having a demand—indeed, the First Commissioner of Works had hinted at it—for increased accommodation and more buildings, and so again the public purse would be called upon for large sums to be spent partly on the decoration of Westminster and to a very small extent on public work. He did not know why the Board of Trade should not go a little further west, where ground could be obtained at a smaller cost. It might be said that it would not be so convenient for the officials of the Board of Trade to drive in their cabs and motor cars, and not quite so convenient to Members, though he did not see why it was not as easy to pass one way as the other. It really would be equally as convenient, and he did not know any reason against it except that some architect had managed to get the ear of officials and have his plans brought forward and approved as æsthetic and artistic, but perhaps neither economical nor effective for their purpose. He laid emphasis on this subject, because he thought it was the duty of the House to look after the expenditure of public funds. They could do a good deal in the country with £600,000, if they only had the chance of getting hold of such a sum. But here they had the First Commissioner treating it with a light and airy touch, quite pleasing until they discovered what it meant; but he thought it was the business of an ordinary every-day business man who was a Member of that House to protest against it. The oftener the House entered its protest and made it self heard on such topics the better chance would there be of these abuses being stopped. Money saved on these smaller matters would go a very long way with Chancellors of the Exchequer in their Budgets; but 1197 whether that were so or not, he must protest against such an expenditure coming from a Government pledged to economy. He hoped that the protest made on this occasion would be borne in mind, and that public money would not be so easily granted to the officials of public departments.
§ MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)said he could not help thinking that a great mistake had been made in the course of the last few years with regard to these public offices. They had the Board of Trade offices, which were totally inadequate, and for the next four or five years they must remain in that condition. They had on the other hand a vast block of buildings which had been just erected, and which he believed was not wanted anything like so much by the departments which were going to occupy it as by the Board of Trade. At the end of four or five years they would have the magnificent site of the Board of Trade buildings, only a part of which was covered at the present time. He believed there was a tennis court and other things of that kind, which showed that there was a very large space of ground. This vacant piece of land was to be handed over to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests at the end of the period. He had very great doubts as to its being put to any good use by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; no doubt they would try to get the largest income they could out of it and out of the present Board of Trade buildings. But if the Board of Trade had been moved to the new buildings at the present time, the available site could have been used for the erection of great blocks of offices amply sufficient for any further requirements of the Government. No one could say that the site was not in a good position. He granted that Whitehall was a fine and open roadway, but he would liken it more to a motor car track than anything else. It was almost impossible to cross that roadway at the present time with safety.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman's remarks apply almost to everything except what is in this Bill.
§ MR. FELLAs to the archway in Downing Street, was it proposed to 1198 close that thoroughfare where was situate the official residence of the Prime Minister?
§ *MR. HARCOURTI take no power to close the street.
§ MR. FELLsaid they were temporarily closing Downing Street for the purpose of erecting the archway, but it interrupted access to the Prime Minister's house. He did not know whether the archway had only an artistic value, whether it was to be used as a means of communication between the two buildings, or whether it was simply intended to have an archway similar to the one opposite. There were many other points connected with the Bill. He did not see why there should be additional powers taken for prosecutions and fines in the case of people who wilfully obstructed the Commissioners in the lawful exercise of their powers. Offenders were to be prosecuted before a Court of summary jurisdiction, and the fine was not to exceed £5. He did not see why the Commissioners should seek special powers to prosecute those who obstructed them. The ordinary powers of the law, he should have thought, were sufficient. If the position of the Commissioners was correct they could certainly exercise the ordinary powers. Why they should seek special penal powers he really failed to see.
§ *MR. MORTON (Sutherland)said the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had called his attention to the Bill on the ground of public economy. He was glad the hon. Baronet mentioned the word economy, because on Wednesday he had voted for the reverse of economy as far as the people of London were concerned. He would like to keep the hon. Baronet as consistent as possible, because although he did not represent him entirely in the City of London, in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition he was all he had got. He was always in favour of economy, especially in dealing with other people's money, but he could not oppose the Bill, because in 1894, when the consideration of these schemes for improvement in the public buildings was brought about by himself and others they found, and he supposed it still continued, 1199 that a great many of the public departments had offices all over the place; that was especially so with regard to the War Office, the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board; and what they said then was that by concentrating these buildings and getting the officials all together, a great saving might be made in rent and in other ways. He remembered that eventually he got a Committee, presided over by the present Home Secretary, out of which arose the improved War Office, and so on. He admitted that the succeeding Government carried the work on until they completed the widening of Parliament Street also. He did not for a moment consider that that improvement had been completed, and therefore he could not consistently oppose his right hon. friend in endeavouring to complete that work. He asked the right hon. Gentleman in this or any other improvement he made to try and see that a good line of frontage was set on and adhered to. There was nothing so miserable as one side of Whitehall where they saw the old buildings to the north of Downing Street not in line with the newer buildings on the other side of Downing Street. He admitted that in the new buildings, both the War Office and those at the corner of Great George Street, there was a great improvement in that respect, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would bear that in mind. He was not instructed by the City of London to oppose the Bill in any way whatever, and he could not oppose it in regard to streets, and so on, but there were a number of things in the Bill that could properly be considered in Committee, and he quite agreed that it should go to a Select Committee, where all interests might be considered. With regard to the closing of streets, as a rule, unless it was a cul de sac, a street could not be closed without the consent of the magistrates; the magistrates only gave their consent as a rule after hearing the local authorities, to whom
§ notice must be given, and they compelled whoever closed the street and took possession of the ground to give some quid pro quo to the public. He did not know whether in any of the places the right hon. Gentleman was going to close, he intended to give something in return for what he took away from the public. Of course, in the City of London, they had to be exceedingly careful about closing any place, because they could get all over the City without going down a main street at all—there were so many courts—and, but for these communications, they could not get about in the City. They objected to the closing of any street whatever unless they got it something in return, not for themselves but for the public. He had no doubt that all these things, which were matters of detail, would be considered.
§ *MR. HARCOURTWe are widening Charles Street, Great George Street, and part of Princes Street, all of great benefit to the public, in consideration of the small amount of convenience, if any, that is taken from them.
§ *MR. MORTONsaid he could not oppose the Bill, because it was carrying out his own suggestion to improve the offices. No doubt the War Office was a great improvement, but some of the public buildings of London were a disgrace to the greatest city in the world. He believed the object of the Government and the late Government in following up what was commenced in 1894 and 1895, was to concentrate the offices and get all officials of the Departments into one building. He should watch the progress of the Bill with interest in regard to economy. He was glad the hon. Baronet had mentioned the word "economy" and hoped in future he would not forget it.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 263; Noes, 38. (Division List No. 91.)
1203| AYES | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Ainsworth, John Stirling | Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Astbury John Meir |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Armitage, R. | Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) |
| Agnew, George William | Ashton, Thomas Gair | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) |
| Barker, John | Flynn, James Christopher | Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Marnham, F. J. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Fullerton, Hugh | Massie, J. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Gilhooly, James | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Gill, A. H. | Meagher, Michael |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Glover, Thomas | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Bethell, Sir, J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Black, Arthur W. | Grayson, Albert Victor | Montagu, E. S. |
| Boland, John | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Gulland, John W. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton | Morrell, Philip |
| Brace, William | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Morse, L. L. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Hall, Frederick | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Branch, James | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Murnaghan, George |
| Brigg, John | Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford | Myer, Horatio |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r |
| Brooke, Stopford | Haworth, Arthur A. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Brunner, Rt Hn. Sir J. T (Cheshire | Helme, Norval Watson | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hodge, John | O'Grady, J. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Hogan, Michael | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Cameron, Robert | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Partington, Oswald |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Horniman, Emslie John | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Hudson, Walter | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Idris, T. H. W. | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Jackson, R. S. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Clough, William | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Clynes, J. R. | Jardine, Sir J. | Radford, G. H. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Reddy, M. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rees, J. D. |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Jowett, F. W. | Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Joyce, Michael | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Cox, Harold | Kearley, Hudson E. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Crean, Eugene | Kekewich, Sir George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cremer, Sir William Randal | Kelley, George D. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Crooks, William | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd |
| Crossley, William J. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Cullinan, J. | Kilbride, Denis | Robinson, S. |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Laidlaw, Robert | Roche, Augustine (Cork) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Russell, T. W. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lambert, George | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lamont, Norman | Sears, J. E. |
| Delany, William | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Lehmann, R. C. | Shackleton, David James |
| Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lewis, John Herbert | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Duckworth, James | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Elibank, Master of | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Erskine, David C. | Macpherson, J. T. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Callum, John M. | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Summerbell, T. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Mallet, Charles E. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Walton, Joseph | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Waring, Walter | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Tillett, Louis John | Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Tomkinson, James | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Torrance, Sir A. M. | Watt, Henry A. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Toulmin, George | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Winfrey, R. |
| Verney, F. W. | White, J. D. (Dumbatronshire) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Wadsworth, J. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) | |
| Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Walsh, Stephen | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Walters, John Tudor | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer | Pease. |
| NOES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Lambton, Hon Frederick Wm. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Cave, George | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Thornton, Perey M. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Morpeth, Viscount | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire |
| Cochrane. Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Parkes, Ebenezer | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Craig, Captain James(Down, E.) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Younger, George |
| Cross, Alexander | Renton, Leslie | |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Frederick Banbury and Mr. |
| Fell, Arthur | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | George Faber. |
Bill read a second time.
§ Bill committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection.
§ Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill.
§ Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
§ Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.—(Mr. Harcourt.)