HC Deb 16 April 1891 vol 352 cc654-62

As amended, considered.

(3.10.) MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

I have to apologise for the absence of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), who is prevented by illness from being present, and I beg to move the Amendments to this Bill which stand on the Paper in my hon. Friend's name. They all relate to Clause 91, and they refer to the workmen's trains which this company proposes to run by electricity from Shepherd's Bush to the City. The circumstances of the case are referred to in a written statement which was sent out yesterday by the promoters of the Bill in support of the decision of the Committee to which the Bill was referred. As the scheme was introduced, it was at first intended that there should be only one working men's train in the morning and another in the evening, but it was afterwards proposed that there should be two before 7 o'clock in the morning. The Committee have altered that arrangement, and have inserted a clause making statutable the running of three workmen's trains each morning before 7 o'clock, and the same number every evening after 6 o'clock, at a charge of 1d. for each journey, for artisans, mechanics, and dock labourers. I have no objection to offer to the amount of the fare; but I have to propose that the term "daily labourer" shall be altered to "weekly labourer," so that it may. include porters, messengers, and persons engaged in similar occupations. I further propose that the hour in the morning shall be extended from 7 to 8 o'clock. People of this class are essentially working men, although they do not commence work as early as 6 or 7o'clock in the morning. They are messengers and underclerks in the City warehouses, who commence work after 8o'clock, and book the arrival and sending out of goods. They receive weekly, and not daily, wages, but they are equally necessitous with the persons provided for by the present clause. The first Amendment I have to move is that, instead of only three workmen's trains being run each day, there shall be six. At first sight it may seem that this would be a statutable imposition upon the company, which is not imposed upon any other company, and the company in their statement say that the clause already inserted in the Bill by the Committee goes far beyond any similar obligation imposed upon any other railway by Parliament. I beg to dispute that statement, because the trains which the company propose to provide are very short trains, and are incapable of holding anything like the number of persons who can travel in a train of the Great Eastern Railway. According to Returns now before the House, a workman's train on various London railways is capable of carrying from 500 to 600 passengers, whereas the trains of this company will only carry 120 or 150-third-class passengers at the most. The-consequence is, that the carrying obligation imposed on them is nothing like that which is imposed upon other railways. The statement of the promoters. says that with the single exception of the Great Eastern trains between Liverpool Street and Edmonton, which cover a distance of nine miles, there is no case in which Parliament has imposed upon a Railway Company the obligation of carrying a third-class passenger for so-long a distance as six miles for a penny. That is scarcely accurate, because I believe that on the South London lines statutory obligations exist which cover more than six miles. It is said that in compelling the company to run six trains instead of three, we should impose obligations upon the company for which they would have no compensating advantage; but I wish to point out that the company are paying to the inhabitants of London, either individually or collectively, nothing whatever for the tunnelling rights they are to enjoy. I am aware that the clause has been struck out which permitted them to tunnel without paying compensation, but the question of compensation is left to be raised by individual owners under the clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. That Act will be wholly inoperative because, as the tunnelling will be under Oxford Street, there can be no documents in existence, seeing that it is. one of the oldest streets in England, or probably in the world, which confer upon individuals the ownership of the soil. The result is, that that clause will confer no advantage upon the public either individually or collectively. It is said that the company will have to pay rates, but all other railways are in the same position. Mr. Pearson, the City Solicitor, wag the first person to propose an underground railway in London—the Metropolitan—and it was distinctly urged1 as an inducement in favour of legislation that the public were to get the benefit of the street improvements, which were to be associated with the construction of the railway as a compensation for the use of the soil. About £250,000 was, I believe, paid for the right of tunnelling under the Thames Embankment.

MR. ISAACS (Newington, Walworth)

£200,000.

MR. J. STUART

I am obliged for the correction of the hon. Member. The present railway is absolved from any-such contribution to the public benefit, although other railways have had to pay it. On these grounds I think the company are fairly called upon to give more extended advantages to the public than have been decided by the Select Committee, and I beg to move the first of the Amendments which stand in the name of my hon. Friend.

Amendment proposed, in page 72, line 25, to leave out the word " three," in order to insert the word " six."—(.Mr. James Stuart.)

Question proposed, "That the word ' three' stand part of the Bill."

(3.20.) MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)

1 beg to second the Amendment, which I look upon as a very reasonable extension. I am sorry that the Committee upstairs have seen fit to draw a distinction between working men who are paid by daily and by weekly wages. A great number of the clerks, messengers, and others in London who are paid weekly are in the same position as the artisars and labourers who work for a daily wage, but it would be impossible for them to take advantage of trains which run before 7 o'clock in the morning. Many of the warehouses and offices in the City are not open until 10, and every facility for cheap travelling should be afforded to these men, whose wages, or salaries as they are sometimes called, are scarcely equal to these of an artisan. If they are required to go to the City by a very early train, the only result will be that they will reach there before the offices or warehouses are open. I therefore think that the number of trains should be extended, and that they should run at a later hour.

(3.22.) MR. BARRAN (York, W.R., Otley)

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who acted as Chairman of the Select Committee, is not here to explain the circumstances under which the Committee decided to grant these workmen's trains. The Committee had the advice of Mr. Courtenay Boyle, who has had large experience in connection with the Metropolitan Railways, and it was at his suggestion that the Committee imposed on the company the necessity of running-three trains every morning and every night. The hon. Member for Hoxton (Mr. Stuart) has stated that the trains on this line will be limited in their carrying power in consequence of the line being worked by electricity; but if that argument is to weigh at all, it must necessarily tell in favour of the company in the consideration of this Amendment, because if they are only able to carry a very small number of passengers, seeing the enormous expense they will be put to in making the line, it will be much more difficult for them to realise a profit in consequence of their limited carrying power. The Committee, in dealing with the Bill, had to consider the enormous cost the company will be put to in carrying out their project. Even if they get the land without cost, and have no compensation to pay, the cost of constructing the line will be enormously heavy. So far as the granting of workmen's trains is concerned, this company has agreed to grant more than any existing Railway Company. There can be no doubt that the construction of the railway will materially reduce the congestion of traffic in Oxford Street and the City; but if we are to load the company with obligations and restrictions which are unbearable, the probability is, that the line will never be made at all. I hope the House will support the decision of the Select Committee.

(3.25.) MR. ISAACS

I wish to explain what was done in the case of the-District Railway with reference to contributions from public sources. A sum of £200,000 was paid by the company for the right to tunnel under the Embankment, while in the case of the City lines a grant of £800,000 was made to the company by the public. It is easy to get the-reputation of being a friend of the working classes by dipping your hand into other people's pockets. That is what the hon. Gentleman proposes in effect to do. The obligation to send three workmen's trains each way per day over the line is as much as the company can be reasonably expected to undertake. It must not be forgotten that the trains which will travel one way full will invariably return empty. I hope the House will support the Committee, especially after what has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who was one of the Members of that Committee.

(3.30.) MR. GILES (Southampton)

Assuming that each train has to run six miles for fares of 1d., a full load of 500 passengers would only bring in a little over £2, while the cost of running the train would be quite as great, without any other expense whatever. I think that if the working classes of London get the privilege of three trains in the morning and three at night they will get all that they can reasonably expect from the company. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the proposal to increase the number of trains.

(3.32.) MR. GANE (Leeds, E)

I think that before the House adds to what is already an extraordinary burden some good reason [should be shown. I have every sympathy with the motive of the hon. Member, but I hope the House will not accept the proposal. If the Committee upstairs, in considering the matter, had fallen short of the real requirements of the working classes the House might be fairly asked to interpose, but I believe that what they have done is really in excess of anything that has been previously done. If the House is to compel the company to run six workmen's trains daily, I see no reason why they should not make it 20 or 50.

(3.35.) MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

I do not propose to enter into the details of this Bill, but I would only suggest that it is impossible for the House with any self-respect to come to a decision in this matter which is at variance with the decision of the Committee. The question has been carefully considered by the Committee with all the evidence before them, and with the assistance of an eminent and experienced official of the Board of Trade. Why, then, should we depart from the decision of the Committee merely upon a statement that cannot be submitted to cross-examination? I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. J. STUART

I now move, in line 28, to leave out "seven" and insert "eight." The object of the Amendment is to change, from 7 to 8, the hour at which working men's trains shall run. I believe that this change would be for the convenience of the workpeople who are not required at their places of business before 8 o'clock. There are a very large number of persons who are in this position, and whose wages do not exceed those of the daily labourer and the artisan. My only desire is to make the clause useful to all these persons. It is desirable for the health and comfort of London that persons of this class should live in the suburbs, and a provision of this kind will assist them in doing so.

Amendment proposed, in page 72, line 28, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "eight."— (Mr. James Stuart,)

Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Bill."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE(Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) that the Bill has been fully inquired into by a Select Committee, and I trust in the interest and safety of the public that the House will not make this alteration.

(3.37.) MR. BARRAN

I hope the House will not attempt to alter the hour, which is the same as that which is fixed in other Acts of Parliament. Not a word was said before the Committee as to the injustice or otherwise of the proposal. The Committee were anxious to meet, as far as possible, the necessities of the working classes; but if we are to extend the advantages already conceded to other classes, where are we to draw the line? How far and how often are we to enable general passengers to travel on a railway at little cost to themselves, but at very great cost to the Railway Company? There can be very little question that the Railway Company can make only a small profit out of trains of this kind, and in all probability they will sustain a loss. If we are to offer the privileges of the bond fide working man to other classes, I am afraid that Parliament will be taking upon itself a task which may entail very great responsibilities upon railways in future.

(3.39.) MR. 0. V. MORGAN (Batter-sea)

The question is one which appears not to have been considered by the Committee. I believe that if they had considered it they would have substituted 8 for 7 o'clock, and I fail to see that such an alteration would entail any additional expense upon the company. I am quite satisfied, however, that it would be an immense boon to the persons who will make use of this railway.

(3.40.) MR. HOWELL

I wish to point out that the persons in whose favour this concession is asked are as much bonâ fide working men as the man who carries a hod, the only difference being that they go to their work at a later hour, not for their own convenience, but for the convenience of their employers. It is of no use running trains at 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning if they do not embrace the class of working men who are to have the benefit of the Act. I cannot see how it would be an imposition upon the Railway Company, because the more trains they run the more likely they will be to recoup themselves for the expense. It is by keeping the line idle that they will lose. It is not the fact that these trains are full one way only. Many of them return fully loaded, and it must be borne in mind that many of the working classes who live in the West are employed in the East, as well as those who live in the East being employed in the West. I certainly believe that it will be of great advantage to the bonâ fide working man to extend this privilege to 8 o'clock in the morning.

(3.43.) MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)

I feel bound to protest against the introduction of Amendments of this kind after a Private Bill has been fully considered by a Select Committee. It is impossible that we could give a conscientious vote upon such questions, because we have no knowledge upon the subject, and we are not cognisant of the evidence which induced the Committee to arrive at their decision. How can we possibly know what the traffic is likely to be, how it is to be obtained, and the different places that are proposed to be accommodated? If we are to under- take to deal with questions of this kind I am afraid we shall impose on ourselves a hopeless and impossible task. I certainly protest against the notion that when the details of a Private Bill have been carefully settled by a Select Committee we are to interfere and upset their decision.

(4.45.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

The hon. Member who has just sat down is probably not aware that this matter did not come before the Committee at all. [Cries of "Why not?"] I regard it as a matter of public importance, largely affecting the working classes of London—not only their comfort, but their sanitary condition. The porters and warehousemen who would use the trains at 8 o'clock are bonâ fide working men, and receive smaller wages than artisans. It is for that class of men, who are very badly paid and who can only afford to live in the suburbs, that this concession is asked. I think their case deserves full consideration at our hands.

Question put, "That 'seven' stand part of the Clause."

The House divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 68.—(Div. List, No. 134.)

(4.55.) MR. J. STUART

As the other Amendments which stand in the name of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras are consequent on that which has just been disposed of, I shall not press them.

Bill ordered to be read a third time.