METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. (Hansard, 19 July 1898)

*EARL RUSSELL
I have some Amendments on the Paper to propose to this Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
We will take the Third Reading first.

*EARL EUSSELL
My Lords, in moving this Amendment I could wish that it had fallen to the lot of some more competent person to move it. But perhaps it would be better that I should put your Lordships in possession of the reasons that have influenced me in putting it down, and then your Lordships may perhaps think that it is not unreasonable. I ought at once to say that I propose to modify the Amendment by not moving to strike out the references to the Board of Trade. If your Lordships will look at the statement circulated on behalf of the promoters it will perhaps be as well, as that undoubtedly puts the matter in the clearest form. You will see the words "to the reasonable satisfaction of the Board of Trade," and in the next line, "if so required by the Board of Trade." I have modified my Amendment by not moving to strike out those references, because, on examining more carefully the Report of the Departmental Committee, those words appear to carry out their recommendation. The last words of the last paragraph of their Report were— Therefore, as a temporary measure, the Committee are prepared to recommend that the construction of the proposed additional openings, which would be found useful, even when the line is worked electrically, should be allowed, but only upon the condition that, unless electric traction be adopted, or some satisfactory artificial ventilation be introduced within three years after the passing of the Act authorising these openings, it shall be made incumbent upon the company to close them, if called upon to do so, by some competent authority to be named by Parliament. Obviously the Board of Trade would be that authority, and therefore the requirements ought to come from the Board of Trade. I am also given to understand that it will be incompetent for the Board of Trade to enter upon the company's works and to execute works, and therefore I propose to leave out— and the Board of Trade or the London County Council may enter upon, the works of 240 the company for the purpose of closing the said openings, and the company shall be liable to pay the costs so incurred. With those alterations, I propose to move the Amendment as printed. I should like to remind your Lordships of the history of this matter which, I think, will make it thoroughly clear why the Amendment I propose is desirable. Two years ago, a Bill of the Metropolitan Railway Company was considered by a Committee of this House, and a clause was inserted by that Committee which provided that the Metropolitan Railway Company should make these openings, if they could satisfy an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade that that was the best way of ventilating the Metropolitan Railway. The Metropolitan Railway Company decided not to accept that clause which was put upon them by the Committee, and dropped the clause. Then, on the Bill being brought before your Lordships' House for a Third Reading, it was moved that that clause should be re-inserted, and if I am not mistaken I think that the noble Lord who represented the Board of Trade promised a Departmental inquiry into the matter, if the Motion for the re-insertion of that clause were withdrawn. The Motion for the re-insertion of that clause was withdrawn, and a Departmental inquiry by the Board of Trade was held. That Departmental Committee, as the circular of the promoters states, sat for some time and heard several witnesses, and came to a conclusion, and the conclusion which is most important in this matter is the last one— Therefore, as a temporary measure, the Committee are prepared to recommend that the construction of the proposed additional openings, which would be found useful even when the line is worked electrically, should be allowed, but only upon the condition that, unless electric traction be adopted, or some satisfactory artificial ventilation be introduced within three years after the passing of the Act authorising these openings, it shall be made incumbent upon the company to close them, if called upon to do so by some competent authority to be named by Parliament. A clause has been introduced into the Bill of the Metropolitan Railway Company with that avowed object, but in my humble opinion that clause does not go far enough, because it provides no 241 means of accomplishing that object. The clause that has been introduced says that the Company are to close the openings for ventilation, by this Act, authorised to be made on the lands in the county of London by this Act authorised to be acquired, or such of the said openings as shall be specified in any requirement made by the Board of Trade under this section. The clause provides no means of enforcing that provision; in fact, it puts it in the form of a pious opinion, and if the Company refuse to close these openings there is no power to compel them to do so, and no power of obtaining a penalty from them in default of obeying this injunction. After a very long inquiry by that Departmental Committee, there was a unanimous Report made, and that unanimous Report was the subject of a compromise, although the local authorities who appeared before the Committee were, one and all, opposed to the making of these openings at all. In the Report of the Committee it is stated— The present system of ventilation by openings in use on the Metropolitan Railway is unsatisfactory, both to those using the line and to the public using the streets where the openings exist. And lower down the Report goes on to say— A strong objection to the creation of additional openings is to be found in the fact that every representative of the local authorities who gave evidence, protested most strongly against permission being given to discharge foul gases at, or about, the street level, on the ground both of public health and depreciation of property. It is a very large power that the Company ask for—that they shall be able to discharge foul gases for the inhalation of the public using that street, and the recommendation of the Committee, which was a unanimous recommendation, should, I think, be read very strictly, and that recommendation says— The Committee are prepared to recommend that the construction of the proposed additional openings which would be found useful, even when the line is working electrically, should be allowed, but only upon the condition that, unless electric traction be adopted, or some satisfactory artificial ventilation be introduced within three years after the passing of the Act authorising these openings, it shall be made incumbent upon the company to close them. 242 The clause, as put in the Bill, did not seem to me to carry out that recommendation of the Departmental Committee. I should not have ventured, of course, as having been a member of that Committee, to go a step beyond what their Report recommended; but the Amendment that I have put down seems to me to make effective the recommendations of that Committee, and I have added the proviso that if the company does not do what the Act of Parliament says they shall do, then, as the clause stands now, some other body, in this case the London County Council, may carry out the work for them, and may take the company before a magistrate, who will inflict penalties. That, of course, will only arise if my Amendment is carried, after the Board of Trade had required them to close the openings, and that, I think, would make it an exact and effective carrying out of the recommendations of the Committee. I may also point out that I put down this Amendment originally entirely on my own account, and for the reason that I had been a member of the Departmental Committee. My object in so doing was that the Bill did not appear to me to carry out those recommendations so thoroughly and so effectively as, in my opinion, they ought to be carried out, being, as I said before, embodied in a unanimous Report. Since putting down the Amendments they have been endorsed by the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council, which is one of the local authorities, and they have also been endorsed by the Vestry of St. Pancras, who state that— St. Pancras has a population of nearly a quarter of a million of inhabitants, and the rateable value is £1,664,543, and its representatives will be very grateful to your Lordships if you can see your way to support Earl Russell's amendment, which they believe is reasonable, and which they consider will carry out the intentions of the Committee of the Board of Trade"; and in the previous paragraph they say— The Amendment is precisely that which this vestry and the vestry of Marylebone sought to have inserted in the Bill. The Metropolitan Railway Company have said that they are about to adopt electric traction, and if they are about to adopt electric traction, and were forthwith to 243 adopt electric traction, there would be no necessity for this Amendment, and no necessity for these extreme precautions as they may seem to your Lordships; but the company have dealt with Parliament in rather a curious way in this matter. For a long time the company suggested to Committees of Parliament that experiments had been made in ventilation by fans, and that these had been found to work unsatisfactorily. But when the inquiry by the Departmental Committee was being held, the engineer put forward by the Committee admitted at once that experiments by fans did not amount to any serious attempt to solve the question of the ventilation of the railway by means of fans. Besides that, when the company were required to submit the question to the judgment of an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade, they declined to accept the clause embodying that proposal. Under these circumstances both of the vestries of St. Pancras and Marylebone and other local authorities interested in the preservation of the amenities of the streets of London, and in the best system of ventilation for the convenience of passengers upon these underground railways, did not feel very great confidence that the Metropolitan Railway Company were going at once to adopt electric traction. Before the Departmental Committee it was stated by the chairman of the company that they would carry out a system of electric traction at once. They have had an opportunity of doing so, and the Report of the Departmental Committee was obviously swayed by that statement, because that statement is especially mentioned and quoted in the Report— The chairman of the company has stated that 'the moment that we can get a reliable firm or combination to undertake the working of the Inner Circle by electricity we shall accept it.' The chairman stated subsequently, not that they were making these inquiries urgently and anxiously to see what they could do, but that they were watching to see what other railway companies were doing. That statement was made six months after the previous one; and now, in the statement which the company have circulated, they say— But in the meantime, and until the company are assured that their very heavy traffic 244 can be satisfactorily worked by electricity, and also having regard to the weight of the company's trains, and to the fact that other companies are, and will still be, entitled to run trains by ordinary steam locomotives on the company's railway, and to other engineering difficulties, it is very undesirable than any absolute time limit should be imposed upon the company. I have only to ask your Lordships whether, when an Act of Parliament says that a time limit shall be imposed upon a company, it means it or not? If the company are bound to accept it, then they ought not to have any objection to the provision of remedies and the imposition of penalties; but if it is not intended to be more than a sop to public opinion, I assume that the company intend to carry out what they have said they will carry out. Under this Amendment they will have three years for the adoption of electrical traction, and I suggest that they ought to be put under an obligation which shall compel them to carry out what they say they intend to carry out I beg to move the Amendment.

*LORD BROUGHAM
As Chairman of the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred, I should like to take the present opportunity of saying that I personally object to the Amendment proposed. This Bill was considered for four days before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and when it came to this House it was referred to a Select Committee over which I had the honour to preside. Our decision was arrived at unanimously, and it was not only upon all fours, but practically identical with the decision of the House of Commons Committee. I think myself it would be rather inconvenient, if, at the last stage of a private Bill, at the time of its Third Reading in the second House of Parliament, such an Amendment should be moved which would have the effect of altering the decision arrived at by a Select Committee, after a very careful and exhaustive inquiry into all its details. Under those circumstances I ask your Lordships to pass the Bill in the shape and form in which it left the Committee Room upstairs.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I only intervene to inform the noble Lord that he is under serious error, in saying that 245 there were no means of enforcing the company to do what they had undertaken to do. There is such a thing as a mandamus which could be enforced against the company if they fail to properly carry out the terms of their undertaking. I have nothing more to say, but I thought it right to make that quite clear to the noble Lord.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)
I think after what has fallen from my noble Friend below the Gangway, that it will not be necessary for me to say much. It is quite clear that the whole question of ventilation and the adoption of the electric traction by this railway company have been discussed over and over again. The latest form in which those questions come before your Lordships are in this Bill, which is obviously a question of compromise which has been approved of by a Committee of the House of Commons and by a Committee of your Lordships' House, and the proceedings before these two Committees have given ample opportunity to all opponents to state their views before them, and I think your Lordships will hesitate before you upset the decision arrived at by these tribunals who have had an opportunity of hearing all the matter in dispute in detail, and by counsel at the instigation of my noble Friend opposite, who is obviously representing one of the parties to the compromise. I cannot think your Lordships will assent to this Amendment, though I quite admit that my noble Friend is quite within his right in moving it, but I trust that the House will support the decision arrived at by the Committee.

§ THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY)
My objections to the Amendment that my noble Friend has put down on the Paper have to some extent been removed by the modifications of which he has given notice. But at the same time I confess that I do not like the Amendment which he has moved. It seems to me that excessive penalties such as he proposes in this case are not required in the least, and it also seems to me that to tie the company down to shut up their blowholes in three years' time is also un- 246 necessarily drastic. The noble Earl appeared to me to be under the impression that the company in saying that they wished to establish electric traction, are not perfectly straightforward in the matter, and he seems to think that they will delay the adoption of that form of traction for some years to come. My Lords, I do not wish to enter into the question raised by the noble Lord as to the bonâ fides of the company's statement. But at the same time I think it is obvious to every Member of the House that it is impossible for any person or for any company to say when they will be prepared to change a large undertaking like the Metropolitan Railway into a system of electric traction, and it therefore seems to me that to tie them down to do it in three years, before they have finished their experiments, and before they have overcome many of the difficulties which are at present in their way in the matter, would be unnecessarily severe. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will allow the Bill to pass in the more elastic form in which it is at present drawn, and will reject the Amendment of the noble Earl.