§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Sir Charles Forster,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
§ MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)I rise, Sir, to move—
That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, Five to be nominated by the House, and Four by the Committee of Selection:—That all Petitions against the Bill be referred to the Committee; and that such of the Petitioners, who have deposited their Petitions within the time limited by the Standing Orders, as are entitled to be heard upon their Petitions, according to the Standing Orders and practice of Parliament, be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions.In taking this course, I may say that this Motion is not intended to be in any sense an opposition to the extension of tramways. It is made in the interests of the general public, and at the suggestion of a number of Metropolitan Members, who have met to consider this and some other questions affecting local government. The House will probably recollect that a short time ago the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was permitted by the House to deal in a similar manner with various Bills promoted by the Water Companies of London. The hon. Member succeeded in getting those Bills referred to a Hybrid Committee at the suggestion of the same Metropolitan Members in whose behalf I now move to refer this Bill to a similar Hybrid Committee. I would venture, in the first place, to call attention to the provisions of the Tramways Act of 1870. That Act settled the principle upon which the laying down of tramways was to proceed; and since the passing of the Act tramways have been laid down under General Orders in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, and under special Acts of Parliament 1756 modifying the provisions of that measure. The Act of 1870 was the result of an inquiry into the whole question of tramways by a Special Committee. At that time tramways were more or less an experiment; and it was thought desirable that favourable conditions should be granted to the Tramway Companies to encourage the introduction of tramways into the Metropolis and into the large cities of the Provinces. Tramways have now become an assured financial success; and the conditions that were given to these Companies in 1870 in order to encourage the laying down of tramway lines are scarcely necessary, or even just, in the interests of the public at the present time. As a proof of what I say in regard to the financial success of tramways, I may remind the House that the shares of some of these Companies stand at from 50 to 60 per cent premium, and are considered to be a very desirable source of investment. One of the provisions of the Act of 1870 in the interests of the public was that the Tramway Companies should maintain the roadway between the lines and 18 inches of the roadway on each side of their lines. Another provision in the interests of the public was that, at the expiration of a certain period, the Local Authority should have power to purchase these tramways for the public. By Section 43 of the Act of 1870 it is provided that at the end of 21 years, and at the end of every seven years afterwards, the Local Authority may purchase the Tramways at their fair value, exclusive of any allowance for past or future profits of the undertaking, or any compensation for compulsory sale or other consideration whatsover. Now, Sir, this valuable right of purchase will very soon come into existence. The period of 21 years is fast approaching when the Local Authority, representing the public, will have to consider whether this right of purchase is to be exercised. Since the passing of the Act of 1870 a very considerable number of tramways have been made in London and in various parts of England. Under the provisions of that Act the Tramway Companies are required to arrange with the Local Authorities and the Road Authorities, and the Local Authorities and the Road Authorities have power to make their own arrangements with the Tramway Companies. The result is that there is no system, and there is no prin- 1757 ciple governing the arrangements made by the various authorities with the various promoters of tramway lines. In one case the Tramway Company maintains only that portion of the road over which the line runs, and the Road Authority maintains the portion of the road on each side of the tramway between the line and the kerb; in other cases the Tramway Company maintains the whole of the road, and the Road Authority contributes a portion of the expense; in some cases the whole of the roadway is maintained by the Road Authority at the expense of the Tramway Company. In other cases a sum of money is contributed by the Tramway Company towards purposes of improvement carried out by the Local Authority. As a matter of fact, there is no principle whatever governing the arrangements between the Local Authority and the Road Authority and the Tramway Company; and the result is that in many parts of London the state of the roads is very unsatisfactory. Where the Local Authority and the Road Authority have been vigilant, and have attended to the interests of the public, good and satisfactory conditions have been arranged with the Tramway Companies, and the roadways are maintained in a satisfactory condition; but, on the other hand, where the Local and Road Authorities have been lax in discharging their duty in watching over the interests of the public, and have made unsatisfactory arrangements, not only are unfair conditions imposed upon the public, but the roadways are not maintained in a satisfactory condition. As I have said, there is no principle whatever adopted in connection with the laying down, maintenance, and extension of tramway lines at the present time. I venture, therefore, to say that the time has arrived when this House ought to take into consideration the conditions under which tramways have existed in London for something like 15 or 16 years, and especially as to the right of purchase. Indeed, all the various matters which affect the relations between the general public and the Railway Companies ought to be seriously considered. I say that the time has arrived when the House should turn its attention to the arrangements which are to be made with the Tramway Companies, and take care that in any further extension of the tramway system in London arrangements are made 1758 which will protect the interests of the public. There is another question of very great and practical importance which ought not to be lost sight of, and that is the duty which the Tramway Companies ought to discharge in connection with the conveyance of workmen by early and cheap cars. The Railway Companies have recently been required to run workmen's trains for the convenience of the working classes of the Metropolis. The North London Railway Company, the London, Chatham, and Dover Company, the Great Eastern Company, the Metropolitan District Company, and other Railway Companies, have been required to run workmen's trains; and they have, I believe, met that requirement even in excess of the stipulations made with them when they have sought to obtain further Parliamentary powers. Now, I maintain that it is quite necessary in the interests of the public, and especially in the interests of the working classes, that the Tramway Companies should be compelled, in like manner, to run workmen's cars. It is of no use talking about relieving the congested portions of this City by simply transferring the working classes, so far as their dwellings go, to the suburban districts of London, unless you also afford to the working people an opportunity of getting into the City to their work in the morning and home from their work again at night, at reasonable fares. The Commission which sat upon the Housing of the Working Classes dealt with this important question, and it was suggested that the Tramway Companies should be required to run workmen's cars for the convenience of the working classes. It certainly cannot be regarded as, in any sense, an unfair condition to impose upon these Tramway Companies, when we take into consideration the numerous advantages which they have over the Railway Companies. In the first place, they have obtained their permanent way gratuitously, whereas the Railway Companies have been obliged to expend millions of money in acquiring land for their permanent way. In the next place, they are not subject to the passengers' duty, as the Railway Companies are. It is quite true that they pay rates and taxes, but so do the Railway Companies. Under these circumstances, I submit, in the interest of 1759 the working classes, that, seeing that these Tramway Companies enjoy practically a monopoly—and what has turned out to be a most profitable monopoly—in the interest of the working classes this House should take care that proper provisions are made in the direction I have indicated. All these questions form part and parcel of the general reconsideration of tramway legislation; and I say that it is desirable, in dealing with the Tramway Bills before the House in the present Session—for the one we are now discussing is only one of a series of Bills—in dealing with these Tramway Bills we should decide upon sending them to a strong Committee, in order that the questions I have raised may be fully and carefully considered, and that care should be taken, while refraining from imposing new or unfair conditions upon the Tramway Companies, that the Tramway Companies are not allowed to obtain increased powers to the detriment of the public, or, in fact, any fresh advantage, without giving a quid pro quo in consideration for such powers and advantages. If these Tramway Bills—the Cricklewood, Kilburn, and Harrow Road Bill, and the other Tramway Bills which are to come on later, are referred to different Select Committees in the ordinary way, it is just possible that a full consideration of all these important matters, in the case of some particular Bill, may escape the attention of the particular Committee which will deal with the question. It is for this reason, without any hostility to the Tramway Companies, and without desiring to make any sweeping change to the disadvantage of these Companies, that I propose that this Bill shall be referred to a Hybrid Committee instead of an ordinary Select Committee. I intend to propose afterwards that the other Tramway Bills which have been introduced this Session shall be referred to the same Committee. A Hybrid Committee will be able to deal with all the questions involved in these Bills upon something like a principle, and protect the public generally, and especially look after the interests of the working classes in connection with the tramway system. I will not venture to stand longer between the House and the more important Business which it has this evening to consider. It is not my fault that I have 1760 had to say so much upon the question as I have said. The Bill itself has been brought on this evening without any communication with me in any way whatever. I am only discharging a public duty in moving that it be referred to a Hybrid Committee. I may add that I was led to believe that on the part of the promoters of these Bills there would be no opposition to the proposal I make, to refer them to a Hybrid Committee, inasmuch as I had an interview with an agent acting for one of these Tramway Bills; and I have in my possession a letter, in which that gentleman gives his assent, provided that certain alterations are made in the terms of reference to the course I propose of referring them to a Hybrid Committee. I made the alterations in accordance with the suggestion of the agent. As I presumed that he was acting indirectly for the other Tramway Companies who were interested in the matter, I had every reason to believe that no objection would be raised to my proposal. I am, therefore, surprised to find that the Cricklewood and Harrow Tramway Company has broken through what I believed to be the understanding, and now refuses to consent to the reference of this Bill to a Hybrid Committee. It is because I think that if these Tramway Bills go to a Hybrid Committee every matter will be fully and carefully considered, and the interests of the public protected, that I move that this Bill be so referred.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out the word "committed," in order to add the words "referred to a Select Committee, Five to be nominated by the House, and Four by the Committee of Selection,"—(Mr. T. H. Bolton,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'committed' stand part of the Question."
§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)I do not know whether the discussion of this Motion is likely to occupy any considerable amount of time; but if it is, in view of the very important Business which is to be brought forward this evening, I think it would be advisable to adjourn the debate. I am not of opinion, however, that the debate need last long; and I have, therefore, thought it convenient that 1761 I should rise at once and say that I am not prepared to support the Motion which the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) has made, because I do not think that the hon. Member has made out a case. The Motion, consequently, is not one which will require any considerable amount of debate. It is quite true, as the hon. Member has stated, that the time is not far distant when it will be necessary to consider the Act of 1870, as the period provided by Parliament when the Tramway Companies may be purchased out is now rapidly approaching, and it may be necessary to deal with the whole question of the construction of tramways. But it will be requisite, in that event, to make out a much larger case and to go at much greater length into the general question than the hon. Gentleman has done to-day. He has invited the attention of the House to what was done in 1873; but I think it may become necessary not to appoint simply a Hybrid Committee, but a very strong Committee indeed, for the special purpose of considering the position of the whole question of tramway construction. I confess that I do not see any reason for departing from the usual course of procedure in the case of this particular Bill which is now submitted to the House for second reading. I certainly do not think that any case has been made out for delaying its reference in the ordinary way to a Select Committee. The hon. Member has raised two points, the first of which is the diversity of the relations between the Local Authorities and the Tramway Companies. But it is only natural that there should be that diversity in the arrangements made between the Tramway Companies and the Local Authorities, because the conditions existing in different localities vary considerably. In one case you will find a Company who are willing to pay a bonus to the Local Authority in order to secure permission to lay down a tramway, whereas in another case it may be to the interest of the public that the Local Authority should encourage the Tramway Company to lay down a line. I therefore apprehend that this is a question with which the House may be reluctant to interfere. In regard to the second point urged by the hon. Member—namely, the necessity of running early and cheap cars for the conveyance of 1762 working men, I believe that both this Bill and the one which follows it—the North Metropolitan Tramways Bill—make express provision that workmens' cars shall be run both in the morning and evening, at the fare of one halfpenny per mile, instead of a penny, which is the ordinary fare, so that one of the objects of the hon. Member is already provided for. But my main point in objecting to the Motion of the hon. Member is this—that the question of tramway construction and legislation may be, I admit, a proper one to be considered, but it should be considered apart from this particular Bill by the appointment of a Committee to take up the whole subject. In the meantime I hope the House will not agree to the proposal of the hon. Member in reference to the present Bill.
§ MR. MARRIOTT (Brighton)After the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees I hope the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) will withdraw the Motion. There can be no doubt that the subject of tramway construction is one of considerable interest; but it ought to be dealt with upon the question of the provisions of the General Tramways Act, and not upon a proposal to depart from the ordinary course of Private Bill legislation by referring one particular Bill to a Hybrid Committee. The hon. Gentleman says that he has no intention of raising any opposition to the laying down of tramways; but, as a matter of fact, the Motion he has proposed is simply an opposition, not to tramways generally, but to one tramway in particular. Although the hon. Member tells the House that he speaks in the name of the working classes, his Amendment would only delay the construction of a particular line; and, in that way, so far from benefiting the working classes by his action, the hon. Gentleman would do them a great injury. It would materially injure the working classes to prevent the laying down of a new line of tramways at a time when employment is scarce and the working men have very little to do. It would simply be putting a spoke in the wheel of employment, and preventing a considerable number of working men from obtaining a livelihood. The Tramways Act of 1870 was a general Act, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes the provisions 1763 of that Act to be considered, let him move a Resolution to that effect; but to ask the House, instead of referring a particular Bill to a Select Committee in the ordinary way, to refer it to a Hybrid Committee, would simply be to interpose an unnecessary obstacle to the progress of the Bill, if not to stop it altogether.
§ MR. T. H. BOLTONPerhaps the House will allow me to explain. The right hon. Gentleman has evidently misunderstood me. What I said was that I proposed not to deal with this Bill alone, but to refer all the other Bills—five or six in number—to the the same Hybrid Committee, and I have given Notice of a Motion to that effect.
§ MR. MARRIOTTThe result of that would be to stop five or six Bills instead of one, and to inflict serious injury upon this description of property. What we want is to encourage enterprize; and yet the hon. Member, speaking in the name of the working classes, is trying not to stop one Tramway Bill, but five or six. I hope that the House, for the sake of the working classes, knowing that tramways are essential to the locomotion of the labouring man, will allow this Bill to go to a Private Bill Committee, where it will receive due consideration. I trust that the hon. Member will withdraw the Motion.
§ MR. ISAACS (Newington, Walworth)I cannot help appealing to my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) to consider the advisability of accepting the suggestion which has come from the Treasury Bench that he should withdraw his Motion. I agree with a great deal that fell from my hon. Friend in reference to tramways, and it is a subject with which I am very familiar. But I cannot help pointing out that it would be not only very inconvenient, but also very costly, to the Companies who are promoting these Tramway Bills in the present Session of Parliament, if they are called upon to defend them before such a Committee as my hon. Friend proposes to appoint. The whole question of tramway legislation will require revision shortly and it can then be referred to a Committee specially appointed for the purpose of considering it. I am sure that my hon. Friend, upon reconsidering the matter, will see that he has not hit upon the happiest way of getting the 1764 question brought under the notice of the House. I would suggest to him that he should withdraw the present Motion, reserving to himself the right at some future time of raising the whole question, to which, I think, in the remarks he has made, he has usefully directed the attention of the House.
§ MR. LIONEL COHEN (Paddington, N.)One observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T.H. Bolton) as a reason for desiring to refer this Bill to a Hybrid Committee was, that it is necessary to make provision for the running of early and cheap workmens' cars. As a matter of fact, the Local Authority who have jurisdiction in the district through which the proposed tramway will pass have already considered that question, and the Company who are promoting the Bill have promised to make adequate provision. It is therefore desirable that the Bill should be dealt with in the ordinary way, and that its progress should not be delayed, nor the expense of promoting it largely increased, by referring it to a Hybrid Committee.
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?
§ MR. T. H. BOLTONNo, Sir. I think I must press the Amendment unless I have some assurance upon the matter.
§ Question, "That 'committed' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill committed.