LORD CAMPBELL, in rising to move an Address to the Crown, praying it to appoint a Commission to inquire into and Report on the principles which ought to govern further legislation on Metropolitan Railways, said, that since he had come into the House he had found that the Report of the Select Committee instructed by their Lordships to inquire into some part of the subject he proposed to bring under a Commission, was at length upon the table and distributed. No technical objection could be now presented to his Motion, if indeed any could have been at a former period. Nor would it involve reproach or disparagement of the Select Committee whose labours were concluded, that the agency which he required should be afterwards resorted to. The instructions and the purposes of the two would not in any manner be identical. The Select Committee were appointed mainly to deal with Bills before the House of Lords. The Commission would be called into existence to ascertain generally the true line of action on the question of extending or of not extending railways into the heart of the metropolis. But if the instructions were identical, if there were no new field to be explored, if the Commission was predestined to hear the very evidence the Committee had obtained, and make the exact recommendations which they had founded on it, the grounds for appointing it would not be removed. At the best, the conclusion of the Select Committee only represented the opinion—however accurately formed, enlightened, and deliberate—of the House of Lords itself. In order to meet, however, the exigencies of the subject, something more was necessary than the record of a judgment which either House of Parliament had come to. To declare principles of further legislation, and to remove the many difficulties by which the subject was embarrassed, they required the whole authority which a Commission appointed by the Crown was likely to enjoy. And that authority was known to be greater with the public than belonged to a Select Committee of either House of Parliament. There were two interests in controversy—the interest of companies who favoured schemes of metropolitan encroachment, and the interest 1454 of householders who desired to resist them. The interest which seemed to gain by the Report of the Select Committee would still want a Commission to substantiate its victory. The interest which seemed to lose would want one to balance its defeat, or at least to give another chance to its pretensions. The question of a Commission, thus was not in any manner prejudiced. The primâ facie reason for appointing it was that no other barrier could be well presented to the reckless schemes of metropolitan encroachment by railway companies, which were now familiar to the public. In The Times of Tuesday, March 3, a good description had been given of them, apparently from an independent source, but drawn up at least by some one well acquainted with the subject. The different projects were referred to; and their effects, if carried, in disturbing, in disfiguring, and riding roughshod over everything valuable, in the town, were pointed to with emphasis and accuracy. It was shown that these schemes menaced what we were most entitled to preserve—situations of architectural effect, squares, and open places. The evil to be in some degree restrained was neither vague or difficult to analyse. It fell into these intelligible classes:—the insecurity of householders while these projects menaced every part of London; the deformity which, if executed, they must lead to; the increase of traffic in overcrowded thoroughfares likely to occur when railway stations came into central parts of London; and the prevention of improvements in the way of widening or rebuilding or removing streets which these viaducts, if once established, would occasion. Of those four items the insecurity of householders was, no doubt, the most material, because no difference of opinion could be raised upon it. From the few and opulent inhabitants of Carlton Gardens to the numerous and less favoured denizens of Bethnal Green, no man knew from year to year how soon he might be compelled to quit his house, or to engage in costly battles with a railway company to save it. Under these circumstances, the possession of a house was more a burden than a privilege. As yet, however, owing to the spirit of resistance displayed in the House of Lords on the Finsbury Circus Bill at the beginning of the Session, the encroachments had not reached a point to make precaution useless. If by next Session no authoritative judgment, calculated to form opinion and to govern legislation, came into existence, many projects of the kind would force themselves on Parlia- 1455 ment. And it had long ago been shown that as things now stood Parliament was not entirely competent to deal with them. But there were some, undoubtedly, who thought no barrier desirable; that the projects ought to be in a great degree facilitated, and that they were not to be regarded in the light of an evil or a menace. But even that class of reasoners were bound in candour to admit that a perplexing problem had to be adjusted on this subject. A conflict of opinions and of interests, not as yet sufficiently explored, was at the bottom of the difficulty. It had never yet been pointed out in what manner to reconcile the wants of the mass who stayed at home with that of the minority who were rich enough to travel; in what manner to make it easier to go from one part of London to another without making London altogether uninhabitable; how, in a word, to add to the means of locomotion without sacrificing points which stood higher in the scale of general advantages. It had not been explained either, since 1846, what arrangement of termini in the metropolis would best promote the concentration of troops where necessary on the sea-coast. It was still more desirable to ascertain—and it had never yet been done—the true origin of the schemes which proposed to traverse the metropolis. There was much obscurity about it. At least, it could not be maintained with confidence as yet, that on the one hand they were based upon a popular desire, or on the other hand were founded on the personal capacity of schemers. But until this question was resolved it was impossible for Parliament to see how far to indulge and how far to repress them. No evidence had yet appeared of the support which they commanded. But the House were perfectly familiar with the resentment they excited in the householders they dispossessed, or whose commercial interests they trampled on. The true course for Parliament might be clear enough if a discovery were made of the mode in which these projects came into existence. Neither the Report of Colonel Yolland in March, nor that of the Select Committee, which had been distributed to-day, could be said to grapple with, or indeed approach the problem he had touched upon. No reason had been yet started against a Commission on its merits, except that the Commission of 1846 had not been influential upon Parliament. He joined issue on the statement. No one who took the trouble to study the Report of 1846 could help 1456 seeing that it had, to a great extent, controlled our railway legislation. The principle it laid down, founded on a long series of arguments, was that termini should be permitted to come further into London on the southern bank of the Thames than on the northern. That principle had been generally followed. A variety of projects had been checked by the Commission of 1846, or at least had been discouraged then, and had not yet been sanctioned. It was true, however, that departures from the rule laid down at that time were now more frequent than they used to be. What was the conclusion? If the voice of the old Commission was now become in some degree inaudible—if its lessons were set aside as obsolete, they were all the more in want of another power to replace it. So long as its authority prevailed, schemes of encroachment upon London were kept in certain limits. Now its authority was faded, that branch of speculation had grown altogether reckless, and would probably remain so, until the equivalent he asked for had been granted. He (Lord Campbell) would now release the House, and only thank them for the patience they had shown, were it not for some remarks in a paragraph of the Report of the Select Committee, intended to dissuade the Crown from appointing a Commission on the subject. In making these the Select Committee appeared to have gone beyond the task which was assigned to them, and they could not therefore have the weight which belonged to anything which came within the order of reference. [Lord CAMPBELL then read the objections contained in the paragraph referred to, and replied to each of them.] The first was, the delay which a Commission would impose on railway projects. If the Report appeared, as it might, during the autumn, no delay would be imposed on the projects which the Commission sanctioned. The next objection was, that Parliament might not be governed by the views of the Commission. This weak conjecture might have been urged against every Commission which had inquired and reported on any subject in the last thirty years, and it was well known our most important legislation during all that time had originated in Commissions. The last objection was, that if the Commission were to frame and to propound a scheme for bringing railways into London, there would be no power to execute it unless companies adopted it. It was just possible, however, the Commission might not frame or propound a scheme for 1457 mating railways traverse the metropolis. It was begging the whole question to assume that they would do so—at least, they would not he appointed, according to his Motion for that purpose, and the objection, therefore, did not bear upon the question he submitted to their Lordships. He had shown that the Select Committee was no obstacle to the course which he proposed, and which some of the most distinguished Members of the House had urged upon the Government. He had shown that a Commission was necessary as a barrier to protect the metropolis and give tranquillity to householders—as an umpire to adjust conflicting wants and settle controverted problems. He had shown that the experiment of 1846 had been successful and ought now to be renewed. The credit which the House of Lords had gained by their resistance to the Finsbury Circus Station would hardly be maintained, if under these circumstances they declined to give their voice for a Commission. If the Government opposed it, they could only do so from a disposition to encourage and facilitate the schemes by which the metropolis was threatened. In the event of such a disposition upon their part, the public could not look to them for the protection it required, and the agency which he proposed was more than ever indispensable. Whatever line they took, whichever way they turned, the Government could only give new strength to his position. And he ventured to express a hope, that what they were inevitably forced to maintain by their remarks, they would not deem it right to overbear by their majority, even had they brought down a majority to-day.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into and report upon the Principles which ought to guide further Legislation on the Subject of Metropolitan Railways.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that when the Select Committee on Metropolitan Railways was appointed, many noble Lords expressed a desire for the issue of a Royal Commission, and their Lordships came to the conclusion that that point should be taken into consideration by the Select Committee. The Committee, after anxiously considering the matter, came to the unanimous conclusion that it was not expedient that a Commission should be appointed, as a Commission was not likely to obtain any information which might not be procured by other means. The Committee also thought that the appointment of a Commission was very much 1458 calculated to postpone the proceedings connected with any works necessary for the construction of metropolitan railways; for until the Commission had reported, which probably would not be before the commencement of next Session, no parties could take steps for surveying and preparing the necessary preliminaries for constructing metropolitan railways. The Select Committee, however, deemed it desirable to lay down some general principles which they thought ought to guide parties who proposed to construct railways to facilitate communication in the metropolis, and which were such as would meet with general concurrence. One of these recommendations was, that there should be no great central terminus; another was, that all the metropolitan railways should be under one management; they also suggested that there should be a Standing Order of both Houses that no scheme should be passed that did not connect itself with some portion of the general scheme. There had been no opportunity of communicating with the other House, but he hoped that next Session the suggestions of the Select Committee would not be without effect. With regard to the Motion of the noble Lord, he must say, that he did not think that Parliament would be disposed to devolve upon a Commission the proposal of the principles which ought to guide further legislation, as that was a matter more proper for Parliament itself to decide on; and he believed that the recommendations of the Select Committee would assist existing companies or other parties, who might consider the matter during the recess, in preparing such a scheme as would give all necessary facilities for metropolitan communication, in conjunction with the establishment of proper safeguards. He therefore did not think it would be desirable to comply with the noble Lord's proposal for the appointment of a Commission.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas of opinion that metropolitan railways ought to be constructed in accordance with one general scheme, and he believed that that object was not likely to be accomplished unless through the intervention of some Commission such as that now suggested.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the inquiry before the Select Committee afforded strong grounds for hope that some plan of an efficient nature, with respect to metropolitan railway communication, would be proposed to Parliament in the ensuing 1459 Session. This constituted a sufficient reason for not proposing now any Motion for a Commission; particularly as the effect of appointing a Commission would be, that no plan whatever could be brought before Parliament next year, because the necessary Parliamentary notices must be given at a period when no scheme could possibly have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of any Commission. There would be a jealousy on the part of the other House and the public if one House were to lay down a rule that a provision of a particular kind should be introduced into the Notices. They should, therefore, trust to the good sense of those who might bring forward schemes next Session that they would endeavour to make those schemes conformable to one general plan. At the same time, he thought that re-commendation of the Committee a most important one, that the management of such a system of metropolitan railways should not be in the hands of one of the great companies.
§ EARL FORTESCUEsaid, at first sight it might appear that the Metropolitan Board of Works would be the proper authority to be intrusted with the management of such a general system; but they had shown themselves so incompetent in smaller things that they could not be trusted with so important a matter. They had not even yet improved the nomenclature of the streets. There were still dozens of King Streets, Duke Streets, Chapel Streets, and others, within a limited area. He had ventured to predict that more of its time would be spent in discussion than in work, and his prophecy had been amply borne out by the result. He felt confident that the public did not desire to give them more to do.
LORD CAMPBELLmade an observation in answer to what had fallen from his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. As regarded the noble Lord the Post Master General, he had not controverted one of the positions which he (Lord Campbell) had supported. His speech was based on the assumption that everything ought to be done to precipitate the schemes against which, according to the opinion prevailing in the House and in the country, a barrier was necessary. As the noble Earl who led the Opposition was now present, as his friends would naturally vote with him, and as he had conspicuously declared himself some months ago in favour of the course which he (Lord Campbell) was urging, he should divide the House, unless the noble Earl had altered his opinion.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, though at first he was in favour of the appointment of a Commission, now that the Committee had made a valuable Report, he thought the House would be placed in an embarrassing position if a Commission were appointed, and their Report differed from that of the Committee. He would therefore recommend the noble Lord not to press the Motion.
LORD CAMPBELL, under these circumstances, would deem it right to withdraw the Motion, as he could not rely on its being carried.
§ Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.