ORDERS OF THE DAY. 1601 DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.-[BILL 73.] (Sir Henry Holland, Sir Walter B. Barttelot, Mr. Joseph Pease, Mr. Cropper.) COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. SIR HENRY HOLLAND said, that in moving that the Speaker should leave the Chair, in order that the House might go into Committee on this Bill, he wished to explain that, as the whole subject of distress was now under the consideration of a Committee upstairs, he did not propose to ask for more than that the Speaker should leave the Chair. What he proposed was that, when the House got into Committee, the formal Motion for postponing the Preamble should be agreed to, and after Clause 1 had been passed he would move to report Progress. Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"(Sir Henry Holland,)—put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) was astonished to hear come from his right hon. and learned Friend; and it was very much in contrast with the calm and excellent statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Northumberland (Sir Matthew White Ridley). He (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had no wish whatever to attack the Commissioners, nor did he think he had said anything which could be construed into an attack upon the Commission. He had simply taken an exception to a Statute proposed for Jesus College. He did not say that the Commissioners could have proposed a larger provision for Cowbridge School, because he believed that their powers in that respect were limited. He had taken exception to that one Statute becoming the law of the land, because he thought that it was absolutely necessary that they should protest in the strongest manner against the perpetuation of what he still held to be one of the grossest cases of injustice which had ever come under his notice. Certainly, the matter should not rest where it was. It was probable that if he went to a division now, with the combined opposition of the Government and the Conservatives, he would be left in a small minority; but he thought that it would not have been consistent with his duty, if he allowed this Statute to become law without protesting in the strongest manner against it, and bringing forward publicly the gross injustice which had existed for the last 200 years. He was sensible that it was of no use whatever to put the House to the trouble of a division after the declaration of Her Majesty's Government that they did not intend to support him in this Motion. But, at the same time, he wished to state that, whenever an opportunity occurred of redressing this grievance, he should undoubtedly endeavour, to the best of his ability, to do so, and especially when they were afforded an opportunity of discussing the question of Higher and Intermediate MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE Education in Wales. He begged distinctly said, he thought that, at that hour of the to give Notice that when that question night, it was impossible for the House to was brought on he would revert to this discuss the Bill with any advantage. subject, and that he would do his very The Bill was a very important one, and best to obtain for the ancient Grammar the second reading of it was passed withSchool at Cowbridge the full enjoy-out any statement having been made by ment of the endowment left to it 200 years ago. He begged now to withdraw the Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Preamble postponed. Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"-(Sir Henry Holland,)-put, and agreed to. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next. METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, Admiral Sir John Hay, Sir Andrew Lusk.) [BILL 107.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."-(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.) the hon. Baronet who was in charge of it; and who still, without making any statement with regard to it, now proposed to go into Committee. There were very important matters affecting | important details at such an hour of the City of London raised in the Bill, the night, when it was impossible to which he was quite sure the hon. examine them thoroughly. Then, again, Baronet would consider when his atten- as to the question of making thoroughtion was called to them. Therefore, it fares. There were many thoroughfares was probable that they would really in the City of London that were simply gain time by postponing the Committee, footways, and the Commissioners were because the opposition now raised to the constantly extending these footways and Bill might be disarmed if certain altera- opening up new communications; but tions were made in it affecting the Me- their future action in that respect would tropolis generally, but affecting also, be prevented by one of the provisions of very materially, the City of London. If the Bill. As the Bill stood, it would be the Bill were carried in its present shape necessary for the authorities in the City those who had the direction of improve- to apply for permission to the Metroments in the City would be prevented politan Board of Works. Such a profrom acting, and from using the powers vision might be all very well where they already possessed by them under special were dealing with new districts-where Acts of Parliament. The clauses of the the land had not been built upon already. Bill certainly required more considera- It was essential that in such a case the tion than could be devoted to them at streets authorized to be constructed that hour of the night. There were should be wide, and laid out with due altogether 25 clauses in the Bill, and regard to all modern sanitary requiremost of them affected the City of Lon-ments, and to the communication prodon. In the City of London, a Body called the Commissioners of Sewers had the management and direction of the laying out of the streets, and the street improvements; but if the Bill passed as it now stood they would be entirely deprived of their authority. That authority was conferred upon them by more than one Act of Parliament, and the passing of this new Bill would prevent them from carrying out those Acts for the benefit of the inhabitants of the City and of the Metropolis generally. It was well known that the City of London still retained many of the peculiarities of all old cities; many of its streets were very narrow, and when improvements were being effected, it would be impossible, in many cases, to make streets where streets were most urgently required, because, under this Bill, no street was to be made that should be less than 40 feet in width. It was well known that in many parts of the City, where new streets and thoroughfares had been most advantageously opened out, it would have been altogether impossible to provide that they should be 40 feet wide. Consequently, if the Commissioners of Sewers were to be controlled by the provisions of the present Bill, many of the improvements, which it was still desirable to carry out, would be prevented. He was afraid that the Bill had been drawn up without proper thought; and it would be improper to call upon the House to consider all the posed to be effected with existing thoroughfares. But it was impossible to do that in the City of London. The circumstances of the City were exceptional; and, therefore, the City ought to be exempted from the operation of the provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members might feel some surprise that the City should ask for exemption from a measure which was introduced for the general advantage of the Metropolis; but the City already possessed Parliamentary powers fully adequate to enable them to carry out their own improvements, and the authorities ought not to have their efforts crippled by the intervention of another public Body. The Corporation of London were not backward in carrying out necessary improvements. Notwithstanding the difficulties they had to contend with, they had not been deterred by any question of expense from undertaking any improvement that the interests of the public demanded. The present Bill, under the circumstances he had pointed out, would require careful consideration, clause by clause; many of its provisions would require material alterations, fresh clauses would have to be brought up, and the whole framework of the Bill would require reconsideration and considerable discussion. No statement was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) on the second reading of the Bill, beyond a short explanation that it was merely a formal measure to carry out an Order of the House. In moving that the House should go into Committee upon it, the hon. Baronet still refrained from making a full explanatory statement, and moved its committal as a mere matter of form. But he (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) was satisfied that when the Bill got into Committee, and the clauses came up for consideration, they would be found to be anything but a mere matter of form; and certainly the hon. Baronet would not have expedited matters by having abstained from making any preliminary statement. In introducing a Bill of this nature, some understanding ought to have been come to between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the authorities of the City of London. There ought to be a mutual good understanding between the two Bodies. It was the duty of both to carry out improvements for the benefit of the Metropolis; but it was not necessary that either should interfere with the action of the other. Both of them had different spheres of action, and both possessed very large powers. Hitherto such powers had been used beneficially for the inhabitants of the Metropolis; and this was not the first time that the Metropolitan Board of Works had introduced clauses into a Bill which would give them the right of interfering materially with the powers possessed by the City. But the House had always declined to sanction such clauses; and he must say that he looked upon the action of the Board of Works, in the present instance, with some surprise and astonishment. The second reading was obtained at the close of the Day Sitting on Wednesday last, and it was obtained rather as a matter of surprise. There were three Motions on the Paper against it; but the hon. Gentlemen who had given Notice of such Motions were not in their places between a quarter to 6 and 6 o'clock, and the second reading was moved and carried without opposition, the hon. Baronet being in his place to watch the interests of the Bill. But the second reading having been accomplished in that way, surely it became all the more necessary that the principle and objects of the Bill should be explained and discussed on the Motion for going into Committee. The hon. Baronet, however, had not considered it his duty to take such a course, and had contented himself with moving, as a matter of form, the committal of the Bill. Some of the provisions were admirable ones. It provided, very properly, that no temporary or permanent erections should be constructed within the district under the control of the Metropolitan Works without an application, in the first instance, to the Board. But was it right that the City of London should be placed in the same position as a private individual in regard to the Board of Works, and that the Board should have power to control and regulate the proceedings of the City in regard to all questions affecting street improvements? At the present moment the City of London was engaged in the erection of additional Courts in connection with their Court of Common Council, and they were carrying out other public buildings. Was it to be tolerated that in regard to similar vented from carrying them out, unless, in works in future they were to be prethe first instance, they applied to, and obtained the sanction of, the Metropolitan Board. Such an intention was never put forward when the Board of Works was established. He was satisfied that his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board would say that if that was the meaning of the Bill it was not his intention; but, unfortunately, the House could not take his hon. Friend's intentions. They could only take the provisions they found in the Bill, and in regard to those provisions it was highly essential that so important a Body as the Corporation of the City of London should be fully protected, and should have an opportunity of going thoroughly into the matter. The Bill consisted of three parts, and it raised a great variety of questions. Clause 7 related to the construction of new streets; and as the hon. Baronet had not made any statement whatever in reference to the provisions of the Bill, it was necessary that he (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) should do so, in order to justify the course he was now taking. Clause 7 proposed that after the passing of the Act, any person forming a road passage or footway, which did not form a direct communication between two streets, should be required, in the first instance, to obtain the approval and sanction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. [Cries of "Divide!" ] The impatience displayed by the House to enter into the question at all showed the impropriety of the course pursued by the promoters of the Bill, and quite justified | -Throgmorton Avenue-was open for his assertion that this was not the time when the House should be required to go into a discussion of the Bill clause by clause. But he wanted to know if it was more likely, when the Speaker was out of the Chair, that a Committee would feel itself in any better condition to go into the Bill clause by clause? The clause to which he was now referring was one of the most important parts of the Bill. It stated that where any road, passage, or way would not afford a direct communication between two streets, the persons by whom it was proposed to be made should, at least three months before such road, passage, or way was commenced or laid out, make an application to the Board of Works giving notice of the intention, and setting out a plan of the proposed street, with such particulars as the Board might direct; and that the Board might, within such period of three months, lay down any conditions it considered necessary, or might altogether decline to sanction the laying out of such road, passage, or way. The existence of such a clause would prevent the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London from carrying out any new street improvements, or laying out any road, passage, or way between one street and another, without being delayed in commencing their works for a period of three months. If the clause were carried, the City of London would be required to pray the Board of Works to permit them to make a new street; and if the Board contested the matter, the interests of the public would suffer, and street improvements which, under existing powers of the City authorities, were now making day by day would be entirely stopped. The Commissioners of Sewers met for this very purpose once a fortnight, and their committees weekly, and it was very rarely that a sitting was held without some suggestion being made for opening out a communication between one street and another, and for carrying out other improvements to facilitate the traffic from one part of the City to another. Most hon. Members would be acquainted with the neighbourhood of Throgmorton Street and Drapers' Hall. Large improvements had been carried out there by certain of the City Companies, who possessed the whole of the land between Throgmorton Street and London Wall. The new street carriages between two-thirds or three- said MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to me to be going through the Bill clause by clause. In so doing he is anticipating the functions of the Committee. MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE said, he had no wish to transgress, or to go through the Bill clause by clause; but he must say that the Bill, in many of its clauses, contained provisions that materially affected the City of London; and he did not think the House ought to allow it to go into Committee until some arrangement was arrived at, or, at any rate, until the hon. Member for Truro explained the objects of the measure. [Cries of "Divide!"] It might be wise to prevent persons from laying out thoroughfares in other parts of the Metropolis; but regulations that were adapted for the Metropolis generally would not apply to the City. a considerable amount of friction be- | to be asked to place the Commissioners tween two important public bodies-the of Sewers under the authority of the Corporation of London and the Metro- Metropolitan Board, and to subject them politan Board of Works. They had al- to penalties, for merely carrying out ready received from the Secretary of important public improvements to their State (Sir William Harcourt) an intima- own satisfaction? He did not think the tion that great changes with regard to hon. Baronet the Member for Truro both Bodies were looming in the dis- could be aware how the clauses of the tance, that the Metropolitan Board was Bill would affect the City of London, not to be placed on a permanent footing, because, if he were, he would scarcely and that the Corporation of London was dream of forcing them through Comto be got rid of altogether. The Chair-mittee at that hour of the night. Clause 8 man of the Metropolitan Board, now omnipotent, was hereafter to be placed in a subordinate position. Was it right, then, under the guise of a Bill of this nature, to initiate great and important changes in the management of the affairs of the City. It would be most inconvenient to pass a clause such as that which he had indicated, and to pass it, also, in the absence of anything in the nature of explanation. He had no wish to attribute motives to the Metropolitan Board, or to allege that there was any desire on their part to take advantage of the City of London; but what he wished to point out in reference to this clause was that, in reference to street and footways within the City, it would materially cripple the future beneficial action of the Commissioners of Sewers; and he would leave the House to say whether this was the right time for depriving the Commissioners of the powers they possessed and handing them over to the Board of Works. At the present moment, when the City contemplated important improvements, it was customary to inform the Metropolitan Board, and very frequently the Board were asked to contribute towards the expense. The consequence was that great harmony prevailed between the two Bodies, which would be materially disturbed, if not entirely destroyed, by a proposal to place the Corporation under the control and authority of the Board. The Bill provided that hereafter any proposal to form a roadway should be subject to such conditions as the Metropolitan Board might think it necessary to prescribe; and until the sanction of the Board was given no such road, passage, or way should be laid out or proceeded with. It was also provided that any person infringing the Act should, for such offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding 408. He would simply ask upon what principle of justice or propriety the House of Commons were VOL. CCLXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.] CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERON rose to Order. He wished to ask if the hon. Member was not trespassing upon the indulgence of the House, and really wasting intentionally the time of the House? MR. SPEAKER: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that it is irregular, at this stage of a Bill, to go through the measure clause by clause, and I trust that the hon. Member will observe the intimation I have made to him. MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE said, he would certainly endeavour to comply with the intimation conveyed by the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill dealt not only with the questions he had pointed out, but with the amount of space to be left in the City when new buildings were contemplated. It was not a Bill to give additional powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works to those which they now possessed; but it was an attempt to bring in a Bill to interfere 3 T |