PRIVATE BUSINESS. METROPOLITAN 1606 IMPROVE STREET Order for Consideration of Lords been exceptions to that rule; but I think | Third Reading-East India Loan* [215]; Police that circumstances must be shown to Expenses Act Continuance * [259], and passed. Withdrawn-Public Health Act (1875) Amendjustify an exception before the ordinary ment* [193]. practice ought to be departed from. Now, I do not see that in the present instance it would be desirable to lay on the Table of your Lordships' House the large collection of Papers which might be brought together with the object of showing what was thought of Russian administration in former years. I have not inspected those Papers, and I am not aware whether there are any of recent date which bear on the points raised, and which could be produced without a violation of the rule to which I have referred. But I would just point out that inasmuch as Prince Tcherkaskoi held his office in Poland for three or four years only, and considering the length of time which has elapsed since he retired, it is not likely that Papers bearing on circumtances which occurred at that time would throw much light on the present condition of affairs in Poland. House adjourned at a quarter before HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, 31st July, 1877. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Amendments made by the Lords be now taken into Consideration." MR. FAWCETT moved an Amendment that the Lords Amendments be considered on Monday next. He asked whether if he moved that Amendment and the House rejected it he would be able to move a particular Amendment in relation to the Bill? MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member propose to move to postpone the consideration of the Lords Amendments? MR. FAWCETT replied that he did. MR. SPEAKER intimated that the hon. Member would be in Order, in case that Motion were rejected, in moving an Amendment in regard to the Bill itself. MR. FAWCETT then moved that the Lords Amendments be considered on Monday next. This was the first time during the 11 years that he had been in that House that he had taken the course of opposing a Private Bill on such a Motion as this. He thought if the House would bear with him for a few moments that he would be able to convince it that the Lords had intro MINUTES.] SELECT COMMITTEE · Report- involved a principle of the greatest consequence to every inhabitant of this habitants of every large municipality Metropolis, and, indirectly, to the inin the Three Kingdoms where public improvements were required and was likely to be carried out. His attention was first directed to the subject by reading the Report of a Parliamentary Com Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment [264]. Committee-Report-South Africa [195-271]; Canal Boats (re-comm.) * [247]; Crown Office [241]; Trade Marks* [242]; Treasury Chest Fund [253]; Superannuation (Mercantile Marine Fund Officers)* [224]. Report-Parliamentary and Municipal Registra-mittee of the Metropolitan Board of * tion [59]; Registration of Borough Voters (re-comm.) [115]; Parliamentary Electors Registration [53]. Considered as amended-Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) [260] Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs, and Lobsters) * [257]. The Earl of Derby Works, which was subsequently presented to the Board, and every statement in which was endorsed and approved of. In that Report there was one sentence which struck him first ways in the North of the Metropolis within easier access from the South and West of London. The Bill was considered by a Select Committee of that House, and a Petition was presented to that Committee, on behalf of Lord Salisbury, claiming that the property of his Lordship should be treated in an exceptional manner. This claim, however, was by Lord Salisbury's counsel abandoned, and therefore it never came before a Committee of this House, and this House knew nothing of it. Now, it would have been fairer if, in the first instance, it had been brought before this House. When the Bill got to the House of Lords, however, a clause was inserted, as stated by the Metropolitan Board, at the instance of Lord Salisbury, and he (Mr. Fawcett) would describe exactly what that clause was, and the House would then see the importance of the with surprise, and secondly with regret, I street would have been carried through because the Board made itself respon- a densely-populated and miserable dissible for the statement that, at the in-trict, and would have brought the railstance of Lord Salisbury, a clause of an exceptional character had been inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords in order to give special and exceptional protection to his Lordship's property. That had been corroborated by the Board, and the Chairman of the Board now in his place would support every word which he expressed in reference to the matter. Nothing was further from his wish than to say anything that could in the slightest degree be supposed to be intended to prejudice Lord Salisbury. He knew that the owner of a large property, whose time was so largely absorbed in public life as was the time of Lord Salisbury, must have many things done by his agents or professional advisers in his name, which he had not time himself to consider, and the importance and gravity of which he did not perhaps accurately comprehend. He desired, therefore, in no respect what-issue involved. Hitherto in all the great ever to bring any charge against Lord improvements which had been carried Salisbury. But the declaration had been out by the Metropolitan Board, the made and commented on from one end Board had invariably adopted one prinof the Metropolis to the other, that a ciple, and that was not simply to take a clause had been inserted in the Bill for barely adequate quantity of land for the the special protection of Lord Salisbury; construction of a new street, but on each and he knew of nothing during the time side it had been in their power to ache had had the honour of being a Mem- quire a certain strip of land which gave ber of the House of Commons which had them a valuable frontage which they caused such bitter resentment, as when could re-sell, and were thus able to parthey heard that a metropolitan improve- ticipate with the other contiguous ownment had been abandoned, in conse- ers of the property in the advanced quence of the Metropolitan Board ac- value given to the land in the neighcepting a clause inserted at the instance bourhood by the improvements carried of Lord Salisbury for the special protec- out at the public expense; and in tion of his Lordship's property. He that way great improvements had been (Mr. Fawcett) desired that that state-effected at a much less cost to the ment should be fully and fairly discussed, and that, if possible, the feelings of bitter resentment and keen annoyance, which he knew to exist, should be removed. He would now proceed to state the facts of the case, and his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'GarelHogg was present to correct him if he should state anything wrong. This Bill was introduced to that House as the Metropolitan Street Improvements Bill. It proposed to carry out very important improvements; and of all these improvements, he believed, none was of so much importance as the new street from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road. That ratepayers than they otherwise would have been; because the Board had been able in a great degree to recoup themselves for the original outlay. That invariable practice the House had always assented to. But by the exceptional clause which had been introduced into the Bill in the House of Lords the prac tice had been entirely and fundamentally changed, for the clause distinctly and imperatively asserted that only just so much of his Lordship's property should be acquired by the Bill as would enable the Board to construct the street. What, then, was the position in which the Board was placed? They had to construct the street at enormous cost, and they had no chance of recouping themselves with re- | understand the action of the House of gard to other improvements. The clause Lords if the clause laid down a general went on to state that if the Board should principle, but it did nothing of the kind. acquire any of his Lordship's property It made no other mention than of Lord more than was requisite for the bare Salisbury's property. He wished to call construction of the street they should the attention of the House to this-that be imperatively obliged, whether they the Board stated that if this clause was thought it advantageous to the public enforced the most urgent and necessary or not, to sell that land to his Lordship improvement in London would become under conditions which would enable so costly that it would be impossible to him to acquire it at merely a nominal carry it out. Therefore the question cost. He (Mr. Fawcett) thought that if was whether a clause introduced for the Lord Salisbury's representatives intended special benefit of Lord Salisbury should to press this clause upon the notice of arrest the most urgent and necessary the House of Lords, they were bound to improvement in the Metropolis for an have afforded the Committee of the indefinite period of time? He (Mr. House of Commons an opportunity of Fawcett) thought after that statement expressing its opinion upon it. In the he need not apologize to the House for second place, the Chairman and other having brought the subject under the Members of the Board informed him notice of the House. He believed this that they had had to deal with hundreds, matter had been disposed of in the he might almost say thousands, of cases House of Lords rather in a hurry, withof this kind, and in no instance had the out considering the great principle at House of Lords thought it necessary to stake, and a strong feeling had been protect the owners of property in the raised in regard to it in the Metropolis. same way as they had thought fit to pro- He was not breaking any private confitect Lord Salisbury's property. There dence when he stated that he believed Lord was one exception, and it was a striking Salisbury had expressed himself disapone. Lord Salisbury said there were pointed that the scheme had been dropped several precedents, but the Chairman of by the Metropolitan Board of Works. the Board would show them that only When he knew what had been done and one was applicable. In 1868, when the how serious the ulterior consequences Chelsea Embankment scheme was before might be, Lord Salisbury might be glad the House, a clause exactly analogous to to have an opportunity of re-considering the one in question was inserted-in the question. If it should meet the confavour of whom? In favour of Lord venience of his hon. and gallant Friend Cadogan. And how was it inserted? (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), and the conIt was considered by a Committee of venience of the House, he would persethat House and rejected; but it was vere with the Motion that the Amendafterwards inserted by the House of ments should be considered on Monday Lords; and whether they did it with next; but if the House should wish to that object or not, the effect of it was consider the subject at once, he would be that while they did not protect the pro- perfectly prepared to propose that the perty of any other owner whatever they Lords Amendments be dismissed. did protect that of one of their own body. Therefore, the less said about that precedent the better. It seemed to him that the Metropolitan Board, in declining to carry out the improvements, had, under the circumstances, pursued a course which was unanswerably right. They said that this clause formed a dangerous precedent, because it was impossible for them to accept this clause unless they accepted a similar clause to protect the owner of every property mentioned in the Bill, and not only that, but every single owner of property would have an unanswerable claim to have a similar clause inserted in future. He could Mr. Fawcett MR. GORST seconded the Motion. He would simply confine himself to the statement that the House should not, in his opinion, accept too readily what had been said by his hon. Friend until they had heard the other side. The hon. Member appeared to have a great deal more respect for the Metropolitan Board than he (Mr. Gorst) had. But he thought that the statements of the local Board of Health on the one part, and of the Metropolitan Board on the other, were somewhat highly coloured. His hon. Friend the Member for Hackney had said that the Board were obliged to throw up their contemplated street im Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon Monday next."-(Mr. Fawcett.) provement in the case in question; but | to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) the Board were too much in the habit had alluded. That precedent was created of acting in that way, and had acted so when the Board had before them the on many occasions. He therefore hoped great question of the main drainage of the House would allow both sides to be the Metropolis. On that occasion the heard. Board decided they had better accept the clause, even at the risk of its becoming an unfortunate precedent-which it had become-than allow the health of the Metropolis to suffer by not carrying out the main drainage in a proper manner. But on the present occasion he thought the Board were perfectly right in resisting the clause. He earnestly entreated his hon. Friend to consider the great improvements which were involved in the passing of the Bill, and not to press his Motion for adjournment. Let them divide at once, if they wished, on the main question whether this House was to be brought into a sort of friendly rivalry with the House of Lords; because after consultation with those who were best able to judge he was assured that to assent to the clause would be to seriously injure the chance of all street improvements. SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG said, he thought that he had a full right to speakon this question. He was not in the habit of troubling the House often; but he ventured to state that in all the transactions which he had in connection with the business of the Board he never had more trouble than in this. He felt bound to state to the House that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney had brought forward this matter in a very able manner. Their object was the same-namely, the good of the public; but he must ask the House to negative the proposition of his hon. Friend. If the House were to come to a decision on the matter, he hoped that decision would be taken to-day. The Bill contained a vast number of important improvements in the Metropolis. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the improvement which it was intended to cut out was one of the most important; but he asked the House whether it was wise, or right, or fair that other improvements, North, South, East, and West, for which the inhabitants of those various localities were earnestly anxious, should all be imperilled simply for the sake of one improvement between Tottenham Court Road and Charing Cross? After due and careful consideration the Metropolitan Board of Works had come to the conclusion that it would be better to wait a year or two than to agree to the clause which was introduced in the House of Lords. If such clauses were adopted, local authorities would find it simply impossible to carry out street improvements. Therefore, he contended that the Board over which he had the honour to preside was perfectly justified in dropping the improvement in order to get rid of the clause in question, which was one of a most exceptional character. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) had talked about precedents, and there one or two precedents; but they did not affect the case, except the one MR. RAIKES said, he was of opinion that the House, in view of the period of the Session, ought to determine the matter now, as it would not be in so favourable a position for doing so a week hence. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, with much deference to the opinion just expressed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, said, it would be better to postpone consideration of the subject for a few days. It was evident that if they went on with the Bill now they must have considerable discussion on precedents; whereas if they postponed it they would come to the discussion with a knowledge of those precedents, and be in a much better position to deal with the question. As Private Business, the Bill would still have an opportunity of being discussed any day before Public Business was taken. He thought altogether that the hon. Member for Hackney was justified in dividing the House upon his Motion. Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 96; Noes 98; Majority 2.-(Div. List, No. 267.) Words added. Main Question, as amended, put. Lords Amendments to be taken into Consideration upon Monday next. 219 Contagious Diseases (Animals) {COMMONS} QUESTIONS. Act, 1869.-Question. 220 which edible fish dispose of their ova during the progress of this inquiry; and that Sir Wyville Thomson, the chief of the scientific staff, had stated to the Treasury that the staff had no opportunity whatever during the voyage of the Challenger of making observations on the subject. LAW AND JUSTICE-SUSSEX COUNTY COURTS.-QUESTION. POST OFFICE-ROYAL MAIL STEAMSHIP CONTRACTS.-QUESTION. MR. GOURLEY (for Mr. RATHBONE) asked the Postmaster General, Whether, as in the case of other subsidised lines, notice will be given to the Peninsular and Oriental, and the Royal Mail Steamship Companies to terminate the present contracts as soon as they legally can be terminated; and, whether assurance can be given that ample notice and opportunity will be given to enable all in a position to tender for the services now performed by those Companies to do so? LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, it was usual in all cases before the time arrived when large mail contracts expired to give notice and invite tenders. That course would be adopted in the present case, and ample time would be afforded to all parties not only for sending in tenders, but for their considera-informed that the arrangement of County tion by the Government when they were sent in. THE FISHERIES.-QUESTION. MR. O'CLERY asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If any information, and of what character, has been received by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries from the Admiralty, in reference to the following matter contained in their last Report for 1876, presented to this House on the 27th March 1877: "Being very desirous of obtaining as much information as possible with regard to the manner in which edible fish dispose of their ova, with the permission of the Admiralty we requested the head of the Natural History Department of Her Majesty's Ship Challenger' to make certain observations during the expedition of that vessel, with a view of assisting our inquiries. This he kindly consented to do, and at his request we prepared instructions as to the nature of the investigations we desired to have made, and expressed our readiness to assist in the operations in the seas surrounding the United Kingdom. As we have not yet received a report on the subject, we have addressed an inquiry to the Admiralty, and trust shortly to receive the information we so much desire." MR. J. BROWN asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to partition the Sussex County Court district among the neighbouring circuits; and, if so, whether, before carrying this intention into effect, he will give the people of Sussex, and the inhabitants of Brighton, an opportunity of expressing their views on the subject? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had consulted the Lord Chancellor in regard to the subject, and was Court districts were always open to readjustment, more especially when vacancies in the Judgeships occurred. The propriety of a re-adjustment of the Sussex County Court district would be considered, and nothing would be done to abridge the accommodation which the public now enjoyed. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1869-IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN CATTLE.-QUESTION. MR. GOURLEY asked the Vice Pre sident of the Committee of the Privy Council, If, seeing that the cattle which is now being imported into London from Schleswig-Holstein is entirely free from disease, he will consider the desirability of granting privileges, similar to those now possessed only by London dealers, to all ports, the authorities of which have, in accordance with the Privy Council regulations, provided "properly defined ports" for the importation and slaughter of live cattle? VISCOUNT SANDON: The Lords of the Council, while continuing the prohibition against the importation of German cattle, have considered it safe to make an exception in favour of cattle from Schleswig-Holstein, when brought to Deptford under very stringent regulations for slaughter. They can only be |