CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' REASONS. (Hansard, 10 August 1877)

§ VISCOUNT HARDINGE
said, as Chairman of their Lordships' Committee by whom this Bill had been considered, he wished to explain the course taken by the Committee with reference to the clause which had been rejected by the other House. As their Lordships were aware, the Bill was one involving a very large scheme of metropolitan improvement, and included the formation of a street running northwards from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road, named in the Bill, Street No. 6. During the consideration of the Bill, the Committee, at the instance of the representatives of the noble Marquess below him (the Marquess of Salisbury), inserted a clause giving protection to the estate of Lord Salisbury. The Metropolitan Board of Works was, naturally, not very well pleased with this clause, and after some time, a sort of compromise was entered into, which he thought the Metropolitan Board of Works should have respected, that when the Bill went down to the other House the clause should be dropped. For his part, he regretted that the compromise had not been adhered to. He could not help thinking that the compromise would have given breathing time to the Board, and that 741 by next year they would have been in a position to come before Parliament with a better scheme for a street in the direction to which he had referred. When the Bill first came on for consideration in the other House, the Chairman of the Board was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements that had been come to in their Lordships' House; but after an adjournment of that consideration, that Chairman of the Board, through the influence of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), suddenly shifted his ground, and supported that hon. Member in his Motion for striking out the clause inserted by their Lordships' Committee, and restoring the Bill to its original shape. With regard to the principle involved in this question, no doubt it was right, as a general rule, that when the Metropolitan Board of Works took property for the improvement of a street, it should obtain possession of the frontage, in order to recoup itself for its large expenditure. But it must be remembered that ordinarily new streets ran through a poor class of property, and that better houses were erected than those which had been pulled down. When, however, the new street ran through a valuable property, it became a serious question whether, under the ordinary process, sufficient compensation could be given to the owner of property taken for the improvement, if he were not allowed the frontage. The real question at issue in the present case was, whether there might not be occasionally exceptional legislation. If a hard-and-fast line were to be drawn, and no exceptions whatever were to be allowed, the sooner they were made aware of it the better—the owners of property would know what they had to expect, and the Committees would know what course they were to take. He (Viscount Hardinge) submitted that exceptional legislation might be occasionally entertained when good grounds were shown for it. In this case, after attentively considering all the evidence, it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that there were exceptional circumstances arising from the character of the property. Leases were falling in every six years; and on the property of the noble Marquess there were large warehouses of great depth, which would be much impaired if the frontage were to be taken by the Board of Works. It 742 was contended by counsel for the noble Marquess that under the ordinary scale of award the noble Marquess would not be fairly compensated for the injury done to his property; that the frontage would be of more value to Lord Salisbury than to anybody else; and that if the Metropolitan Board of Works got power under the Bill to acquire both the freehold and the leasehold, the noble Marquess would not obtain one farthing in direct compensation for his property abutting on St. Martin's Lane. That was not disputed by the other side, while it was admitted that land was not taken on the other side of the street because anything done on that side would interfere with the back part of the Alhambra. There were precedents for what had been done by the Committee; for, though the cases of the Duke of Northumberland, the Duke of Norfolk, and others, in respect of former Bills, were not exactly similar to that of Lord Salisbury in this instance, they were sufficiently analogous to be precedents. He could not but protest against the conduct pursued by the Metropolitan Board of Works; but, inasmuch as, if their Lordships refused their concurrence to what had been done by the House of Commons, the whole scheme would fall to the ground for a year, he could not recommend their Lordships to take that course. He thought, therefore, their Lordships ought to assent to the Commons' Amendment, and he had the authority of Lord Salisbury to say that he assented to that course.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE
thought that there was one point in regard to these improvement schemes that required very serious consideration. The value of property was enormously increased by the widening of a street. It seemed therefore generally undesirable that it should be effected by taking the property on one side of the street only. By taking the property on both sides the local authority obtained two improved frontages to pay for the work, and it seemed to him unjust that property on one side should be taken compulsorily, while the owner on the other side reaped the benefit without paying a single sixpence for it, and improper favour might thereby be done to particular owners.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, one word on behalf of persons who have been very unjustly abused 743 —my own agents. They did nothing but their duty in advancing before the Committee, on my behalf, claims which seemed to them to arise out of distinct precedents and the state of facts as they existed, and to urge those claims through counsel by such arguments as they thought applicable to the circumstances. It was the duty of an impartial Committee—and your Lordships know that these Committees are selected with the most absolute care to secure their impartiality—to determine whether a proper case had been made out for those claims. The Committee did determine that a proper case had been made out. I shall not go into arguments as to the merits of the claims, because the matter is one affecting myself; and for a Member of your Lordships' House to contribute here to a judgment in his own case would be wholly irregular. I concur with my noble Friend the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill, that the fact of the Bill affecting one of the Members of your Lordships' House makes it very unadvisable that you should insist on the determination of the Committee and give a decision in my favour. I think that, whatever may be the inconvenience caused by the proceeding adopted by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the determination to restore the Bill to its original shape is, under the circumstances, the wisest course you can adopt. But I wish to say one word as to the public aspect of this question—because it is obvious that it has a public as well as a private aspect. As my noble Friend (Viscount Hardinge) said, no doubt it is right that the Board of Works should repay itself for street improvements by deriving a profit from the frontages created by a new street; but it by no means follows—and I protest against such a precedent being drawn from this particular instance—that whenever the Board of Works makes a street it has a right to speculate in frontages. At best, it is an exceptionally dangerous power to give the Board of Works. It by no means follows that the taking of the frontages by the Board will in all cases be a repayment to the ratepayers, though it is certain that in all cases it will be a serious disturbance to the freeholder. Whatever rights Parliament gives to the Metropolitan Board of Works must be given on the ground that it is for a public benefit; but if the taking of 744 frontages be not shown to be such a benefit, then it is not only a wrong done to the freeholder whose property is unduly disturbed, but a loss and a very serious wrong done to ratepayers, whose money is used in an adventurous building speculation. At one time it was thought that every railway would pay. Now it is thought that every new street will enormously raise the value of the frontages. I believe the ratepayers will some day find, to their cost, that this idea is a delusion. Those purchases and re-sales of land which the Metropolitan Board of Works is so fond of, involve great expense in fees to lawyers, architects, surveyors, and valuers, whose time is valuable, and whose charges are proportionately high. I have had an opportunity of knowing something about it in connection with two or three railway companies whose difficulties were very seriously aggravated, if they were not entirely caused, by surplus land which they had acquired, and which they had to dispose of, and by the enormous charges which followed on that operation. It is very much to be feared that the Metropolitan Board of Works, unless it sells those frontages with great discretion, will find the costs of the machinery employed in disposing of them such as to entirely destroy the profitable nature of the operation, and that it will discover that, while it has it in its power to do great damage to and inflict great loss on the freeholders, it also has it in its power to squander the money of the ratepayers.