SECOND READING. (Hansard, 21 June 1877)

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
said, that this Bill had been introduced 69 by the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purpose of taking the necessary authority for constructing a new street from Bethnal Green to Holborn, by which communication would be completely open to Regent Street; and another new street from Tottenham Court Road to Trafalgar Square. These, no doubt, were very important improvements; but while they were thus improving the metropolis in one direction, they should be careful that they did not inflict injury in another, and he desired to call the attention of their Lordships to the fact that the measure would displace a large number of the working classes from their present dwellings without providing adequate accommodation for them when turned out of the homes which they now occupied. He had had carefully prepared statistics furnished to him on this subject, and those statistics did not at all agree with the figures which had been given by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The statement deposited by the Promoters of the Bill, under Standing Order 38, gave as the number of houses occupied by persons of the labouring classes, and as the number of persons of those classes to be displaced, these statistics:—For West-end improvement—houses, 147; number of persons displaced, 1,753. For Gray's Inn Road improvement—houses, 215; number of persons displaced, 2,166. A house-to-house inquiry, recently made, showed that those figures were altogether inaccurate, and that, in fact, they should stand—For West-end improvement—houses, 446; number of persons displaced, 7,077. For Gray's Inn Road improvement—number of houses, 332; number of persons displaced, 3,781. This showed an error in the statement as to those two improvements of 416 houses and 6,939 persons. And instead of 19 streets being dealt with under the Bill, 38 would be affected. These figures disclosed a grave discrepancy; and showed, in his opinion, that some further inquiry was absolutely necessary. He did not impute to the Metropolitan Board of Works any mala fides in connection with their statistics; but he thought it must be evident that some extraordinary blunder had been committed in their preparation.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
pointed out that in the Bill before their Lordships there was no account of the 70 sum which the ratepayers would have to pay for the improvements to be undertaken.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, that the account referred to by the noble Earl would be found in a Loan Bill which the Metropolitan Board of Works had at present before the other House of Parliament. No doubt it was a duty incumbent on the Board to see that while they were effecting great improvements in communications of the Metropolis, they did not inflict injury on the persons whom these improvements affected. The statistics deposited with the Bill might not be perfectly accurate, but he thought the Promoters had complied sufficiently with the Standing Order to enable the Secretary of State to see that provision was made for the displaced persons. The Standing Order was framed with the object of securing that no serious injury should be done to the working classes, and for this purpose it made it obligatory on the Promoters to prove to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that adequate provision was made before any demolition to the extent of 15 houses was undertaken. If, however, the Committee, before which the Bill must go in the ordinary course, should be of opinion that additional provision for the displaced persons was required, the Metropolitan Board would be willing to have it secured by a clause in the Bill itself. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would not defer the second reading. He might add, that a Bill was under consideration for supplementing the provisions of the existing law.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE
pointed out that there was a difference between the offering of a site for houses for the labouring classes and providing houses for them. In a case which occurred four or five years ago, the Metropolitan Board appeared to think that they had complied with the Standing Orders by offering a site; but the site up to this moment had not been built upon.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
reminded their Lordships that, unlike the persons opposing an ordinary Private Bill, the persons who would be displaced by this Bill were not in a position to have themselves represented by counsel before the Select Committee on the Bill. And it appeared that no fewer than 250 houses and 2,000 population had been omitted from the statement of the Promoters.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE
, while thinking that the Promoters had not very closely adhered to the Standing Order, was of opinion that the displaced persons would be sufficiently protected under that Order.