THIRD READING. (Hansard, 22 July 1879)

THE EARL OF LONGFORD
As a Member of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House to which this Bill was referred, I may be allowed to state that it was after a long inquiry that they arrived at their decision, and they would now prefer to see the Bill passed without amendment. It will, however, be for the House, after hearing the Amendments which are about to be proposed, to take whatever course they may be advised.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
I may for a moment be permitted to state that since Friday last I have seen the parties; and although, there is great objection in 958 general to amending Bills which have passed Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament, there seems to be no reasonable objection to make some alteration in the direction suggested by the noble Earl (the Earl of Camper-down), who has placed Amendments on the Paper. The noble Earl, in the first place, objected to sub-section 2 of Clause 42, which is as follows:— The two companies, or either of them, may hold and let the hereditaments or premises and may grant building and repairing leases of the same for any term they may think fit. Since placing that Amendment on the Paper, however, the noble Earl has objected to the entire clause. I do not feel myself to be in a position to accede to that Amendment, and what I propose is that the clause shall be retained, omitting from it the words "by virtue of any Act or Acts heretofore passed." The effect of these words is to extend, the action of the Bill in certain cases over lands acquired by the two Companies under former Acts as well as under this Bill, so that the omission of the words will have the effect of confining the operation of the clause to lands vested in the two Companies under this Act.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
The next Amendment which the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) has placed on the Paper is to leave out the following words at the end of Clause 91:— Nor to sell or appropriate any part of the property purchased by them, or to set back any frontages for improving or widening street. It seems that the Corporation of London, the Metropolitan Commissioners, and the Board of Works, objected to these words as putting them in an unfair position for dealing with the land. I therefore think that the words can be struck out, but that the following Proviso should be inserted:— Provided, That in the event of any part of the lands acquired by the two companies under this Act being hereafter taken from them by the Corporation, Commissioners, or Board, for improving or widening the adjoining streets, regard shall be had in the settling of compensation to the monies and other considerations given by the two companies for acquiring such lands.