METROPOLITAN CENTRAL HOTEL COMPANY BILL.—SECOND READING. (Hansard, 21 March 1861)

The EARL OF SHELBURNE
, in moving the second leading of this Bill, said that its object was to procure a site for the building of an hotel in the neighbourhood of Wych Street and Holywell Street in the Strand, and that the property, for the removal of which compulsory power was sought, was of a most objectionable nature; in fact the Holywell Street nuisance had been for a very long time notorious.

§ LORD REDESDALE
opposed the Motion for the second reading on the ground that it would be a bad precedent to allow persons engaged in a private speculation of this kind to have compulsory powers of taking property. The Bill of the London Bridge Hotel Company was rejected last year on that ground. An offer had been made to forego the opposition to the Bill if the promoters could produce petitions from the majority of the persons affected; but they were not able to do so. It showed how entirely it was a private speculation that one of the parties had told him that if the Law Courts Bill were not passed they would abandon their scheme. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
reminded the noble Lord that in the case of railways, docks, and other private speculations, compulsory powers of taking property were granted, on the ground that such undertakings were of public advantage. He thought that the same principle should be applied here; and certainly there had been scarcely any private speculation which had been fraught with so much public benefit as this.

LORD EVERSLEY
agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) in holding that it would be a bad precedent to sanction this measure.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he agreed with the Chairman of Committees and the noble Viscount who last addressed their Lordships with respect to the general principle of the inadvisability of giving compulsory powers to companies to enable them to promote their private speculations; and he thought, moreover, that the title of this Bill did not convey sufficiently accurate information as to its contents. But he was informed by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Works that be considered this scheme was of great importance as a measure of metropolitan improvement, in conjunction with the plan for the erection of new law courts. It was not a Bill merely for the building of an hotel, but for widening a crowded thoroughfare, giving access to the proposed courts, and destroying a locality notorious from the character of the publications which used to be there exhibited. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to be considered by a Committee, and defer judgment upon it until the Third Reading.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, that in all his experience in the House of Lords he had never before known an occasion when two Cabinet Ministers find successively risen to take an active part in favour of a private Bill. It was most extraordinary that the support of the Government should be given in opposition to the opinion, on public grounds, of authorities so high as the late Speaker of the House of Commons and the Chairman of Committees, and he hoped that the practice of bringing the influence of the Government to bear on the discussion of a private Bill would not be drawn into a precedent. He trusted that on this occasion their Lordships would not allow themselves to be in- 144 fluenced by the course the Government had taken.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he was another Cabinet Minister who supported this Bill; but if he had considered it a private Bill he should not have taken any part in the discussion. This Bill was, in fact, one of a public nature, upon which the health and comfort of many of the inhabitants of the Metropolis would depend. He entirely agreed with the principle laid down by the noble Chairman of Committees and the noble Viscount on the cross benches (Lord Eversley), but though this Bill was of a private nature it would provide great public advantages. It would not merely widen the Strand, but it would purify the locality in the neighbourhood of the contemplated new courts of law.

§ LORD TAUNTON
said, the question was whether this was primarily and essentially a Bill to promote a private speculation. He thought it most undoubtedly was, and if they allowed private speculators to come to the House and obtain compulsory powers to deal with the property of others on the ground that the public would receive some indirect advantage, there would be no end to this kind of thing. He should certainly oppose the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
agreed in the general principle laid down that compulsory powers should not be given for private objects; but in this case their Lordships should not lose sight of the fact that this measure was calculated to effect a great public improvement in the Metropolis by removing a number of disreputable houses, by widening the Strand, and facilitating the passage of the traffic to and from the new law courts; and all this without putting the public to the expense of a single shilling. These objects were so desirable that he should support the Bill.

§ EARL GREY
said, if this Bill was to make an improvement in the thoroughfares leading to the courts of law it ought to have been introduced by the authorities who had the construction of the new courts in hand—namely, the Government. If they had asked for power to remove certain buildings there could have been no objection to it; or if the local authorities of the Strand had asked for such a power no one could have objected to it; but he saw no sufficient reason why they should give compulsory power to a mere joint stock hotel company to pull down houses, the primary 145 object being their own private advantage. It had been said such powers were given to railway and dock companies; but in all cases railway and dock companies had to show their primary object was in some way for the public convenience. Any one could make a railway without coming to Parliament, by the consent of all parties interested; and compulsory powers were only given when they could show that the railways were of primary public importance. He did not think the establishment of an hotel a matter of primary importance to the public, and if Parliament should grant compulsory powers in this case it would be setting a very dangerous precedent. He should, therefore, vote against the second reading of the Bill.

THE EARL OF SHELBURNE
briefly replied, expressing a hope that their Lordships would not give so great a weight to precedents as to induce them to throw out this Bill, which would effect great public improvements.