The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MoxDAT, F. 22.
Their lordships met at An o'clock.
THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS.

TN Bari Cl DONOUGHNORE drew attentiou to the

fallowing paragraphr which paLW In one of the
aeon:dog papers :—" It is un that tbe joint com-
mittee of Um. Lords sod Commons,of which Lord Granville
is ehairmas, have decided to recommend the adoption of the
saner circle portion of the Metropolitan District Railway
*abeam With regard to the proposed north and south
*notion line for connecting railways north end south of the
Thames by means of a high level bridge, they prefer
a junction line that shall utilise the Thames Tunnel, and
thus connect the northern and southern railways without in
say say obstructing the navigation of the Thames."
The noble lord felt certain that the paragraph could not
bays been inserted by the authority of the noble lord
apposite ; but it would be satisfactory to the public if the
noble lonl would give it a formal contradiction.
girl GRANVILLE said that he had had nothing whatever
to do with forwarding the communication to the paper in
which it appeared. It was perfectly premature ; for the
committee had sot only not agreed to any report, but those
members of it who had been entrusted with the tank of
preparing a draft, had not yet discharged that duty.
(Hear, hear.) _

ROYAL ARCADE BILL.
The BISHOP of LONDON presested • petition from the
trustees of the Burlington Schools, in the parish of St.
James evilest this bill.
Lirrimmir also presented a petition from the redly
of Ss. J.inies, to the like effect.

Lord REDESDALE then moved the second reading of
the bill, but stated that he expressed no opinion repent.
lag the scheme.
The Earl of DERBY said he had two petitions to present
against it. the one signed by two noble lords who petitioned
against the bill in their individual capacity, and the other
by considerably above 400 of the most respectable in►abi-
testa the district, including the rector and all the clergy
of St. Je.,ies's, four medical men, ► very considerable num-
ber of the lirzest firms in the neighbourhood, 150 house-
holden in Bood-street, and 13D householders in
Regent-street The object of the bill was to
carry from Regent-street to Bood-street • covered
•rode which would occupy the irregular parallelogram
bounded on the one side by Clifford-street and New Bur-
lington-street, and on the other by Coodmt•street. It would
be between SOO and 600 yards in length. There was alao
attached to the bill • proposal for widening Bood-street, but
however important • really efficient scheme for that pur-
pose might he, he could not see the utility of widening the
street for only '27 yards of its length, and that not at its
narrowest point. He had already stated who were the oppo-
nents of the bill ; who were its promoters! only three names
were given. and they were the gentlemen who were to form
the company and to be the first directors. One was Mr.
Grissel. the great contractor; another was Mr. Smith, •
great builder ; and the third Mr. Bolt, a great timber
merchant. IA laugh.) No doubt these gentlemen
sincerely ilssired to see • work carried into effect
which the Metropolitan Board of Works had described
as being in an architectural point of view • great improve-
ment; and to have the control of an expenditure of
400,0iXr., which would call into operation their several in.
dustries •o,d talent. But these gentlemen were not in the
slightest degree connected with the locality; and the
scheme was simply a speculation of • commercial cha-
racter. The noble lord presented a petition signed
by 400 inhabitants, in favour of the bill. He did not
know what locality they inhabited, but certainly it was
not in the vicinity of the proposed works. With the ex-
ception of two small occupiers, there was note single person
whose property was about to be taken who had not pen-
booed earl strongly remonstrated against the bill. In the
cue of a railway, their lordships would not sanction the
bill where every landowner and occupier from one end of
the line to the other opposed it, unless there wee some
strong public ground for it, and he thought they ought to
apply the same principle to this case. This was a mere pri-
vate speculatioe, protested against on sanitary and moral
grounds, and also on the ground of justice, and by all who
were interested in the property proposed to be taken. On
the other hand, the petitioners were highly re-
spectable men. One of them was • contractor,
another a timber merchant, and the third • builder,
and they asked for the powets conferred by this bill,
in order to carry out a private speculation. He thought
that ostlers of property ought not to be put to the expense
of appearing before a committee in such • case u this, and
be would therefore move that the bill be read • second time
that day six months.
The amendment that the bill be read • aecood time that
day six months was ultimately put and carried.