Lords Sitting of 19 June 1890

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Bishop of Durham—Took the Oath for the first time.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury—Took the Oath for the first time.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
    THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I hope you will make a little allowance for a Bishop intruding into a matter of a description with which Bishops are not generally supposed to be concerned. It is not usual for any Bishop to oppose a Railway Bill, because the settlement of such matters is, generally speaking, left to those who are more intimately concerned with material questions. Bishops who are mostly concerned with spiritual and moral questions, do not usually take any part in them. But I am sure I shall have the indulgence of your Lordships in taking a part in this case, because I take that part on the ground of danger to St. Paul's Cathedral, which is not only dear to the citizens of London, but to the Church and the whole of England. The Bishop of London may naturally be supposed to watch with very careful jealousy anything which may possibly endanger a fabric which we all admire very much and value so highly. The proposal in this case is to carry a railway from Bayswater to Cheapside, underneath Oxford Street and Holborn, to the corner of Newgate Street, and there it approaches very near the Cathedral of St. Paul's. The railway itself is at a greater distance than the station will be, but the station which it is proposed to have at the corner of Newgate Street as proposed, will come within about 70 yards of the north-east corner of the cathedral.
    1294
    I think the exact distance is 225 feet—consequently it becomes a matter of very serious consideration how this will affect the stability of the cathedral, as it now stands. Now, my Lords, we have very distinct evidence indeed of the kind of foundation on which St. Paul's Cathedral rests. We know by the researches made by Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of the cathedral, that there is a considerable quantity of brick-earth at the surface, and that when you have got below that, you very soon come to sand and gravel, then below that is what Sir Christopher Wren called "a beach," and then a little lower still we come to the London clay. Now, the sand and gravel which I have mentioned are known to be water-bearing strata. They are full of water up to some height in the strata. The top of the sand is said to be tolerably dry, but the bottom of the sand and gravel is certainly not, and the real danger which threatens St. Paul's Cathedral is that the water may be drained off from this sand and gravel and, consequently, that the sand and gravel, may sink down to a lower space than it occupies at present. Your Lordships are, I suppose, quite aware that of all the things we know water is one of those which it is most difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to compress into a smaller space. You can compress sand and gravel without any great difficulty if you use weight enough, and you can compress even tolerably hard rock if you get weight enough upon it, but water, as far as we know, can hardly be compressed at all. The drawing away of the water from this sand and gravel will, therefore, leave the sand and gravel subject to compression by the weight above them, and the weight above them in this case is an enormous weight—it is the weight of the whole of the vast edifice; and, therefore, my Lords, I think it must be admitted that if there would be a danger of that kind in any case, it is quite certain there must be danger in this case. The danger, of course, is precisely this, that when you have anything like a withdrawal of water which lies underneath the foundations, the subsidence is not always equal. It cannot be. The foundations subside more in one part than in another, and the result, of course, is that your building is unequally supported. Anybody can see that the danger from that is very serious, and

    1295
    that in all such cases, you will have subsidences, cracks, and possibly the actual ruin of parts of the structure. My Lords, it is this danger that all those who are concerned in the safety of St. Paul's are anxious about. The promoters of the Bill have just laid a statement before the House, and it appears from that statement that they are prepared to say there is no danger whatever. They say there is no real risk to St. Paul's. But let me point out, in the first place, that it is not quite sufficient for them to say there is no real risk, unless they are prepared to point out how this argument which I have put before your Lordships' House is to be met. I have gone carefully through the evidence, and I must say that I cannot find any answer to this argument. Then, my Lords, I have to observe in the next place that these are certain cases adduced in which a railway has gone very near a great structure without doing it any very great damage. In support of this Bill it is urged that the Metropolitan District Railway runs within 70 feet of Westminster Abbey, and that it has done no damage to Westminster Abbey; also that it runs within 20 feet of Westminster Hospital, and has done no damage to Westminster Hospital. That, of course, would be relevant enough if the depths were at all comparable with one another, but the fact is that the foundations of Westminster Abbey go down from the surface, probably 15 feet, while the District Railway is below the surface just 18 feet, and, therefore, whatever drainage would be caused by the Metropolitan District Railway would be a drainage of a depth of three feet only. That sums up the mischief that can possibly be done to Westminster Abbey by the District Railway. The withdrawal of the water from that three feet might conceivably do mischief; but it is not at all surprising that we should find no such mischief has been done when we consider that it is only from so small a depth of strata that the water has been withdrawn. But the rails of the Central London Railway would be 53 feet below the bottom of the foundations of St. Paul's Cathedral. There is a vast difference between taking the water away from merely 3ft., and taking the water away from 53ft. of strata; and we cannot at all argue that
    1296
    because a shallow railway has been run close to Westminster Abbey without doing any harm you may, therefore, run a railway to the depth of 53ft. close to St. Paul's Cathedral, and do no harm whatever to that great structure. It is plain in each case that the railway will only drain away the water down to its own depth, and that if you are affecting only 3ft. you may do little on no damage at all. I am not quite clear, my Lords, that no damage has been done to Westminster Abbey, because I believe the evidence of the Clerk of the Works is that there has been some slight damage done, although as yet it is not very much. But to drain away all the water that may be at this depth of 53ft. is a very different thing indeed, and the danger must he estimated in a totally different manner. Then it is stated that the railway would be carried through the London clay. It will be, no doubt, to a great extent, carried through the London clay, but it will very likely come above the level of the clay in various places. We cannot at all guarantee that the bottom of it will not be above the clay just at this part, and, therefore, the suggestion that the clay will hold the water which is above it, and protect the strata from sinking, does not apply in this case unless you can prove that at this point the water would lie altogether below the level of the railway itself. Even then you would have a great deal to show in order to prove that the London clay has no chinks or fissures in it, through which the water could penetrate. But, of course, my Lords, to have a railway constructed at that depth is more likely to be dangerous, although one at a considerably further distance might possibly be tolerably safe. But that is not all; it is proposed to put between the railway and St. Paul's Cathedral a large station, which, of course, must run down to the same depth as the railway itself; then there must also be shafts sunk down to that level, and all this is to be done within 75 yards of St. Paul's. Of course it may not come quite so close as I have mentioned, but the plans indicate the construction of a station which is to come within that distance. It is obvious, on the face of it, that even if it were possible to carry the railway, considered by itself, so near to St. Paul's without

    1297
    risk, to make this station and these shafts close by is entailing a risk of a very much more important character, a risk so serious that I do desiderate a better answer from the engineer than simply the ipse dixit of a man who says there is no danger to be apprehended. But, my Lords, that is not the whole matter. The engineer who has charge of this work is the Engineer also who has charge of the construction works of the London and South wark Subway, and that subway is being constructed in the very same manner in which this railway is proposed to be constructed. Well, the engineer, when be gave his evidence in support of the Bill for the London and South wark Subway, stated that that subway would do no mischief to surrounding buildings; but, my Lords, the subway has done mischief almost all along its extent. I have a list here showing many cases where houses have been injured. In 15 different cases mischief has been done, and, in particular, we have had injury done to St. James's Church, Kennington. That church is almost destroyed by the railway coming close to it. The engineer, afterwards, when he was asked whether the subway had not damaged the church, replied that the church was very slightly built, and that it was not at all like the solid masonry which Sir Christopher Wren took care to put into St. Paul's Cathedral. That answer, I think, my Lords, is of some importance upon this proposal, and we may say of that engineer's opinion in our view of it valeat quantum. But it is to be observed that this engineer, who had previously expressed himself as convinced that the subway would not at all hurt the property along its course, now gives, when it is clear that it has hurt the adjoining property, a totally different account of the matter, and says that the cause of the damage was that the injured building was not substantial enough. Against the fact that the statement made by the engineer was directed to the fact of the church being of rather unsubstantial construction, I put the fact of the enormously greater weight of St. Paul's Cathedral. My Lords, you have not here to consider the mere weight of an ordinary church. This is, no doubt, a very different thing, and when you have to consider such a weight as that of
    1298
    the vast edifice of St. Paul's Cathedral, you know for certain that the amount of pressure which will be existing in the case of that structure to squeeze the water out through any outlet which is provided for it, will be incalculably greater than the pressure exerted by the weight of such a comparatively small building as St. James's Church. It is said, my Lord, that this railway is to be constructed on an entirely new method. It is to be constructed upon the atmospheric pressure principle, and it is said that the atmospheric pressure used will be such as to prevent the water from escaping. Well, at any rate, we ought to have very clear evidence that it is possible to do so. In the case of the subway, they did not succeed in preventing mischief. They did succeed, to some degree, in preventing this perpetual leakage of water, but then your Lordships must consider that the subway is a tube of only 11 feet diameter, while this railway tunnel is nearly three times that diameter—its actual diameter is, I believe, 29 feet. Then there is the space for this station besides to be excavated. It may be quite possible to do with a tube 11 feet in diameter what it is quite impossible to do with a tube 28 feet in diameter. Every mathematician knows perfectly well that the amount of pressure which comes from the surface in such a case is not merely in proportion to diameters of tubes, but that it is very much larger in proportion as the diameters increase; and with regard to the pressure which will have to be resisted here, certainly there is no evidence yet to show that it can be resisted at all. We have the instance of the subway now being constructed in America under the river Hudson at New York. There they have had accidents occurring. Only in January last the tunnel they were making collapsed and killed 20 people, and we do not know yet whether it will be found possible for them to go on with that subway. At any rate Ave ought to be quite sure what we are doing before we sanction the introduction of this at present experimental method of dealing with such a case as this. The London County Council have had a proposal before them for making a subway which they were to authorise. But they declined to authorise it until they had

    1299
    had further experience, because they believed that the experiments were not sufficiently conclusive at present to justify them in accepting the belief of the engineer that this could be done without any serious risk, Now, it may be said that we have great experts declaring that they have looked into this, and that they are quite sure there is no risk of damage being done, but when your Lordships have these facts before you, you see here is one of these great engineers giving evidence of one kind at one time, and of another kind at another time, saying first that he is sure no damage will be done by the construction of the London and Southwark Subway, and then saying, when the damage is done, that it is the fault lies in the construction of the building which is damaged, and that it is not the fault of his subway in damaging it. I think your Lordships will agree that this kind of assertion on the part of engineers is not, as it does not seem to me to be, at all satisfactory. An engineer has been employed to look into the matter, from our point of view, and he was very anxious to put before the other House the case of Westminster Abbey, because he knew that something has been said about the circumstances of that case as bearing upon the present instance, but that was ruled to be irrelevant there. Certainly it is rather remarkable that it should be ruled irrelevant before the Committee of the House of Commons, and that yet the promoters of the Bill should cite that instance in favour of what they propose to do. My Lords, this is not a matter, surely, which ought to be decided upon mere speculative grounds. You ought not, surely, to run any risk of serious damage to such a fabric as St. Paul's Cathedral, unless you are quite sure. There are cases, of course, in which it is reasonable to say—"Here is a most important commercial undertaking, which will be of commercial advantage, and which will facilitate business, something which does contribute largely towards the commercial prosperity of the city, and, therefore, we must run a little risk, and if there be a doubt we must give the commercial undertaking the benefit of the doubt." But can you say that in such a case as this? Surely, if there be a doubt in this case, my Lords, you ought to give the
    1300
    benefit of that doubt to the Cathedral of St. Paul. If anything were done to wreck that great monument of Christian architecture, can we conceive any greater discredit to the Parliament of this country than that it should have consented to bring very serious ruin upon such a structure, in order that people might save 15 minutes in coming from Bayswater to Cheapside? I cannot conceive, if the importance of the matter is duly weighed, that those who really feel the gravity of so dealing with such a structure will be willing to consent this in a case where, certainly, we have no distinct proof of safety, but where we have, on the contrary, very distinct evidence that the experiment has not always been successful, and, when that is the case, it is too much to say we should allow such an experiment to be made now at the cost of what we value so much, of what we admire so highly, and of what we look upon as one of the glories of the Metropolis of England. I appeal to your Lordships to support me in resisting a speculation which may have such disastrous consequences as this, and I will ask anyone who feels disposed to vote on the other side, to think for a moment what he would feel if this Bill were to pass and he were a year hence to see that some very serious damage had been done to our great cathedral, seeing that he himself had had some hand in allowing it to be done. I appeal specially to your Lordships because I am the Bishop of that cathedral, and charged, therefore, with the duty of representing its fortunes in this House, and I am only doing my dirty to the very best of my very imperfect ability in stating as clear a case as I can why we should hesitate, and hesitate-long, before we agree to such a fatally hazardous experiment.
    Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," and add at the end of the Motion the words "this day six months."—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
    VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT: My Lords, the opposition of the right rev. Prelate to this Bill goes to the principle of the Bill. I think that in a case such as this, as the right rev. Prelate has said, it requires great consideration; but I think your Lordships will agree that it is better not to oppose such a Bill on the

    1301
    principle involved in it. In successive Sessions different Bills with the object of improving the Metropolitan underground communications have been thrown out on various pleas. In one year objection was raised on account of injury to the trees in Hyde Park although the railway was to run under the roadway and 50 feet under the surface. In this case it is stated that the nearest point of the railway will be 250 feet distant from the Cathedral. I should doubt very much if any settlement of earth which could be caused by making a tunnel at that distance, could possibly affect the foundations of that magnificent structure. Your Lordships all know perfectly well the extraordinary way in which the great traffic of London has increased, and the congestion in the thoroughfares of Piccadilly, Oxford Street, and other places is apparent to everyone. I think it is unnecessary to say more to show the absolute necessity of some improvement in the means of the railway communication in the centre of the Metropolis. The scheme has been strongly supported in another place, and although, of course, as the right rev. Prelate says, we have not had the Bill before us in this House yet, still I think that there is a strong case for reading the Bill a second time, and for referring it to a Select Committee. The right rev. Prelate cited the case of a church in Kennington, where he says that the London and Southwark subway went close to it, but I think the distance of 250 feet, which is stated to be the nearest point here cannot be said to be very close to the Cathedral. There is no Member of your Lordships' House who would be more unwilling than myself to see any damage done to our great cathedral, but I must say I think the right rev. Prelate has not made a case of throwing out the Bill on Second Reading.
    THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords I desire to say a few words for the purpose of contributing a little support from my own experience to the case made by the right rev. Prelate. For 10 years of my life I had the custody of a cathedral not so important as that of St. Paul's, still one of our most glorious and historic cathedrals; I mean the cathedral of Ely. It so happened that about 35 years ago, I think, some im-
    1302
    provements by way of drainage were carried out in the city of Ely. That was a great improvement, no doubt, to the whole town and for the comfort and health of the inhabitants; but it so happened that the cathedral of Ely stands upon a bed of sand, and the sand being saturated with water very much in the manner that has been described in this case by the right rev. Prelate, the effect of that drainage was, among other things, to let out a great deal of the water from the sandy stratum and to draw away the water from underneath the cathedral. When I was Dean of Ely Cathedral we had a great deal of trouble with regard to cracks and evidences of settlement appearing in different parts of the cathedral. I had a good deal to do with the expenditure in underpinning and making good the defects where there had been subsidences, and there was very great expenditure entailed by the delicate process of rebuilding flying buttresses. I am not sufficiently scientific to absolutely state the truth of what I now suggest, but the Clerk of the Works who had charge of the building, and in whom I had very great confidence, always attributed the difficulties which we experienced with regard to the cathedral to the fact of the drainage, which had taken place a few years before. I think myself that was very probably the cause. Certainly we had settlements and cracks in the building, which gave us a great deal of trouble, and no other cause was ever suggested except that which I have mentioned. Now, I think, my Lords, the phenomena which we experienced in Ely were exactly the same as may be anticipated here. If you drain away the water from the strata below, you will drain away a good deal of the support, and have, of course, cracks and subsidences in the superincumbent edifice. As far as the case of the cathedral goes, I myself feel very much disposed to support the right rev. Prelate, and I think the speech which we have just heard from a noble Lord tends very much to support the argument which preceded it. Because, what did the noble Lord opposite tell us? He gave us figures which entirely agreed with those mentioned by the right rev. Prelate, and all he did in addition was to say that he doubted very much

    1303
    that any mischief could happen. We ought not to allow St. Paul's Cathedral to depend upon a doubt; we must have certainty or something very much approaching certainty, before we can consent that the grandest, and, in some respects, the most important ecclesiastical building in the kingdom, a building with which the pride of the nation is bound up more than with any other, should suffer the smallest probability of having to undergo any risk.
    LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, the Motion of the right rev. Prelate seems to me to be one which is most unusual upon a Bill of this importance. It is. I believe, almost without precedent, and I venture to think that the right rev. Prelate has not made out his case. My Lords, what are the facts of the matter? This Bill is not a Bill which comes up to your Lordships for the first time. It is a Bill which comes up from the other House, having been thoroughly investigated in Committee. It has been most thoroughly debated upon two other occasions, and certainly it seems to me that if your Lordships refuse to allow it to go to a Committee you are liable to be charged with a grave act of discourtesy, and I venture to think it will be a course which it would be most unusual for your Lordships to adopt. The right rev. Prelate has undoubtedly made out, from his point of view, a strong case. He has spoken with deep conviction, and none of your Lordships can doubt that he has done so, feeling that it is his duty to make that protest; and he has made out, on the part of the opponents, undoubtedly, a case which, if it is true, is very strong. But, my Lords, it does seem to me, if the right rev. Prelate is correct in all his views, that is the very reason which would induce your Lordships to send it to a Committee of Inquiry. Surely, if he is right, in his own interest and in the interest of those who oppose the Bill, it is far better that the matter should be thoroughly threshed out; and if there is any danger to St. Paul's Cathedral, it should be shown at once, and then we shall hear no more about it. But, my Lords, what are the facts of the matter? The right rev. Prelate has based his opposition entirely on the ground that there is a danger, to St. Paul's from the con-
    1304
    struction of this railway. This question came before the Committee of the other House; it was most thoroughly gone into by that Committee, and they had before them three great engineers, Sir John Fowler, Sir Benjamin Baker, and Mr. Greathead. Those three enginneers proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that there was not the slightest danger to the foundations of St. Paul's. Cathedral. The right rev. Prelate has gone somewhat into an engineering discourse. He has stated, in the first place, that you cannot liken this in any way to the case of the Metropolitan District Railway which was made near Westminster Abbey. My Lords, it is somewhat interesting to remember that about 25 years ago in that matter a very similar discussion occurred. It was then shown that the Metropolitan District Railway would be constructed within 70 feet of Westminster Abbey and within 23 feet of Westminster Hospital, and that enormous danger would accrue to the foundations of those structures. But your Lordships are aware that no harm whatever has arisen. The right rev. Prelate says that was a totally different case, and that, in that case, the Metropolitan District Railway was only constructed at a very shallow distance from the surface, whereas, in this case, you are to have a railway 53 feet below the surface, and that, therefore, there is very great danger of damage from the drainage of the water. But, my Lords, if you are to consider the question in that light, you must remember the facts of the case. The proposal in this Bill is not that you should go into any stratum which would cause danger, but that you should go through the blue clay. The right rev. Prelate speaks of the tube through which this railway is to pass as being of far larger diameter than the London and Southwark Subway, that, whereas that has only a diameter of 11 feet, this is to be a tube of 29 feet diameter. Well, my Lords, as a matter of fact, I think the right rev. Prelate is entirely wrong in his statement. The two tubes are certainly only 11 feet each in diameter. Though I think there is very little necessity for me to go into the facts, still, as the right rev. Prelate has mentioned this matter I think I ought to make some reference to it. My Lords, the proposal under this Bill is that

    1305
    the railway should go within 250 feet at its nearest point of St. Paul's Cathedral: not 70 feet, as it was in the case of the Metropolitan District Railway in regard to Westminster Abbey. You have the highest engineering authorities saying there is not the slightest danger. My Lords, I think that shows, at any rate, there is another side to the question, whether right or wrong I will not say, but it certainly shows there is another aspect of the question which justifies an investigation before one of your Lordships' Committees. The noble Lord who spoke before me referred to the congestion of the traffic. The whole object of this Bill is to relieve the congested traffic in this great Metropolis. There can be no doubt, as probably any of your Lordships who take an interest in the matter are aware, that the traffic in London is growing to a most fearful extent. The number of omnibuses and cabs, which are increasing day by day, has become a great danger to all pedestrians; and I think, if there were no other ground for supporting this Bill, your Lordships would hardly refuse to give it a Second Reading when you consider that important point. I think it must be admitted that everyone who has watched the growth of our traffic must come to the conclusion that before long we must either have overhead railway accommodation or further underground railway communication. What I venture to suggest to your Lordships is this: that come what may, this Bill should now be read a second time, and that it should then be referred to one of your Lordships' Committees, where the measure can be thoroughly threshed out.
    THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like to say when I mentioned that the diameter of the tunnel was to be 29 feet, I meant that it would be so at the station and that the excavation for the station, and shafts would be an additional danger; that is to say, that the station would be, as regards distance, an addition to the tunnel.
    THE EARL OF MORLEY: I am sure your Lordships will not be surprised at the objection which has been taken by the right rev. Prelate, who watches over the fabric of St. Paul's Cathedral, or that he has taken the somewhat unusual course of moving the rejection of the Second Reading of this
    1306
    Bill from a strict sense of duty. I quite sympathise with, and I am sure your Lordships will share in, his anxiety to protect the grand fabric of that Cathedral from every risk of danger. But, my Lords, the question is, are we in a position to judge whether this is a risk or not? I listened to the rev. Prelate's speech and to the testimony that he produced to your Lordships. All that, no doubt, is very interesting engineering and geological evidence, which cannot be tested here, but which could be tested before one of those tribunals to which your Lordships refer Bills of this description. I will not express the slightest opinion as to the validity or invalidity of the reasons which the right rev. Prelate has alleged for saying that the construction of such a railway would be a risk to the fabric of St. Paul's; but I do maintain very strongly that it would not be right for the House to diverge from its usual practice on this occasion and to reject this Bill on Second Reading without giving both the promoters and opponents of it an opportunity of being heard before a Select Committee. The Bill was fought very thoroughly before the House of Commons; a Committee of that House sat very nearly a month, I think, considering it, and then the Bill was sent up with certain Amendments and certain safeguards, as was considered, to your Lordships' House. I do not for a moment anticipate what the decision of a Select Committee might be, whether it might conclude to pass the Bill or not, or, if it did pass the Bill, whether or not it might think fit to introduce; certain other safeguards in it; but this I do say, that it would be a very unfortunate course to take, especially after what has occurred in another place, if your Lordships did not give an opportunity for further investigation.
    THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am sure we must all sympathise with the right rev. Prelate who has introduced this Motion. The right rev. Prelate is at the head of the Diocese of London, and not only is he at the head of the Diocese of London, but he is a very eminent leader of the Church of England, and he would not have been performing his duty if he had not, with the feeling which he entertains, brought this question to your Lordships' notice. But, my Lords, I

    1307
    doubt very much whether ho has proved his case. I myself think he has not done so, and the only point in which I differ from my noble Friend Lord Sudeley is that Lord Sudeley said he thought the right rev. Prelate Lad made out a strong case. Now, I cannot make out how Lord Sudeley could say that he had made out a strong case, inasmuch as the right rev. Prelate has not given us a single engineering authority to bear out what he has stated. He has referred to the opinions of eminent architects; but, on the ether hand, the promoters of this Bill have brought forward as evidence the opinions of two of the greatest engineers the world knows—Sir John Fowler and Sir Benjamin Baker. Those men would not risk their reputation—a reputation which is dear to them—by telling the Committee of the House of Commons there is not the smallest danger in what the company propose to do if they had thought there was danger. Sir Benjamin Baker went so far as to say that even if there were an open cutting-made there would be no danger to the foundations of St. Paul's Cathedral. My Lords, we have heard a great deal about St. Paul's Cathedral being erected on sand and gravel strata. But the promoters tell us that the tunnel is to run through the clay below. If the arguments of the right rev. Prelate are worth anything, they would go to show that the deeper the tunnel is driven the greater is the danger to be apprehended. He told us there was a parallel instance in the case of the Metropolitan District Railway running near Westminster Abbey; but that it was so near the surface that no danger had been incurred, and that, in fact, the danger increases with the depth to which you go. I am unable to give an opinion upon this question; but I do not think your Lordships are able to give an opinion upon it either. The whole question is one which I think ought to be discussed in Committee, and not in this House. We ought to have before that Committee the evidence of the greatest engineers we can find, and, of course, if it can be proved to the Committee that there is danger to the structure of the Cathedral, there is no one, I suppose, in your Lordships' House who would not immediately vote for throwing out the Bill. But I say it would be wrong for this House to
    1308
    go directly in the face of what was done in the House of Commons, where there was no Division even taken upon it. Its opponents were so few that there was not, I believe, a third person in the House to oppose it. My Lords, greater means of communication are wanted in this Metropolis. We have only to go along Oxford Street to see the congested state of the traffic there. There are only three ways of relieving it. One is by overhead communication, as they have in New York, which I do not think would be permitted in this Metropolis. Some of your Lordships may have travelled by the overhead railway in New York, and, though it may be exceedingly convenient to those who may desire to travel by it, it undoubtedly lowers the value of the houses below and makes privacy impossible in them. I am perfectly certain that the shopkeepers in Oxford Street, who, as I understand, are now opposing this Bill, would be the last to desire to have a railway passing down their thoroughfare; we know that the road is already so very much congested that it is almost impossible for the cabs and omnibuses to pass along it. If neither overhead nor surface communication are available to us, the only way of relieving the traffic is by an underground railway. The population of London has increased during the last 24 years some 60 per cent., and I believe that the number of passengers who travel annually has increased some 700 per cent. The Committee of the House of Commons were quite alive to the necessity of proceeding with great caution, and they put into the Bill a clause by which no action was to be taken, and, indeed, no money was to be raised until three months after the City and Southwark subway had been completed, so that there might be some experience obtained before any steps were taken to make this underground railway. I should have liked individually if the Committee had forced the company to pay some compensation for the monopoly of the sub-soil, but that is a matter for Committee, and therefore is one which I will not introduce here. I think, also, that the arguments of the right rev. Prelate were entirely arguments which ought to have been introduced in Committee, and I hope, therefore, your Lordships

    1309
    will not assent to the Motion of the right rev. Prelate.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, the question before your Lordships is so interesting and important, that perhaps I may be pardoned for suggesting a course which, if taken, might possibly meet the views of all the Members of your Lordships' House. It seems to me that, besides the interested parties in this matter, if one may call them so—that is to say, those who have the custody of the Cathedral—there is a very large interest outside among the public, who have a great regard for that building as an ornament and grace to the Metropolis. It seems to me, if we let this Bill go in the ordinary course before a Committee; if that Committee were called upon to make a special Report to us, in case they may find that the Rill may be safely passed without fear of harm being done to St. Paul's Cathedral, they should lay before us the grounds on which they have come to that conclusion. At present we are discussing the Bill entirely in the dark. I do not know anything of what passed in the House of Commons, nor have I had the means of making myself acquainted with it, and I suppose none of your Lordships are in a better position in that respect than myself. I am quite sure, however, that if we had the Report of a Committee before us, we could then judge whether or not the grounds on which the Committee had proceeded were such as we could endorse or approve, and in that way we should be able to vote with knowledge on the Third Reading. If, on the other hand, a Committee of your Lordships' House should conclude that there was no ground for going on with the railway, and if they saw no reason to pass the Preamble, the Bill would not come back to us. But if it does come back, it is very desirable, I think, that it should come back upon a Special Report upon which the House could act with knowledge.
    THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in rising to support what has been said by the noble Viscount opposite, with regard to referring the Bill, I would only suggest that it does not require a special Report from the Committee. What I think would answer all purposes is, that
    1310
    there should be an Order to the Committee that the evidence before it, including the printed notes of the arguments, should be circulated among the Members of this House, and in that way we should have the whole case before us and be able to form a judgment upon it.
    EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I only wish to say a few words upon this Motion. Many years ago, when there were urgent whips and great canvassing among Members of Parliament for the purpose of passing or rejecting Bills on Second Reading—Railway Bills particularly—and a Committee was appointed to consider the private business of the other House, I had the honour of being a member of that Committee. At this distance of time I have the liveliest recollection of the impression which I then carried away; that is, how extremely undesirable it was that, except in cases where the clearest principles were at stake for either House of Parliament to attempt to discuss points of engineering science, or to deal with matters which could only be satisfactorily dealt with before a Committee. The evils of the other system are palpable, and the conclusion which I entreat your Lordships to come to is, as there is no question of principle involved here, to give this Bill a Second Reading, and then to let it go before one of your Lordships' Committees, where it can be freely discussed and serutinised and evidence taken upon it.
    THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I do not know that I should not be wise to accept the advice of the noble Viscount to refer the Bill for a special Report as to the absence of danger. I should, of course, reserve to myself the right of opposing the further progress of the Bill, if it should appear to me that the decision of the Committee was not quite in accordance with the wisest course.
    Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn: Bill read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  HELIGOLAND.

    QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Marquess

    1311
    a question of which I have given him private notice. I understand it is not his intention to make any statement to the House to-day with reference to the Agreement, published in yesterday's papers, which has taken place between this country and Germany in regard to the cession of Heligoland. I understand that he is not in a position to make a complete statement on the subject to-day; and, that being so, I would venture to ask him the question for the purpose of obtaining information. It is this—Has he, before agreeing to the cession of Heligoland, consulted the Military and Naval Authorities in regard to the expediency of such cession? I would further ask him if any steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, to ascertain the wishes of the Heligolanders themselves with regard to that transfer? I would also ask, though I have not given the noble Marquess notice of the question and therefore he will deal with it as he thinks best, when and where the Heligoland Transfer Bill will be introduced, and when we may expect to have further Papers on the subject?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, with respect to the first of the questions of the noble Earl, I have to reply that before coming to the decision which we have communicated to your Lordships we made ourselves acquainted with the opinions of those professional advisers who were in a position to give us advice upon the subject. The matter is more naval I should say than military. There are certain military points, but the naval question is the predominant one. With respect to the second question of the noble Earl, my answer must be in the negative. The plébiscite is not among the traditions of this country. We have not taken a plébiscite, and I see no necessity for doing so. At the same time, we have good ground for believing that if there has been expressed in past times any objection on the part of any of the inhabitants of Heligoland to this transfer, it has been mainly connected with the fear of a conscription; and if the noble Earl will read the Despatch which has been laid upon the Table he will observe that we have taken the precaution to stipulate that no person alive at the time of the cession shall be subject
    1312
    to obligatory military or naval service. With regard to the third question of the noble Earl as to the introduction of the Bill, I thought it would have been introduced into the House of Commons, but I see no objection to introducing it into this House. I doubt whether it can be laid on the Table until the Convention is signed, because naturally the Bill must refer to that. The Bill is necessarily a short one. With respect to Papers, I do not know what Papers the noble Earl speaks of; but, of course, any papers that we are able to lay before the House we shall be happy to place upon the Table. I presume the Convention is the principal Paper.

    HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 75.)
    Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
    CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL.
    A Bill for better enforcing church discipline in the case of crimes and other offences against morality—was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 134.)
    SHERIFFS (ASSIZES EXPENSES) BILL.
    An Act respecting the expenses of High Sheriffs in connection with assizes—Was presented by the Earl Camperdown; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 135.)
  SETTLED LAND BILL.—(No. 99.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I need detain your Lordships but a few moments in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, because it is so much a matter of detail that no doubt it will have to be considered in Committee. I should imagine there will be no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill. It has been prepared by the Incorporated Law Society, and is the result of the experience which has been obtained in the working of the Settled Land Act. Certain questions have arisen which it is desirable to settle, and it is considered expedient to give several powers which

    1313
    were not given in the first instance; but none of them are matters of very great gravity, or make any considerable change in the law. I do not propose to take your Lordships through every clause in the Bill, but merely to mention its principal provisions. Doubts have arisen where a rent-charge on the disentailment of an estate is created in favour of an eldest son when he is a disentailing party, whether that instrument is to be considered for the purposes of the Settled Land Act as constituting one instrument, together with the settlement proper, or whether it is to be regarded as an incumbrance. I think there is no doubt it was intended to be treated as part of the settlement; but doubt has arisen, and the 1st clause to which I will refer, Clause 4 of the Bill, removes that doubt, and provides that it shall be treated as one instrument. Under the Settled Land Act there is power on a sale under the Act to reserve an easement, but there is no power to do so when it is an exchange or partition, and not a sale. The same power is now reserved equally in that case. The next provision is to enable a tenant for life to carry out a contract which has been entered into by his predecessor in title. Before the transaction can be carried out under the contract, a sale may be made; but, pending its completion, if the vendor dies the proceedings would at present have to be taken all over again. Under this clause power is given to continue the proceedings and to convey the estate. Then the next provision makes this alteration: At present a lease can only be granted by the tenant for life after notice has been given to the Trustees of the settlement. The 7th clause in the Bill enables a lease, if it is for 21 years or less and at a rack-rent, to be made by the tenant for life without notice to the Trustees. Then there is a provision relating to the mansion house. Your Lordships are aware that there is an exception from the power of the tenant for life to sell under the Settled Land Act in that respect: he is unable to sell the mansion house. The 9th clause leaves that generally untouched, but it provides—
    "Where a house is usually occupied as a farmhouse, or where the site of any house and the pleasure grounds and park and lands (if any) usually occupied therewith do not together
    1314
    exceed one hundred acres in extent, the house is not to be deemed a principal mansion house within the meaning of this section."
    The next provision is one on which some question may possibly be raised. At present the tenant for life can sell land that is settled for the purpose of expending the money for which the land is so sold upon improvements as defined by the Settled Land Act. The 10th clause of the Bill proposes to enable a tenant for life to raise money by mortgage for those same purpose instead of selling a portion of the estate. Sometimes the sum required is very small, and the difficulty of selling a small portion of the estate for the purpose of raising the necessary money is great. It would be a very considerable convenience to the tenant for life, and an advantage to the estate itself if such sum could be raised by mortgage, instead of by the sale of a portion of the real estate. It does not alter the mode in which the money is to be applied. It would be useful also for another purpose. At present, if there are mortgages and charges upon an estate, a tenant for life may sell for the purpose of paying them off, but he could not re-mortgage the estate for the purpose of consolidating the mortgages and, perhaps, raising the money required for the purpose at a lower rate of interest than that payable under the existing mortgages. Your Lordships are aware that many estates may be charged with mortgages bearing interest considerably in excess of the rate at which borrowing could now take place, nevertheless the tenant for life is precluded from making a fresh borrowing for the purpose of paying off mortgages, though he could do so at a lower rate of interest. This clause is intended to give him that power. Then, the next provision is merely a matter of machinery, and I need not trouble your Lordships with it. The 12th clause extends in some measure the improvements upon which settled money may be expended; one is the construction of bridges which are necessary for the purpose of the estate, which are not now included; and the next provision enables the money to be expended in putting the estate into a condition in which it may reasonably be let to the best advantage. Then the 13th clause enables the Court, if it thinks fit, where

    1315
    money has been paid into Court, to order payment of it out to the Trustees. At present, when money once gets into Court, it cannot be got out again; whereas, under this provision, the Court may order it if it thinks fit. There is only one other clause with which I need trouble your Lordships. That provides that where there are no Trustees of the settlement within the meaning of the Act the persons here named shall be the Trustees. The persons named in the Bill are those who, when application is made to the Court, are the people who would be appointed. This provision is only to save the necessity of applying to the Court in each case to appoint Trustees, and it does not make any substantial change. It is only for the purpose of avoiding the expense of an application to the Court. Now, those are all the provisions of the Bill with which I need trouble your Lordships. No doubt they will have to receive more consideration when in Committe, and I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am bound to say that, with regard to the greater part of this Bill, I am entirely in accord. I think a great many of its provisions will be useful amendments of the law. But there is one matter which I should like to refer to for a moment in regard to the 10th section of the Bill. That seems to me to be absolutely inconsistent with the whole policy of the Settled Land Act. By that Act, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, the tenant for life may, acting, as it were, for the person next in remainder, because he is improving the estate for him, sell portions of the estate for the purpose of obtaining money to enable him to carry out improvements. But the policy of allowing a tenant for life to mortgage for such purposes appears to me to raise very serious questions indeed, and I doubt whether so great on alteration should be made except upon a full discussion of the question after the Bill has been referred to Committee. It appears to me there are plenty of purposes for which a tenant for life may improve the estate, and he has power to raise money by sale for that purpose; but this Bill would give additional powers
    1316
    which ought to be very carefully considered before your Lordships agree that the tenant for life should be able, not only to sell part of the estate so that the next in remainder shall come into possession of an improved property, an estate increased in value, but that the next in remainder may possibly find he has come into possession of an estate encumbered by mortgages, which, if he could have been consulted, he would not have agreed to. That, my Lords, seems to me to raise a serious question of principle which your Lordships should look at and consider carefully apart from any question upon mere details; and I should think that the proper time to do so would be when the Bill comes back, if the Bill should come back from the Committee unamended in that respect. It would be then for your Lordships, sitting in Committee of the whole House, to consider that question.
    EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should like, as an ignorant and humble layman, to ask the noble and learned Lord for a little information with regard to the 9th clause, Sub-section 3. That clause appears to exempt from the restrictions originally imposed by the Settled Land Act, 1882, two classes of houses; one where a house is usually occupied as a farmhouse, and the other where the site of any house and the pleasure grounds, and park, and lands usually occupied therewith, do not together exceed 100 acres in extent. When that is the case, as I read the Bill, those two classes of houses are capable of being sold, at the will of the tenant for life. If that be the right interpretation, it appears to me this Bill strikes at the root of the restrictions imposed in the Settled Land Act of 1882. There may be great ambiguity in the words "usually occupied as a farmhouse.' The tenant for life may be on bad terms with his heir; he may waste the estate, and may cause the mansion house to be occupied as a farmhouse; and that may go on for a long period, for his life may not be a short one. So much for the words "usually occupied as a farmhouse" Then the second category seems to me to be still more objectionable. It is, I think, very insidious, because it provides that this may be done—

    1317
    "Where the site of any house, and the pleasure grounds, and park, and lands (if any) usually occupied therewith do not together exceed 100 acres in extent."
    My Lords, I do not know the exact acreage of the various parks throughout the country; but there, again, it would he open to the tenant for life, as it seems to me, to reduce the size of his park, and then, when that reduction has been made and has existed for a greater or longer period, that is also to be taken out of the category of a principal mansion house within the meaning of the original Act, so as to deal with that portion of the property without consulting the wishes of those entitled in remainder. My Lords, if I am right in my interpretation of this clause, the number of mansion houses which would be left unaffected in regard to the restrictions imposed by the Settled Land Act, would be so small that it would be better to repeal those provisions altogether than to leave them in existence as provisions which are altogether illusory. I may be wrong, of course, in this: but it appears to me there is no such source of danger as there being supposed to exist a protection which is illusory. If my interpretation is correct, this clause, though it may seem thoroughly satisfactory upon paper, yet, when tested by the rapacity which does sometimes exist in the case of a tenant for life, and which must ex hypothesi exist, will really prove very mischievous, and render the protection which is supposed to be given of no value at all. I shall be very glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord that I am mistaken in my interpretation; but if I am not, then I think it would be a far more straightforward course to move at once for the repeal of the restrictions in this respect under the Settled Land Act, rather than to leave laymen under the impression that they enjoy a security which it will be found they really do not enjoy as against a hostile tenant for life.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, f think it says very much for the humility of human nature, considering that we are all, or nearly all of us, tenants for life, to find what a deep distrust we seem to have of people in that position. We appear to consider that they are always about, or are willing, to commit some great crime, but I think
    1318
    tenants for life are a better class, on the whole, than my noble Friend Earl Beauchamp may think. What I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord opposite is, whether there are any means of defining what comes under the description of pleasure grounds and park. I have often, myself, seen cases where, if the grass in a man's park is not going on well, he will put it under turnips. Does it cease to be a park then? Viewing the matter in that way, the limitation appears to be one that nobody could rely upon, and, I think, might mislead.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, with reference to the question which has been asked by the noble Earl, I would first state, generally, what the object of this section is. The language of the Settled Land Act is, that "it is not to apply to the principal mansion house (if any) or the settled land." That, obviously, was not intended to cover every house, however small, but was to be applied in the spirit of it to the residence in connection with the land. However small it was, that was the principle of it. It was supposed to apply to cases of an estate of some considerable character or size having such a house upon it. Now, the scheme of this section is, that where in reality it does not come within the spirit of the Settled Land Act, where you have a house occupied with only a small portion of land attached, that then it should not be regarded as a principal mansion house within the meaning of the Act. Of course, it may be considered that the area of 100 acres taken here is too large, and that it ought to be reduced. That is a matter of detail which I will not go into at present; but I will say, in answer to the question of the noble Earl, that I do not think any tenant for life, by altering the character of the holding, and by saying that any portion of the property had been usually occupied in a particular way, could' bring himself within the section and so entitles himself to sell. I think, in considering for what purpose that portion of the property has been usually occupied, you would have to look to the period during which, and the purposes for which, the land had been held with the house in the past, and not how it happened to be occupied at the particular moment. With regard to the

    1319
    question of the noble Marquess, I would point out that the provision is not with regard merely to pleasure grounds and parks, but that it is land usually held with, the house; that is, throughout. If a portion 0f what had been a park was turned into something which was not strictly park, yet, if it was part of the land which had been usually held with the house, it would still come within those words, although it had ceased to be park and then filled some other character. The provision is that, notwithstanding the Act of 1882,
    "The principal mansion house (if any) on any settled land, and the pleasure grounds and park and lands (if any) usually occupied therewith, shall not he sold, exchanged, or leased by the tenant for life without the consent of the trustees of the settlement or an order of the Court."
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then, if a man farms the whole of his land, he cannot sell it.
    LORD HERSCHELL: In that case, if it exceeded that amount, he could not sell without the leave of the Court. It would come under the restrictions of the Settled Land Act. At present the mansion house can only be sold under the order of the Court. The power of the tenant for life is limited if the lands usually held with the house exceed the 100 acres, as provided, for whatever purposes they might be occupied. That case would come within the scope of the Act and not within the exceptions.
    EAUL BEAUCHAMP: Do I understand the noble and learned Lord to say that a tenant for life, having let his park, which is not at all unfrequently the case, for a term of years, as he is entitled to do, the principal mansion house and the whole estate would be then exempted from the restrictions of the Settled Land Act, but little land being actually occupied with the mansion house, so that he might sell the principal mansion house of a very large and ornamental estate without consulting the remainder-man?
    LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think he would. It certainly was not intended that he should. However, after what the noble Earl has said, I may say that I shall take care, if possible, to see that that point is made clear.
    Bill read 2a (according to order).
    LORD HERSCHELL: I now move that this Bill be committed to the Stand-
    1320
    ing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.
    EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is, I think, a matter which your Lordships ought to consider in Committee of the whole House. Of course, there are technical points to be dealt with; but I would point out that this is a matter which concerns your Lordships as landowners. Is it not a matter in which, before the details are settled, your Lordships should agree upon the principle involved in the clauses of this Bill? I hope your Lordships will send the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, and then it can afterwards, if necessary, be referred to the Standing Committee on Law.
    LORD HERSCHELL: Surely that is hardly necessary. Nine-tenths of this Bill refer to technical matters of detail in which there is no question of principle involved, and surely it would be better to consider the Bill in Standing Committee, and then, when it comes back to your Lordships, it will be in the form in which it has been finally settled. The noble Earl himself has already suggested that even if this 9th clause be right in principle, it ought to be altered in form. Surely the measure ought to be put in the best form for the consideration of the House, and then, when it comes back to the Committee of the whole House, it will be for your Lordships to omit any of the clauses or amend them. That seems to be a more reasonable course than to consider it now in Committee of the whole House. Your Lordships will then have a carefully-prepared draft before you.
    EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not know that I have any right to reply; but, as far as the drafting is concerned, I have that confidence in the noble and learned Lord that I do not know that whatever may be done in this Committee will improve his handiwork.
    Bill committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.—(No. 109.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is merely a Consolidation Bill upon the

    1321
    subject of foreign jurisdiction. As the object of it is merely to consolidate the Acts of Parliament, I anticipate no objection. Under ordinary circumstances, I should ask your Lordships to take this Bill in Committee of the whole House; but as it involves, by reason of the consolidation, some small Amendments of the law, I think it would be better that it should go before the Committee on Law.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, etc.

    EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 123.)
    Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
  KEW AND PETERSHAM VICARAGE BILL.—(No. 77.)

    MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 119.)
    House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock till to-morrow a quarter past Ten o'clock.