§ LORD LAMINGTONMy Lords, I rise to put a question to Her Majesty's Government respecting the company who have undertaken the Parliament Street improvements. These improvements, my Lords, are being carried out by a private company. When the Bill passed relating to the company, it was distinctly understood that the whole of Parliament Street was to be taken down in the autumn of 1887. Two years have since elapsed, and in three years the whole thing will be at an end. This way of conducting public works is very unworthy of a great city, and as there appears to be no hope held out of this work ever being done at all, I want to ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do in the matter. I think, my Lords, it is not too much to say that 673 this is a very unworthy way of carrying out public improvements in the Metropolis. Do the Government never intend to make use of the land they have at their disposal, and which belongs to them? I have to ask whether it is intended that anything shall be done to carry out the improvements.
§ LORD HENNIKERMy Lords, in reply to the question which the noble Lord has put, I must decline on the present occasion to discuss the question whether these improvements ought to be made by a private company. A Bill was passed two years ago for this purpose, and I have stated over and over again that Parliament imposed upon the company the condition that £500,000 should be subscribed for the ordinary stock before they could pull down a house, and that that has been really the cause of the delay. The company is a private company, and the Act, I believe, is a private Act, and therefore I think the question of the noble Lord is hardly one which the representative of the Office of Works can properly be called upon to answer. The only connection of the Office of Works with the company at the present stage is in regard to some of the land with which the company propose to deal which is Government property. Beyond what has passed with respect to this land and the negotiations which have been going on with regard to it between the company and the Office of Works, the Office of Works really know nothing officially. It is not necessary for me to remind your lordships that, as long as the company keep within their powers, neither the Office of Works nor any one else has any right to interfere with them. In fact, the Office of Works can have no responsibility for the company, nor any official knowledge of its proceedings. However, my Lords, having said so much, as I find some noble Lords take an interest in the matter, I have endeavoured to obtain information, and by the kindness of the promoters of the company, I can give some information to the House. It was given to me by Mr. Edward Easton, a gentleman whom I have known for many years. Mr. Easton writes on July 18th in regard to the position of the company as follows:—
In answer to your inquiry, I have to say, on behalf of the promoters of the Parliament 674 Street Improvement Act, that the arrangements for complying with the Act, which stipulates that £500,000 of share capital shall be subscribed before commencing the works, have not yet been completed, but that the matter has now been carried so far that it is expected the necessary certificate of the Board of Trade that the capital has been subscribed will be obtained within a month from this time.That, my Lords, is the present position of the company, as far as I know.