Lords Sitting of 13 July 1883

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Sherborne, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Report—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order * (72); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (74); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (100); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (102).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) * (89); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (110), and passed.
Withdrawn—Railways (Continuous Brakes) (135); Representative Peers (Scotland) Election Procedure * (6).

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— HYDE PARK CORNER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY, in rising to ask a Question as to the alterations at Hyde Park Corner, said, that, as far as he could judge, those improvements, as some people might call them, had but little effect upon the block which was of daily occurrence between Hyde Park Corner and Hamilton Place. There were one or two causes which, in his opinion, had led to this conspicuous failure. The primary cause was that the new road which started from Grosvenor Crescent terminated too abruptly at Hamilton Place, so that the enormous traffic from the North of London and from the East and West through Piccadilly was but little relieved. The open space had been left too small, and was too much cut up by roads. The only good that seemed to have arisen out of the alterations was that they had opened out Decimus Barton's Arch, probably the best work executed by that artist, and which made an admirable entrance from Piccadilly into Hyde Park. The plan he would suggest would be, perhaps, rather expensive; but, as their

  1341
  Lordships were aware, they had nothing whatever to do with money in that House. The noble Lord then proceeded to sketch his plan, which was to the effect that the present new road should be taken further down, so as to commence at Halkin Street, with a branch to Grosvenor Crescent, and should terminate in Piccadilly, somewhat beyond Hyde Park Lane. To effect that, about 40 yards of the brick wall to the northwest of Buckingham Palace Gardens would have to come down, and about one-tenth of an acre would have to be taken from the Gardens. He would also take some 15 feet from the Green Park to add to the roadway in Piccadilly for some distance eastward. The Arch that was now being re-erected was placed in a most unfortunate position, for it would stand askew to all the other buildings in its neighbourhood. Its proper site would be pushed further back at right angles to Constitution Hill and directly opposite Hamilton Place. By the plan he proposed the open space would be more than double its present size; and he would like to see the space thus secured, not given up to fancy gardening, but treated architecturally in a fitting manner, so that it might be something like the Place de la Concorde at Paris. He understood that there was some intention of making a road from Curzon Street into Piccadilly, and if this were carried out it would give great facilities to the traffic. The important question, however, had to be considered—What was to become of the Duke of Wellington's Statue? He would suggest that the best thing that could be done with it would be to melt it, and from the metal some fitting monument might be made, which he would place on the new mound formed from the débris in the Green Park and facing Apsley House. He hoped the plan he had suggested or some alternative scheme would receive careful consideration from the Government.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he considered the alteration at Hyde Park Corner a very great improvement; but he thought it would be a great mistake to move the Duke of Wellington's Statue from this site to that suggested near the Horse Guards.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he was of opinion that a very appreciable improvement had been effected at Hyde Park
  1342
  Corner. That improvement, however, would be rendered greater if 18 feet or 20 feet, commencing gradually from about opposite the end of Park Lane, were added to the width of Piccadilly, to relieve the traffic coming down Hamilton Place. This would allow two continuous streams of traffic from west to east and from east to west to pass unaffected by the influx there, almost the whole of which, going, as it did, westward and southward, would be able, from the 20 or 25 feet of passage on the North thus left free for it, to diffuse itself gradually in those two directions, when it came to the wide space already provided by the recent improvement.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that the question raised by the noble Lord was one that had been before their Lordships on two or three previous occasions, and he feared that he could add little to what had already been said on the subject. The noble Lord, who was a great authority on all matters of taste, agreed, he thought, that the alteration made had been, at any rate, an improvement, and that it had tended to do away with the block which existed for so many years. The noble Lord appeared, however, to think that those improvements might with advantage have been carried out on a larger scale, and criticized with some severity the plan which had been adopted. There was no doubt that, as London increased in size, the growth of the traffic would be proportionately great. When the arrangements were entered into for carrying out the alterations that point was very carefully considered, and the First Commissioner came to the conclusion that there would be ample space for any increase of traffic for a very considerable period. Hyde Park Corner had been a bugbear and a stumbling-block to a good many First Commissioners. Plan after plan had been rejected, owing to the enormous difficulties they entailed and the wide diversity of opinion which was manifested. By the adoption of the present plan all danger to life, limb, and vehicles had been removed. The noble Lord thought that a much larger piece of the Park should have been cut off and thrown into the place, and that the line from Hamilton Place to Halkin Street should have been concave instead of convex; also that the triangles which had been made should have been differently

  1343
  arranged, and that the Arch ought to have been placed in another position. The noble Lord thought that if that had been done, the block which now existed at Halkin Street would have been obviated. With regard to making the place larger, he had to say that to have done so would have entailed the sacrifice of a larger portion of the Park, and unless a great necessity should arise London could ill spare its trees and green corners. At Hamilton Place Corner there was no doubt a certain block; but it could not for a moment be compared with the block which used to exist at Hyde Park Corner, though, of course, it would be a benefit if it could be removed. The traffic appeared to have increased since the Arch was removed. That was believed to be due, to some extent, to that route being regarded as a short cut to Belgravia. The noble Lord thought, with many others, that if Piccadilly were widened this block would cease; but, in the opinion of the First Commissioner, and of the highest authorities, this was not so. The traffic from the east passed away to the west without any block, but the western line was and must be always, to a certain extent, blocked by the northern, and the Office of Works was convinced that the widening of Piccadilly would not prevent that. It was quite possible that if it could be arranged that the south traffic should go up Park Lane and the north traffic go down by Hamilton Place much trouble might be avoided; but that was a matter of police arrangements, and, unfortunately, the power of the police over vehicular traffic was taken from them in the year 1870. With reference to the triangles, he might state that they were placed in their present position after much careful consideration; and experiments had proved that for places of refuge they could not be better situated. At present they were in a very unfinished condition, and some further expenditure upon them was necessary. In Provincial towns patriotic and munificent citizens not unfrequently dealt with matters of this sort. It was hoped that a similar movement might be made in the present instance by some public benefactors coming forward prepared to expend such a sum upon the site as would render it worthy of London. There was no doubt much could be done to beautify it and to render it a striking ornament
  1344
  to the capital, though it would be impossible for much more public money to be spent upon it. The question of having a tunnel to carry the northern and southern traffic under Piccadilly had been advocated at various times; but the Office of Works, after going carefully into the matter some time ago, found that the levels would necessitate the entrance to the tunnel being very nearly at the top of Hamilton Place and the outlet very low down in Grosvenor Place, so that the project was far from easy to carry out. In any case it could only be effected by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and would not come under the jurisdiction of the First Commissioner. The noble Lord had further asked what was to be done with the Wellington Statue. He could only repeat what he stated on behalf of the Government three weeks ago—that a very responsible Committee which was appointed to inquire into the matter had recommended that the Statue should be placed opposite the Horse Guards. It had, therefore, been determined to test the suitability of that site by first erecting a wooden profile there. This having been done, the Committee would again meet, and be asked for their final opinion. Until then no action would be taken. Generally speaking, he might say that some time must elapse before the value of these great alterations at Hyde Park Corner could be fairly estimated. The First Commissioner had taken enormous interest and trouble in the matter, and was carefully watching the result of the change, and would see what further improvements could be made. In conclusion, he could only assure the noble Lord that the remarks and suggestions which he had made would be taken into the very careful consideration of the Government.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, that there had been a strong expression of opinion, both in this House and in the other, in favour of retaining the Statue of the Duke of Wellington on its present site. The opinion of the public was also in favour of the Statue remaining in a great centre of traffic where it could be seen by everybody. For one person who would see the Statue opposite the Horse Guards he supposed that 100 would see it where it stood at present.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)suggested that the appearance of the Statue might he improved by washing, which it sadly needed.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNwished to know whether the triangular pieces of ground were to remain in their present state unless some benevolent person came forward to pay the expenses of improvement?
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, in reply to the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale), that the bronze of the Statue was found to be much corroded, and it was doubtful whether it could be improved by being coloured; and, in reply to the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown), that it was intended to make the triangular spaces as far as possible ornamental.

RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL.—(No. 135.)
(The Earl He La Warr.)
RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL.—(No. 135.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said, that the question of railway brakes had been several times before the House, and the details were given in the Returns of the Board of Trade, which were in their Lordships' hands. He would, therefore, only give a brief summary of those Returns, and point out the chief provisions of the Bill. He wished, however, first to say that he would gladly leave the question to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government, if any assurance could be given that it would receive the attention that it urgently required. It was now 25 years since the Board of Trade issued a Circular calling the attention of Railway Companies to the inadequate amount of brake power in use; and again in 1877 another Circular was issued, in which it was stated—
  "That from a careful examination of the circumstances attending all the accidents which had been investigated by the officers of the Board of Trade for the last few years, the Board are led to conclude that three-fourths of the accidents might probably have been avoided, or their results materially mitigated if the passenger trains concerned had been provided with continuous brakes;"
  and there was a statement to the same effect in the Report of Colonel Yolland
  1346
  upon the accident at Grimsby in May last. He said—
  "In all probability the collision would not have occurred if the continuous brake on the Midland train had been available for arresting its progress."
  He did not believe there was anyone connected with, and understanding the working of, railways who would dispute these and other similar statements. But what did they find had been done in the 25 years during which the question had been under consideration? From the official Returns it appeared that out of the total stock of engines and carriages fitted at the present time with brakes about one-third only complied with the requirements of the Board of Trade, about another third complied only partially, and the remaining third ignored them altogether. From these facts he thought the conclusion might fairly be drawn, that much as it might be desired to avoid the interposition of Parliament, it could hardly be argued that it was better to leave the matter to the Railway Companies to deal with themselves. He thought it evident, from what had occurred in the past, that there was no prospect of their arriving at any satisfactory result. Uniformity of brakes was a most important and essential element when we considered the frequent instances of running powers which were given. Take, for example, the Midland, the Great Northern, and the North-Western, all fitted with different brakes, and at the same time running over the Caledonian, the North-Eastern, the North British, the Highland, and other lines—how was any brake at all to be worked? There were scarcely two railways which had brakes that would work together. This, then, as regarded uniformity, was the result of leaving it to Railway Companies themselves. It was to remedy these crying evils that he had ventured to submit the Bill. It did not propose to enforce the use of any one particular brake, but only that the brake should comply with certain conditions which, after careful consideration, the Board of Trade thought essential for safety. They were as follows:—
  "It must be efficient in stopping the train, instantaneous in action, and capable of being applied without difficulty by engine-drivers and guards; in case of accident it must be instantaneously self-acting; it must be capable of being easily put on and taken off the engine and

  1347
  every vehicle of the train. Its materials must he of a durable character, so as to he easily maintained and kept in order."
  These were the provisions of the 1st clause of the Bill, and embodied the principle of it. The object of Clause 2 was to produce uniformity as far as possible. Clause 8 gave a power of exemption where it might be desirable. These were the principal clauses of the Bill. The object had been kept in view of leaving as much discretion as possible to Railway Companies; but when it was remembered that almost the whole traffic of the country had been placed by Parliament in the hands of Boards of Directors, who were responsible to shareholders, there did not seem to be any just cause of complaint if Parliament interposed when it was a question of the public safety. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that he had submitted the Bill to a practical and experienced railway man, who told him there was not a brake in existence which complied with the conditions laid down. Some complied with one or two, but not one complied with all. The Railway Companies were gradually improving brakes by the experience they acquired; they had made improvements during the last two or three years; but if the Bill were passed and enforced they would be prevented making further improvements; the Board of Trade would have to select one brake out of a considerable number, and for the future the liability would be taken off the shoulders of the Railway Companies and would be thrown upon a practically irresponsible body, who could not be omnipresent. The probability was that if the Government spent millions in supplying a brake they would have to retrace their steps next year. He hoped the Government would give no countenance to this Bill, which did not seem to be very well constructed.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that the Westinghouse brake complied with the conditions laid down.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that by some Companies that brake was reported to have failed altogether.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that, as there was no prospect whatever at this period of the Session of passing the Bill through
  1348
  Parliament, he ventured to express a hope that the noble Lord would not proceed further with it this year. As he stated the other day, the Board of Trade undertook to introduce a measure dealing with this subject next year; and although they could not pledge themselves to the details of the present Bill, they endorsed its general principle so far as it carried out the views expressed in their Circular to the Railway Companies.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that after the statement of the noble Lord, and on the understanding that the Government would introduce a measure on the same principle next year, he would ask leave to withdraw the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he did not understand the answer of the noble Lord opposite at all in the same manner as his noble Friend behind him. What he understood was that the Board of Trade disapproved of many of the details in the measure, and undertook to consider the whole subject and see what could be done during another Session of Parliament. His noble Friend, however, seemed to think that the Government undertook to introduce another Bill on the same principle. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) thought that that principle was a very wrong one, and that the Board of Trade should not undertake a responsibility which properly rested with the Railway Companies. He could not understand his noble Friend's remarks as to uniformity of brakes, because, while his noble Friend said it was impossible for trains with certain brakes to run on the lines of Companies which did not use them, yet the plan had been practised for many years, and therefore could not be impossible.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, the Board of Trade agreed with the principle of the Bill so far as it carried out the requirements of the Board; but, in the remarks he had made, he did not mean to imply that the Government Bill would be framed on the lines of the Bill of the noble Earl.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— DR. JORISSEN.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the answer to the Question of which he had given Notice had been, to some ex-

1349
tent, anticipated by the public Press; but, as it was possible there might be further information, he would ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the information contained in the telegrams of yesterday, as to Dr. Jorrissen's dismissal from the post of Attorney General to the Transvaal Government was true, or whether Her Majesty's Government had any information or notification on this subject?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I should be happy to give the noble Earl and your Lordships all the information in my power; but, as a matter of fact, I know nothing on the subject of Mr. Jorrissen except what I see in Reuter's telegrams.
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.