§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ *MR. D. J. MORGAN (Essex, Walthamstow)said this was not a new Bill to the House. The routes proposed were strongly recommended by the Joint Committee of this House and the House of Lords in 1901. This line would commence with the Tube Station in the City under Gracechurch Street, at or near 658 Eastcheap, opposite the Monument Station of the Metropolitan District and Metropolitan Railway, with which and with the City and South London Railway convenient exchanges of passengers could be secured by means of underground passages. And here he would mention that Railways 5 and 6 in the Bill would be withdrawn; they were deposited to provide a short extension from the Monument to the Mansion House. The line would then proceed under Grace-church Street and Bishopsgate Street to the City boundary. Two other City stations, making three in all, would be provided at (1) Cornhill, where a site has been chosen 300 yards from the Royal Exchange, and (2) at Liverpool Street, where excellent exchange arrangements could be made with the Metropolitan Railway at their Bishopsgate Station (and with the Central London Railway when their proposed '" extension to Liverpool 659 Street" was complete at their Liverpool Street Station). The line then passed under High Street, Shoreditch, stations being placed at Shoreditch, opposite the Bishopsgate Station of the Great Eastern Railway, and at the junction of Hackney Road and High Street. Here the main line is divided into two, one line running due north to Tottenham and Chequer's Green, and the other in a north-easterly direction to Ley ton, Walthamstow, Chingford, and Waltham Abbey for Epping Forest. This point of divergence was about 1⅛ miles from the commencement of the main line. The Tottenham line would run in tube under public streets through the boroughs of Shore-ditch, Hackney, Stoke Newington, and the urban district of Tottenham to a point 4¾ miles from Hackney Road, where it passed into the open and thence to its termination at Chequer's Green.
Stations would be provided on the railway in the tube at Kingsland Road, Stamford Road, Areola Street, Stoke Newington, Cazenove Road, Stamford Hill, Seven Sisters Road, and on the railway in the open at the Avenue, Tottenham, Lordship Lane, White Hart Lane and Chequer's Green. At Lordship Lane and White Hart Lane the Hue would conveniently tap the building estate of the London County Council, upon which 18,000 people of the artizan classes were to be housed. The total distance from the Monument to Chequer's Creen would be about seven and three quarter miles. The Waltham Abbey hine from its point of divergence passed in tube through the boroughs of Bethnal Green, Hackney, mostly under public streets, but partly under the Victoria Park, to a point about two and three quarter miles from its commencement, where it became an open air railway, and passed through the Urban Districts of Leyton, Walthamstow, Chingford, and Walthamstow, Holy Cross, terminating at Waltham Abbey. Length of line in open being about thirteen miles. In the tube four stations would be provided, at Haggerston, Cambridge Road, Victoria Park, Hackney, whilst in the open twelve stations would be provided at Temple Mills (where the Great Eastern works were), Leyton, Brewster Road, Lea Bridge Road, Walthamstow, Forest 660 Road, Higham Hill, Chingford Hall, Chingford Green, Gillwell Park, Royal Oak, High Beech and Waltham Abbey. This line thus passed through the territory of twelve local authorities outside the City, all of which had passed resolutions in favour of its being constructed as promptly as possible, because it would greatly help the districts of Bethnal Green, Whitechapel, Shoreditch, Hackney, and Spitalfields, where congestion of population rendered easier means of getting the people out of London a most pressing question. Many hon. Members of this House knew what this state of overcrowding meant. There were many places where there were three families living in one room, and there were many other instances of an enormous number of tenements which were occupied by more than one family. It would be allowed by everybody that there was immense need for relieving this overcrowding by giving these people facilities to come out into the country and so enable them to live under healthier and better conditions.
Another reason why this railway should not be delayed was because the present railway accommodation at Walthamstow and Leyton and Tottenham was quite inadequate at the time when a large portion of the working population—and in Walthamstow and Leyton alone the population amounts to over 200,000 people required to be carried to and from its work in the morning and evening. The Urban District Councils of Walthamstow and Leyton most earnestly requested by resolution that the House will let this Bill go through with all speed, because the new colony of 48,000 people who will inhabit the buildings near Lordship Lane and White Hart Lane, which will be erected for the London County Council, will want additional facilities to get to and from their work owing to the inadequate means adopted by the Great Eastern Railway. This he did not think the hon. Member for Battersea would deny. Between Walthamstow and Waltham Abbey from 9,000 to 11,000 acres of splendid building land, on ground backed by Epping Forest, and sloping down to the River Lea. offered splendid sites for the erection of work- 661 men's houses, for which it is eminently fitted, because it could be acquired at a price per acre which would enable workmen's dwellings to be erected at a cost which should permit their being let at rents which were moderate. That was one of the most essential things in erecting houses for the working classes, because unless they got land cheap it was impossible to erect houses at a cost which would permit them to be let at a rent which working men can afford to pay. The great difficulty in the housing question was to provide houses for those people who were receiving small and casual wages, say of 20s to 23s. a week, and who could not afford to pay the rents of modern dwellings where the price of the land was high.
Another reason why he hoped the House would not refuse a Second Heading to this Bill, but would allow it to go to a Committee, was that by Clause 114 of the present Bill the obligation would be imposed upon the Company of carrying third class passengers from London to Tottenham and Walthamstowrespectively for 2d. (being, for a distance of over six miles, less than one third of a penny per mile), while under Clause 121 workmen return tickets are issued up till seven o'clock a.m., at fares which should not exceed the single fare above stated. It might be mentioned here that the traffic arrangements of the Company provided for a two and a half minutes service of trains from the Monument, giving a five minutes service to Tottenham, and a five minutes service to Walthamstow. This Company was also willing to give facilities for the conveyance of workmen's tools by workmen's trains, which was one of the difficulties which had to be provided for at present. The Great Eastern Railway had done much, very much, to meet the railway requirements of the neighbourhoods through which its line passed, but it could not do more at present, it was impossible to run more trains. The population in Tottenham, Walthamstow, Leyton, and Chingford, was increasing weekly, and further railway accommodation was needed now, and it would be much more needed in the near future.
The present over-crowding in the Great Eastern Railway trains, morning 662 and evening, he knew of from personal experience. This morning, from 6.28 till 8.28, he watched the trains leaving Walthamstow, Hoe Street, and James Street. The trains were frightfully overcrowded; people were waiting on the platform five and seven deep, and when he came through from Hoe Street, Walthamstow, he came in a carriage constructed to carry ten passengers and there were twenty-one in it. It was not only the difficulty of getting to work in the morning, but of getting down in the evening at the hours at which they were to get home. The overcrowding of the trains then was so excessive that it was difficult to get a place at all. He went down the other day with twenty-two workmen in a guard's van, because there was no room anywhere else. This matter was one on which the people of the East End felt keenly, and they felt that there was now an opportunity for this House to show that it was willing to do what it could to relieve these difficulties. The suggestion to hang up this railway until after the Report of the Royal Commissioners was one which he hoped the House would not agree to. This railway was on a very different footing to many of the deep tubes which had been proposed, and which were part of a great system for London. This railway went a very short way through the City of London, from the Monument to the limits of the City, and stood, so he maintained, on quite a different footing to those which formed part of the great scheme of tube railways proposed. If this line was delayed, all he could say was that the difficulties and troubles which now existed would be ever so much greater. The fact that this line passed through twelve localities, the Councils of which were unanimous in its favour, showed the feeling in this matter, and he appealed to the Members of this House to let this Bill go to a Committee, and thereby help forward one of the best schemes for enabling our working people to get quickly and cheaply into better air and better dwellings. He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
663§ MR. VICARY GIBBS, (Hertfortshire, St. Albans)in moving that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, said the hon. Member had said there had been much overcrowding on the Great Eastern Railway this morning, and that he came up to town in a carriage in which there were twenty-one other passengers. The reason of that was that there was a thick fog, and for reasons of safety thirteen trains which would have carried this traffic were cancelled. The point he wished to urge on this House was, that there was nothing to distinguish this particular Bill from the other Bills which the President of the Board of Trade had held over. He submitted that the reason they ought to hold this Bill over was, that they must not interfere in any way with the Royal Commission which was now sitting to consider the question of London traffic. ft was perfectly clear that this Bill was in the same category as those which had been suspended by the President of the Board of Trade, and he should wait with great interest to see what it was that the President of the Board of Trade would have to say in explanation of making this differentiati n in favour of this Bill. This Bill proposed to have not exactly a terminus station, but the last station but one in the mouth of Threadneedle Street, which was the most restricted and inconvenient portion of that street for the traffic of London to negotiate. The crowd of pedestrians there was frightfully in excess of the accommodation for them at the moment, and it was now proposed by this Bill to throw crowds into Thread-needle Street in the course of the day without any arrangements being made for their safety, or for the necessary alterations that would have to be made at that particular part. That was a very reasonable ground for this Bill not being accepted at this particular moment.
His position in this matter was, that besides all the other sins which this Bill would commit, it would take away his own office in the City, and he would probably obtain a large sum of money which he would not otherwise get, and which he did not want, as against what he regarded as the public convenience. They had heard a great deal of people who were shareholders 664 in companies not voting, and he asked for the guidance of Mr. Speaker as to what he should do. He wanted to vote against this Bill, but if Mr. Speaker said it was against the etiquette of the House, he should abstain. He did not know that he was called upon to abstain if he regarded this Bill as a public evil, but on that he desired to have guidance.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI am afraid this is not a point upon which I can give a ruling. The question whether a vote should be allowed or disallowed can only arise after the vote has been given, and can only be decided by the House itself. Having heard the hon. Member's description of the circumstances in which he stands, I doubt very much whether any hon. Member of this House would quarrel with his vote if he gave one upon this Bill.
§ MR. VICARY GIBBSThat being so, Sir, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months,
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Vicary Gibbs.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)I cannot pretend that I should gain or lose money through the passing of this Bill, but I am prepared to vote with the hon. Member for St. Albans upon this matter for this reason. The Bill proposes to give communication with certain towns which are already in communication with London, and which already have an exceptionally good service of trains. It is quite possible that as everybody wants to travel at the same time on the Great Eastern Railway, that there may be some overcrowding at that time. The reason which influences me in opposing this Bill is that the Government have appointed a Royal Commission to consider the question of the traffic of London, and the means or method of improving the ingress and egress thereto. My right hon. friend the Member for Walthamstow, who sits upon my right, says that this railway 665 does not interfere with the City, because it only goes a short distance into the City; but the City is a very small area, and if you have a railway going a mile or half-a-mile into the City that interferes just as much with the City as any other railway going three or four miles in the West End would interfere with the West End. I was just going to point out that this Bill does interfere with the City very much. I would ask my hon. friend whether he does not agree with me that one of the greatest thoroughfares in the City is Gracechurch Street. Well, they have Gracechurch Street for their starting-point, then the line runs under King William Street, Threadneedle Street, and Bishopsgate Street. I do not know any five streets in the City of London which are more important than those five, and therefore I think it is ridiculous to say that this Bill does not interfere with the City of London; that argument absolutely falls to the ground. I would point out, so far as I understand it, what is actually to be done. Where a Bill is brought in now which merely gives slightly increased facilities to a line that exists, that Bill is not sent before the Royal Commission, but considered on its merits, and is allowed to pass—but where a Bill, a new Bill, is brought in which proposes to make sixteen miles of new railway that Bill is referred to the Royal Commission. I am not interested either directly or indirectly in this Bill, but it seems to me that if the Royal Commission is not to be a farce it is most important a Bill to create new Railways should be referred to it, and not. be passed by this House to-day.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)said he rose to support the Motion made by the two hon. Members who had just addressed the House for the rejection of this Bill, for reasons in addition to those which they had advanced. His opposition to this Bill to-day was not due to individual captiousness on his part, but that, as a representative of the London County Council, which was, on this particular matter, the chief sanitary and housing authority of this vast city, he considered it desirable, in the interests of London locomotion as a whole, and in the interest of housing conditions, and 666 of obtaining cheaper and better railway fares of every description, that this Bill should be considered by the Royal Commission which was now sitting. Last year there were fifteen Tube Bills introduced into this House for the purpose mainly of making London a "Tom Tidler's ground" out of which the Americans were to pick up all the gold and silver. The House of Commons then said we have no right to allow irresponsible promoters to come here and promote, in our Metropolis, unconnected railways, uncoordinated with existing systems of railways and tram lines. Notwithstanding that those fifteen railway schemes had at their disposal the best parliamentary lawyers, draughtsmen and financiers, the House of Commons over-rode the Pierpont-Morgan method of lobbying, and after one of the most remarkable debates that he had ever listened to in this House, it said London was already too much confused with railway schemes, and it could not be subject to endless interference by irresponsible promoters of these Bills. The House of Commons resisted the blandishments of Pierpont-Morgan, Yerkes & Co., and decided to do this. They declined to allow the Metropolis to remain a place of exploitation by railway companies without some recognition of the control of this House, and they practically rejected the bulk of the e Bills. Why did they do that? They did it because there was a general growing feeling on all sides of the House that it was not more railways that London wanted, but that the existing railways should have forced upon them some process of amalgamation in order that the systems might be coordinated.
It was said "Get your running powers, and if you do that we will do our best to help you," and in that spirit the House of Commons rejected a majority of those Bills. Why, because they are sustained by the decision of the Government Department, which felt, like the County Council of London and every other public authority in London, that the present system of communication could not go on much longer, and that they had got to devise some permanent and definite plan by which the various systems could be harmonised. The House was compelled 667 to throw out some of these Bills. The House did so on the promise of the Government Department that before next session a Royal Commission would be appointed. The Royal Commission had been created, and to it these Bills were to be remitted for consideration and report. A number of Bills had been introduced, but very curiously the Bill which of all others ought to be remitted to the Royal Commission was being exempted from the purview of that Commission. The result was, that the Royal Commission instituted to enquire into London locomotion, of which this Bill was the chief section, would be, like Othello, with its occupation gone. He asked the House to remember this fact. It was proposed to exempt from the purview of the Royal Commission in this ease twenty-two and a half miles of Electric Railway. That in itself was more than all the other railways referred to in the schemes which would go to the Commission. The raison d'etre for this Commission would thus be removed, and if they did not remit this Bill to the Commission, they might as well open the door and let the others go through at the same time. This Commission was appointed to consider the whole question of locomotion in the Metropolis, and this Bill referred to the chief railway which should be remitted to the Commission for consideration. He asked, therefore, that this Bill should be suspended until the Royal Commission presented its report.
He trusted that the House would understand his position in this matter. He had no special objection to this particular Bill, on that matter he was willing to defer to the Royal Commission. He had no technical objection to the plans which had been deposited. He was not entitled to speak on that particular point. All he wished was to defer to the well informed Commission which would have experts to give proper evidence before it, but he did say that to appoint a Royal Commission and then to with hold from it what ought to be the chief part of its work was makingthis Commission a farce, stultifying its ultimate labours, and, incidentally, trying to make a fool of the House of Commons. He objected to that being done. Now they came to this particular railway. This railway proposed to traverse a route 668 from Gracechurch Street in the City to Tottenham, by way of Stoke Newington, a distance of eight miles. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill was under the impression that it did not in any way interfere with the convenience of the City a great deal, but when there were five of the principal streets in the City interfered with, and when they remembered that the City was only one square mile in extent, it was no answer to say that it only interfered with five streets. The area of the City being one square mile, practically three-quarters of the City was invaded. In the interests of public convenience as a whole he was prepared to invade the City, and some day the County Council would have to capture it, lock, stock and barrel It was proposed also that there should be a branch line to Walthamstow and Waltham Abbey. Just fancy a railway proposed to go under Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. That would be regarded as sufficient to warrant a special instruction to safeguard the public interests in connection with Hyde Park and other open spaces in the West End. If that would be done for the West End. why not for the East End also? Why should Victoria Park, and any other open spaces there might be on the route, not have proper safeguards. He said that they were not the proper body to consider the Bill at this moment. The proper body was the Royal Com miss on appointed to go into these matters, but incidentally he would say that the proper body (o safeguard these open spaces was the County Council, which objected to this Bill going on until the Commission presented its report.
His next point was perhaps a very good one. This railway, so far as he was able to observe, was only a slight modification and amalgamation of the City and North East London Railways, which were proposed by Mr. Pierpont Morgan last year in Bills which were thrown out. The reason that induced the House to throw out these Bills last year was a reason why they should not pass this particular one Indeed this Bill was not in some respects as good as the two which were promoted last year. There was this advantage in the scheme last year, of which tills was only a truncated portion it connected 669 Walthamstow with Piccadilly and Hammersmith, and the railways proposed by the two Bills last year did carry a person from Hammersmith to Piccadilly and then by way of the City to Walthamstow. They had a through route and reasonable rates were imposed on the Pierpont Morgan group. But this Bill does not provide for a railway to Piccadilly and Hammersmith. It abandoned the through route and the fares were not so good as those proposed by last year's Bill. The Bill went before Lord Windsor's Committee, and that Committee rejected it in so far as it related to the scheme between the Mansion House and Whitechapel, which this particular scheme happened to be a portion of. He wanted to put this to the House of Commons. The Bill practically failed on account of the dropping out of the most important section—between Hammersmith and the City. What was left of this particular Bill was repudiated by Lord Windsor's Committee and rejected by the House of Commons.
When they remembered that out of forty miles of electric railway this particular scheme had twenty-two miles, it appeared to him that, as the greater rules the lesser, it should not be proceeded with, if anyone was going to have a through route from Hammersmith to the City, and thence to Tottenham, Walthamstow and Waltham Abbey. He ventured to say that it would be better for this House to impose that through route upon the existing Tube railways and upon the Great Eastern Railway, or some Company that was doing part of the work now—if they liked, inefficiently—with larger capital, greater knowledge and experience of this part of the Metropolis than this newly-Hedged syndicate could hope to command. If this proposal went before the Commission it would be found that the Great Eastern Railway submitted to a Committee in 1901 practically this scheme, occupying much of the same route, and it would have done the work in a better way than the promoters of this Bill could ever hope to do it.
Might he appeal to the House of Commons to rise above the local reasons which had induced some hon, members to support this Bill? The House of Commons was a national assembly; it was not a congress of Borough Councils and vestry 670 men, or representatives of local areas. It was a national assembly for the determination of both national and metropolitan questions on broad, not to say Imperial, lines. The only reason for this Bill being supported was that some local Members had thought that parochial considerations warranted them in supporting it, and local reasons alone have been adduced to justify their action. He was going to sacrifice his personal interests on the altar of Metropolitan duty. The district which he represented had two Tube Bills, which were to be brought before the House this session. One was for the construction of a tube railway connecting Clapham Junction with the Marble Arch, whence passengers could go to other places by another route. It would be convenient for the people of Battersea to have these two tube railways, but it would be selfish, exclusive, and unpatriotic for Battersea to promote its own sectional interests independent of the general considerations of Metropolitan interests and the traffic of London as a whole. He was going to ask the House of Commons to throw out these two Bills on the broad ground that he asked them to throw out this one, which was that it served only local interests and was not generally asked for, while it was opposed by the authority that, in hisopinion, was the best judge onmatters of locomotion—namely, the County Council.
His next point was this: What had the hon. Member who moved the Bill done to-night? He said that, Railways 5 and 6 were withdrawn. No reason had been advanced why 5 and 6 are withdrawn. Was it to suit the convenience of the promoters, and was it because by taking that course they were pursuing the line of least resistance? Why were they cutting them out? Possibly, for anything they knew, Railways 5 and 6 might go through greatly congested districts, and probably they would be the two parts of the Bill the Royal Commission would keep in. It was really amusing to hear hon. Members who were opposed to the housing policy of the London County Council dragging in that Council to-night by the scruff of the neck as a reason why this Bill should be passed It was true that a policy for the housing of the working classes had been gone, into by the London County Council, and that it had been enabled to establish at 671 Tottenham a scheme that would give house accommodation to 42,000 people; but he put it to the House of Commons: Was the authority that had done this work, and which was responsible to Parliament for the carrying of it out, going to cut off these 42,000 of the community from easy communication with the City? Was it going deliberately to depreciate its housing scheme by depriving the people of proper facilities for transit? The County Council thought that if this particular company got this Bill for a railway from the City to Tottenham, it would have an exclusive monopoly to serve that community without regard to their relationship to the other railway companies which were prepared to do the work. Probably that community would have dearer fares, fewer trains, and worse accommodation than they would have if the housing scheme was brought before the Royal Commission. They would be better served by that Commission than by this House if the subject came before the Commission for consideration. The Member for Walthamstow dragged in the question of overcrowding, and referred to a case where three families were living in one room, with an average wage of 15s. a week. But the question of overcrowding was not met by this particular Bill. The hon. Member expressed the hope that this Bill would not be removed from the purview of the Royal Commission.
*THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. A. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars)said he did not propose to follow the hon. Member who had just sat down into his argument in so far as it was a plea for the rights of property. The bulk of his speech was based on what he believed to be an entirely erroneous impression. He spoke of referring this Bill and the other Bills to the Royal Commission which had been appointed. The Royal Commission had not been appointed to consider special Bills, and the promoters of this Bill would have absolutely no right to insist that the Commission should consider it.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSknew that the hon. Gentleman would pardon him for interrupting him. He was aware that the Royal Commission had not been appointed to consider this special Bill, 672 and that it had been appointed to consider the general question of London locomotion, of which this Bill was a prominent part.
*MR. A. BONAR LAWsaid that was what he stated. It had been appointed to consider the general question of locomotion in the Metropolis. He would try to explain later on the grounds on which his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade considered that this Bill should be dealt with by this House. If he was not mistaken, the London County Council, for whom the hon. Member for Battersea had been speaking to-day, actually approved of this Bill two years ago. He had tried very earnestly to gather the grounds on which the hon. Gentle man opposed it now. It appeared to him that he stated no ground except that he objected to this Bill because there were certain other Bills in which he was more directly interested, which were not allowed to be considered by a Committee upstairs. Heappealed to hon. Members, and to the House, if that was not the policy of the dog in the manger. Now all this was apart from the important question which the House had to decide. He quite admitted that his right hon. friend in appointing this Royal Commission, did intend that in the meantime nothing should be done to interfere with the general scheme which that Commission might place before Parliament with reference to London locomotion. At the very time that he moved for the appointment of a Royal Commission, that appointment wax objected to by some hon. Members on the other side of the House. And his right hon. friend wasasked: "Do you mea n to say that until the Commission has reported no Bill will ever be considered by the House?" His answer then was: "Of course any Bills that are brought before the House will be considered on their merits, and especially with reference to the point whether or not they will interfere with the general plan or scheme for the whole of the Metropolis." The principle on which his right hon. friend had acted was a simple one. In considering what Bills should be allowed, and what Bills should not be 673 allowed, to go upstairs, he had been influenced to some small extent by the urgent needs for particular Bills which might be brought forward.
In connection with this particular Bill he himself received a deputation in support of it. That deputation consisted of representatives of every one of the local authorities affected by the Bill, and was supported by the Members of Parliament in every district through which the railway was to pass, and they urged the need of the Bill, and the necessity of greater accommodation being provided by the district. Even the hon. Member for St. Albans, who had a special case to plead that day, and some other Members, stated that they had travelled in first-class carriages on the Great Eastern Railway in which there were three or four times more people than the carriages were built to accommodate. That, however, was not the main consideration which influenced his hon friend. The main consideration was whether this Bill would interfere with the general plan or scheme for the whole of London of the Royal Commission. He might say at once that when the deputation saw him he pointed out that they must consider that point, and that if this Bill would interfere with the general plan, it was almost certain that it would be thrown out. That was the ground on which his right hon. friend had chiefly considered this Bill. He had considered it with the assistance of the best expert advice at the disposal of the Department, and the conclusion arrived at was, that it was not a Bill which would interfere with the general plan to be recommended by the Royal Commission. That was the conclusion to which his right hon. friend had come, and in that he was supported by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and by the Deputy Chairman of that House; but in spite of that, his right hon. friend did not claim that he had necessarily come to a correct judgment on that point. Without more evidence than they had at the present moment, it was impossible to be sure that the Bill would not interfere with such a general plan for London. They did not ask that the Bill should be passed; all they asked was that it should be allowed to go upstairs and be considered by the Committee there. The House knew the 674 importance of a general plan for London, and if this Bill interfered with that general plan, the sufferers would be the promoters of the Bill. On those grounds he hoped sincerely that the Second Reading would be allowed to pass.
MR. COURTENAYWARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)said he had had the same difficulty in placing his vote as the hon. Member for St. Albans, because if this Bill had been passed two or three years ago it would have considerably benefited him. He thought, however, he might have a free hand on this particular point, although the hon. Gentleman might have a nicer conscience than he had. He would point out that this was the only line ever proposed for this particular district, except one mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea, which had been suggested by the Great Eastern Company, but which was never promoted. It was dropped as soon as the complications ceased. The line did not compete with any other line, and it was absurd to say that it could compete with the Great Eastern, because it was admitted that that Company had more traffic offered to them than they could carry. He remembered seeing a photograph of the state of a workmen's train ten years ago, in which the over crowding was so manifest that the suggestion that the Great Eastern Company could carry the traffic was put down at once. If that could be said ten years ago, when the traffic was not half what it now was, it could be more powerfully urged at the present day. As this was the only line it was possible to make, all that was required was that proper safeguards should be put in by the Committee as to tares, and as to communications at the end of the line with any other line which might be built in future. The necessity of the line was so great, and he could testify to that because he knew the district well, that the House should give some relief, and allow the Committee upstairs to say whether or not it was the fact that the urgency of the case demanded that this Bill should not be defeated.
§ *MR. FORDE RIDLEY (Bethnal Green, S. W.)said he wished to look at this question, not only from a 675 local but a national point of view. The population which it was proposed to help by this railway amounted to no less than about a million persons. He held that this scheme had certain things about it which made it entirely different from other schemes which had come before the House. Overlapping had been very much considered, but in this case overlapping did not occur. This railway, which was almost identical with the scheme proposed by the Great Eastern Company some years ago, but which was dropped when they found no opposition, was absolutely essential if the people were to be housed in the outlying districts. Why, the London County Council now proposed to house 148,000 people in this district, and there should be sonic additional means of transit in order to take them to and from various parts of London. The Great Eastern Company had done all that was possible for them to do to convey the people, but they admitted that it was impossible to carry more than they did at present. Hon. Members might have heard during recent months what hardships had been borne by the working classes by being brought into London hours before they had to go to work. Temporary sheds had been erected for their shelter, and in some cases the churches had been thrown open in order to prevent these poor people tramping about the streets in all weathers before they went to work. Why was it that there was this state of things? It was because the Great Eastern Company could not deal with the traffic, although they had gone the length of
§ widening their rolling stock in order to carry more persons than at present. The trains had to be sent back to the suburbs to bring in the clerk element, who had to be in their offices between nine and ten o'clock, and so it was impossible for the Great Eastern Company to run workmen's trains at a later hour in the morning than at present.
§ There were exceptional reasons why this Bill should be allowed to proceed without being hung up in Committee upstairs. If hon. Members wanted to convince themselves of the inconvenience to which the public are put, he advised them to take a journey in the early morning arid see for themselves what the condition of affairs was. The hon. Member for Battersea suggested that the first and second class carriages should be thrown open to the working men; he was authorised to state, by one who knew the facts, that already third class passengers were allowed to travel in second class carriages, and that women and children were allowed to travel in first class carriages. He hoped the House would not look at this matter solely from. the local point of view, He was speaking for 130,000 people who dwelt in his own constituency, but the local authorities of all the East-End districts of London were unanimously in favour of this Bill, which he thought should be allowed to proceed as quickly as possible.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 162; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 28.)
677| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Brigg, John | Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) |
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Crossley, Sir Savile |
| Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) | Butcher, John George | Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign) |
| Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden | Caldwell James | Denny, Colonel |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cautley, Henry Strother | Dickson, Charles Scott |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc) | Douglas, Rt. Hom. A. Akers |
| Arrol, Sir William | Chapman, Edward | Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. H. Sir H. | Charrington, Spencer | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Clare, Octavius Leigh | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man) | Clive, Captain Percy A. | Ffrench, Peter |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Finch. Rt. Hon. George H. |
| Bell, Richard | Collings, Right Hon. Jesse | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Bignold, Arthur | Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Bigwood, James | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.) | Flower, Ernest |
| Boland, John | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Forster, Henry William |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Cranborne, Viscount | Gardner, Ernest |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Cremer, William Randal | Garfit, William |
| Gilhooly, James | Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Maconochie, A. W. | Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) |
| Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn) | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Graham, Henry Robert | M'Crae, George | Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside) |
| Groves, James Grimble | Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n) | Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx) | Maxwell W.J.H. (Dumfriesshire) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Hardy, Laurence. (Kent, Ashfd) | Mitchell, William | Spear, John Ward |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Stock, James Henry |
| Helder, Augustus | More, Robt Jasper (Shropshire) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Morrison, James Archibald | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert, T. | Mount, William Arthur | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Hoare. Sir Samuel | Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Hobhouse. C. E. H. (Bristl, E) | Myers, William Henry | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Howard. J. (Midd., Tott'han) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Nicholson, William Graham | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M. |
| Jeffreys. Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.) | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. |
| Joicey, Sir James | O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. | Pease, H. Pike (Darlington) | Webb, Col. William George |
| Kitson, Sir James | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts) |
| Knowles, Lees | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Laurie, Lieut.-General | Pretyman, Ernest George | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Purvis, Robert | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Lawrence. Sir Jos. (Monm'th) | Pym, C. Guy | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Lawson, John Grant | Randles, John S. | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E.R. (Bath) |
| Layland-Barratt, Francis | Rankin, Sir James | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Lees, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Reid, James (Greenock) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Remnant Jas. Farquharson | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson | |
| Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | |
| Lockie, John | Robertson, H. (Hackney) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Mr. David Morgan and |
| Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Mr. Forde Ridley. |
| Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.) | Round, Rt. Hon. James | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Galloway. William Johnson | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Allen, Charles P (Glone., Stroud) | Gretton, John | Rea, Russell |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harmsworth. R. Leicester | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Hemphill. Rt. Hon Chas. H. | Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland) |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Horner, Frederick William | Shackleton, David James |
| Burt, Thomas | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Joyce, Michael | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Kearley, Hudson E. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm. | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Long, Sir John. | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Lundon, W. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Crean, Eugene | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Cullinan, J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Whitley J. H. (Halifax) |
| Delany, William | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Duffy, William J. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | O'Dowd, John | |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard | Mr. Vicary Gibbs and |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Pirie, Duncan V. | Mr. John Burns. |
Question put, and agreed to.