Canterbury, L. Archp. Buckingham and Chan- Carlisle, L. Bp.

Selborne, E. (L. Chan- dos, D.

move that these Bills be referred to a Hybrid Committee. He had spoken of the burden of £40,000 which it was proposed to throw improperly upon the public. There was, however, another burden-namely, that. of suffocation, which was to be thrown upon the travellers by the Railway; and yet they were to have no power to appear before the Committee of their own Motion, but were to be at the mercy of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers. He said nothing about the Railway Company. He desired to leave the Railway Company to fight its own battle. He had nothing to do with them, and he was speaking solely in the interests of the public, upon whom it was proposed to inflict the burden of £40,000, and in the interests of the travellers by the Railway, whom it was proposed by the Bill deliberately to suffocate. He intended to propose, in the case of both of these Bills, that a Hybrid Committee should be appointed, instead of an ordinary Private Bill Committee. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

persons who were interested in the question to appear before the Committee, without being obliged, in the first place, to establish a locus standi. So far the House had taken a most unfortunate course with regard to these Bills. It had deliberately suspended the Standing Orders, in order to undo legislation which it had approved of and sanctioned a very short time ago; and the mode in which it was proposed to undo that legislation was, in his opinion, of a most objectionable character. The Bill simply provided that these ventilators should be closed, and that the expense of closing them should be borne by the public. Not only was the expense of closing them to fall upon the public, but the original expense of opening them was also to fall upon the public. It was estimated that the expense of opening, and the expense of closing them, would reach altogether the sum of £40,000; and it was proposed by these Bills to throw this burden upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. The ratepayers of London had, therefore, every reason for opposing this Bill; and it was desirable that persons who professed to represent the ratepayers, other than the Commissioners of Sewers and the Metropolitan Board of Works, should be able to appear before the Committee, and state their objections to this proposal to throw upon them a charge of £40,000. Unless his MR. LABOUCHERE said, his hon. Motion were agreed to, the ratepayers Friend had made an extremely good would have no means whatever of op- speech, no doubt; but it was a speech posing this exorbitant and improper which ought to have been made upon charge upon them. But if the Bill were the second reading of the Bill. The referred to a Hybrid Committee, the rate- object of his hon. Friend was to secure payers could come before that Commit- an independent representation of the tee, and give evidence to show what public before the Committee to whom their opinions were; whereas, before a the Bill was referred. It appeared to Private Bill Committee, they would be him (Mr. Labouchere) that if they were obliged, in the first place, to establish a to have four Members of the Committee locus standi. He thought it would be a appointed by the Committee of Selecmost objectionable course if the public tion, the Metropolitan Board of Works were not to be represented in the same would represent the ratepayers before way as they were upon occasions when that Committee. He was certainly surthe general public interests were at prised to hear from his hon. Friend that stake. It was frequently the case that the Metropolitan Board of Works did the Board of Trade represented the pub-not represent the ratepayers of the lic, and the Board of Trade insisted on Hybrid Committees, in order that the public interests might be properly protected. On this occasion the Board of Trade had neglected its duty. It ought to have come forward in the interests of the public; but it had failed to do so, and the only thing he could do was to

"That the Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection."-(Mr. Anderson.)

Metropolis. So far as he knew, the Board of Works was the only representative the ratepayers of the Metropolis had. Not only would the Metropolitan Board of Works be heard, but the Commissioners of Sewers would also represent the interests of the public; and, on the other side, the Railway Com

fidence. It was because he believed that all the questions at stake would be much more fairly discussed, and that much less waste of time and expense would be involved by referring the Bill to an ordinary rather than to a Hybrid Committee, that he opposed the Motion.

pany would naturally seek to oppose the | Anderson) to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Bill, and would call all witnesses who Committee. The question raised was would be able to speak on their behalf. not whether the course taken by the Of course, they would call a reasonable Railway Company was right or not. In number of travellers on the Under- point of fact, the Company had taken ground Railway in support of their case, powers under a previous Bill, and they who would be able to say whether or had misused them. His objection to the not the contention of his hon. Friend, Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow that they were likely to be suffocated by was simply that, as a rule, a Hybrid the passing of the Bill, had any founda- Committee represented a particular intion. There was no reason for saying terest; whereas it was essential, in the that other evidence would not be sub- inquiry they were about to enter into, to mitted to a Committee appointed by the consider the question in a merely judiCommittee of Selection; whereas, if the cial spirit. The Metropolitan Board of proposal of his hon. Friend were agreed Works and the Corporation of London to, there would be a Committee of seven, were not represented upon the Comthree of whom would be appointed by mittee, but were perfectly content to the Committee of Selection and four by submit the matter to an ordinary Comthe House, who would consist, he pre-mittee, in which they had complete consumed, of two advocates on one side and two on the other. That was a fair presumption, and it was what was done when a Committee was appointed in this After the Railway Company had given evidence, and after evidence had been heard on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers, if the Com- MR. CROPPER said, he rose to supmittee was a hybrid one, any gentle- port the Motion of his hon. Friend the man who had a fad about this Railway Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). would be able to come forward and give The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. evidence. Now, he was a ratepayer of Labouchere) said the speech of his hon. the Metropolis himself, and he objected Friend ought to have been made on to spend the public money in feeing the second reading. He (Mr. Cropper) counsel in order to examine all these thought that speeches to a similar effect amateur witnesses. Even when the case had been made on the second reading. was closed they would have to discuss At any rate, he had said all he could on and settle the matter between two advo- the second reading against the proposal cates on the one side and two on the to close the ventilators. He thought other. There was, therefore, no reason, it was an important point now that he thought, for departing from the usual they should select as good a Committee course of procedure in these matters. as possible. The question was settled, And he would beg to move that all the and therefore was not worth arguing, words of the Amendment after "That whether these ventilators should be rethe Bill be referred to a " be struck out, tained or not. But it was important and "a Committee of Four Members that some good system should be probe substituted. posed and adopted. He thought, if that MR. SPEAKER pointed out that an question were well put before the ComAmendment of that nature was not neces-mittee, and if the Committee were as

sary.

MR. LABOUCHERE said, he would confine himself, therefore, to opposing the Motion, as he understood the same object would be gained by negativing it. BARON HENRY DE WORMS said, he had not much to say in addition to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); but he felt bound to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr.

Mr. Laboucher.e

large as possible, some good result might be brought about in the interests of the millions of people who travelled underground, and whose welfare ought to be considered in the question. His opinion was that the ventilators themselves were an improvement. He did not think they were any eyesore to speak of; and he thought that all the weight which could be given to the Committee should be given to it. He supported the Motion,

because he believed that a large Com- | any use of their own property for mittee would be able to act more satisfactorily than a small one.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG hoped the House would not adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) that they ought to have a good Committee; but his experience of the House did not teach him that the goodness of a Committee consisted in the fact that it was composed of an extreme number. All they wanted was an intelligent Committee, who would devote their time to the consideration of the questions referred to them. Such a Committee would be able to come to a much better decision than a Hybrid Committee, upon which there would probably be two advocates on the one side and two on the other. For instance, if he were placed upon the Committee-which he presumed he would be-in such a case everybody would know how he should vote, and the only effect would be to leave the decision of the question to the Chairman and the other two Members of the Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection. Before an ordinary tribunal the Railway Company could call what evidence they liked, and the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers would also be able to call any amount of evidence to show that these ventilators were a disfigurement to the Embankment, and that in the City they were dangerous to the traffic. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had observed that the expense to the ratepayers of pulling down the ventilators would be about £40,000. He wanted to know if the hon. Member had ever thought over, in his own mind, the sum which the Embankment had cost the ratepayers of the Metropolis? It was much nearer £2,000,000 than £1,000,000; and it would be a great mistake to allow the Railway Company to take land for which they had never paid, but for which the ratepayers had paid for the enjoyment of the public. Surely, then, it was a matter of great importance to the people of the Metropolis that the Railway Company should not be allowed to take away a large portion of the Embankment from the enjoyment of the public, for which the Company did not propose to give one farthing in return. Nor had they made

VOL. CCLXXX [THIRD SERIES.]

the construction of these ventilators;
but their sole desire seemed to be to
put money into the pockets of their
shareholders. He hoped the House
would adhere to their original inten-
tion, and send the Bill to
an ordi-
nary Committee in which they would
all have confidence. The Committee of
Selection would take care to appoint
good men upon it; and four men were,
in his opinion, much better than seven
or 17. He hoped the House would
negative the Motion of the hon. Mem-
ber for Glasgow; and that both in re-
gard to this Bill and the Bill brought
in by the Metropolitan Board of Works
they would appoint the ordinary Com-
mittee in the usual manner.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had supplied his opponents with an argument in support of the Motion, because he said that if an ordinary Committee was appointed, he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would certainly be placed upon it.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG said, he did not think the hon. Member had rightly heard him. What he had said was, that he had no desire to be upon a Hybrid Committee, because his views would be known, and his vote would be known, and he wished to have an independent Committee consisting of men who would have no interest in the matter except that of the public good.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS said, the answer to that was that an independent Committee had already allowed these ventilators to be made. He thought a Hybrid Committee, selected with ordinary care, would take into consideration the interests which the public had in the matter; and in the event of a Hybrid Committee being appointed, an opportunity would be afforded to the Committee of hearing a large number of persons who could not appear before an ordinary Private Bill Committee, and who, therefore, could not otherwise make their complaints known. It was said, he did not know with what justice, that a large number of working men in London considered that some system of ventilation ought to be adopted, in order to secure their health and comfort in travelling along the Railway in crowded trains. It therefore might be worth while, during the sitting of the Com

II