§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY () Camberwell, Peckhamsaid in moving the instruction standing in his name, he would like to put before the House some reasons for the course he proposed to take instead of allowing the matter to be dealt with by the Committee upstairs. In the first place, the only persons who could oppose this matter in the Committee were the road authorities and the frontagers. So far as the former were concerned they were the L.C.C., and there were practically no frontagers because there could not be any on Westminster Bridge, whilst on the Embankment there were very few, and such as they were they were not capable of appearing before the Committee. This scheme had been brought before this House periodically ever since 1894, and had always been rejected, and he thought it was not improper to suggest that this 699 House should confirm its former Acts, and reject the present scheme. There were two reasons why this scheme should not be authorised; first of all, the proposal was unnecessary and would confer no benefit on anyone, and, secondly, if it were proved to be beneficial, it would be, he submitted, unwise to take any steps in regard to the matter before the Royal Commission had reported. Supposing, which he did not for a moment believe, that the scheme was necessary, it would be admitted by everybody who had studied the questions and understood the proposals made that the new scheme could be of no use to anyone until the new streets which the County Council were now making from the Strand to Holborn were completed. It was proposed by the Bill to run a tramway across Westminster Bridge, and then turn to the right at right angles down the Embankment for five-eighths of a mile and stop at Waterloo Bridge. He was prepared to argue that there was no advantage to be gained by this. It was as easy for anyone to get out of a tram on the south side of Westminster Bridge as it was to do so on the north side, and there could be no possible object in carrying the tramway five-eighths of a mile down the Embankment, and that was seen by the fact that the County Council, when they ran 'buses, and the present proprietors of the 'buses which started from the tramway terminus at Westminster did not run them down the Embankment, but up through Parliament Street and Trafalgar Square. Nobody wanted to go that short distance down the Embankment, and if they did he might suggest that the Underground Railway was in existence, with stations at Charing Cross and the Temple. The only possible advantage that could be gained by this tramway, when the new street was constructed, was that it could be connected with that street, and thus enable people living on the south side of the water to come over Westminster Bridge, down the Embankment, and so on to Holborn. Until the new street was constructed this scheme was of no use whatever, and there was no necessity at present to construct it. He would further point out that the Baker Street and Waterloo Electric Railway now under construction would be finished at the 700 end of this year or the beginning of next, and he had been informed that there would be a station in the Westminster Bridge Road, which was the road through which these trams would come, three-eighths of a mile from the bridge, and that people could get out of the trams and go on the Baker Street tube to Trafalgar Square, and so on to their various destinations, either by that tube or by the Metropolitan or District Railways, which by that time would be electrified and with which it would be connected.
In support of his proposition that this particular scheme would be detrimental to the traffic of this neighbourhood, Sir Frederick quoted police evidence givers before the Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1892, and police evidence given in November 1903, and also the evidence given by Mr. Benn, Chairman of the County Council, and late of the Tramways Committee of that Council. He adduced evidence to show that tramways tended to throw all the other traffic on to the sides of the road, and argued that the utility of the Embankment in such a case I would be lost. As to the suggestion that there were no facilities for people who had arrived at the other end of West minster Bridge getting to their destination, he would point out that 218 omnibuses crossed the bridge every hour, while, so far as Parliament Street and Trafalgar Square were concerned, the number of 'buses that went there from Westminster numbered 500 an hour, which showed that there were great facilities. He contended that the obstruction on the other side of the bridge; caused by the terminus of the tramway had been used by the County Council as a lever for the purpose of coming to this House on this question. They had deliberately encouraged the obstruction on the other side in order that they might come to this House and ask it to carry out this fad which they had got into their head. He asked the House under all the circumstances to say that this scheme, which was not a local question but a portion of the great question of London traffic, should be deferred till the Railway Commission had reported upon the whole matter. He begged to move.
§ MR. WHITMORE () Chelseaseconded the Motion, because he had a similar Instruction upon the Paper relating to a small line of tramway which would connect the existing line at Stangate with the line which was the subject of this Instruction. He admitted that to justify the moving of an Instruction Board Private Bill, it was necessary to show strong reasons. In this case one reason was that in every other thoroughfare of London if the London County Council had proposed to lay down tramways they would have to obtain the assent of the local authorities, but in this particular; case the local authority of Westminster had no voice in this matter. In the second place he felt justified in taking this course, because of the exceptional interest of the Victoria embankment to Londoners. It was a unique possession for any city—this riverside space, with its gardens and music, for which the London County Council deserved all credit. It was a pleasant place, where quiet people could stroll or sit on a summer evening; but make it a noisy, arterial thoroughfare with a procession of tram-cars and its charm would disappear. He quite admitted that, if the Traffic Commission were to come to the conclusion that for utilitarian; reasons the beautiful boulevard should become a tram-car route, no aesthetic considerations should prevail. But the Commission had not reported; it by no means followed that Westminster Bridge and the Embankment was the best main route for connecting the tram-car services on either side of the river. Surely there was no need for precipitate action, and the House might reasonably wait a few months before giving sanction to a proposal which would spoil one of the most beautiful thoroughfares in London. The hon. Member for Battersea had always been much interested in preserving the beauty and dignity of London, and they h id in the Thames Embankment a unique possession in this respect. The London County Council had been doing admirable work in making the Embankment and its gardens not only more beautiful but more popular. He hoped to see some day a great, boulevard from Chelsea to Black-friars, forming a great riverside way with many gardens, which would be an 702 ornament to London, which any city would be proud of, and any population glad to possess. They could never make such a riverside way a direct and quick means of locomotion for arterial traffic because of the natural curves in the course of the Thames. Therefore, with great earnestness, he would ask the hon. Member for North Camberwell and other hon. Members who were supporting this scheme not to be too precipitate about this matter. Surely they might wait a few months until the Royal Commission had reported. He, at any rate, was glad to have an opportunity of doing something to give a vote to arrest a precipitate and a hasty proposal which might be wrong on utilitarian grounds as to ultimate remedy for connecting the populations north and south of the Thames, and which most certainly must do something to impair the very rare charm of a beautiful boulevard.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill to omit Tramway No. 2. "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)said he opposed this Instruction because he knew that for more than half a generation not only the majority of his own constituency, but the majority of the inhabitants of South London had demanded this tramway. In the year 1892 a Bill passed through this House and a Committee upstairs with this object in view, and it was only lost in another place. Was it likely that the London County Council would desire to make this tramway if the people of London as a whole were opposed to it, seeing that they depended for their existence upon the votes of the ratepayers, and ran the risk of an increase in the rates in case the tramway was not a success? He ventured to predict that the opposite would be the case. Having developed the tramways in the North and South of London it had become necessary to connect them, and this for the moment was the best method of doing it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had 703 pointed out the number of omnibuses which crossed the bridge, and he said that 30,000 foot passengers crossed every day between 8 o'clock in the morning and 8 o'clock in the evening. Seeing that a tramcar could take as many passengers as three buses it was evident that this scheme would decrease the traffic over the bridge, and it would furnish an alternative route to the City, and relieve the traffic in Parliament Street and the Strand. The 'buses did not take the route up the Embankment—and why? Because they preferred to go up streets where they could pick up casual fares. It was at one time argued that Westminster Bridge was not strong enough to carry the trams, but hon. Members had now given up that silly objection. The London County Council had the interests of London to serve, Westminster Bridge was of ample width, and the Embankment was intended to relieve the pressure of traffic in Parliament Street and the Strand. As to the Embankment, it was made at a cost of £2,000,000, and was it not absurd to say that full use should not be made of it? As to congestion, all that was suggested was that Middlesex should take its share of it, with its wider bridge and Embankment made for the use of Londoners, North and South. Why should everything be sacrificed to North London and nothing to South London? Tubes had been suggested. South Londoners were to be like Chinamen; they were to be sent underground while those on the other side of the river were to be allowed to breathe the fresh air. The hon. Member for Chelsea spoke of the Embankment as being a line promenade. That was so, and he presumed that it was intended for the people of London at large, but under present circumstances very few people from North London or from the extreme East or West of London ever saw the Embankment, for the simple reason that they could not conveniently get there, and the same applied to some extent to South London. Under this scheme, if the North and South were connected with a tramway, then there would be a chance of Londoners generally enjoying this beautiful Embankment.
They should also remember that there was a proposal to establish an excellent system of steamers on the river. He t bought this tramway scheme would be 704 cheaper and pleasanter than a subway, and they should not forget that a subway ' would cost £500,000, whereas this tramway would not probably cost one-third of that sum, and it would facilitate 2,000,000 of people in South London getting backwards and forwards to their work, and would distribute the congestion more fairly between those who lived North and South of the river. It would diminish the omnibus traffic, and would be a great convenience to those who had now to change and get out on the Surrey side. Not only this, but it would take people across Westminster Bridge and along the Embankment, and it would thus tap the underground railway. The housing question was closely bound up with the scheme, which would enable people to live further out in the suburbs. They all knew the extreme pressure in the central portion of London had been greatly relieved in reference to the housing problem by the London County Council trams taking people out to Tooting and elsewhere. This scheme would enable people to live further out still, thus relieving the pressure in the inner circle. A complete system of tramways throughout London would produce a considerable revenue to the London County Council which would enable them to make a material decrease in the rates. His constituents for the most part were warehousemen and shop assistants, male and female, and they were bound to go every day either to the City or to the West End in order to gain their livelihood. He had been acquainted with South London for nearly twenty years, and in bad weather he had seen men and women actually fighting to get into omnibuses, and after the fight was over he had seen dozens of women and young girls rushing across the bridge in the hope that they might get to their business in time and in great distress for fear they should lose their situation. Consequently they frequently had to work all day in wet clothes, and there were thousands of women and young girls in London who contracted lung diseases of all kinds in consequence of this defective communication between North and South London. Upon the highest principles of humanity this state of things ought not to be allowed to 705 exist. They were told that a Royal Commission was considering this question, but Royal Commissions were always reporting, and frequently did not report for years. At the present time hundreds and thousands of people were being inconvenienced every day, and it was a monstrous thing to ask them to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission.
§ MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)said he was not in the least swayed by the argument of the hon. Member for Chelsea. De qustibus non est disputandum. So far as he was concerned he saw nothing at all ugly in tramways. On the contrary he thought there would be something very interesting in tramways along the Thames Embankment, provided always that they served a useful purpose in facilitating the migration of the people. It was not on that account that he would support the Motion of his hon. friend. The hon. Member for Newington had said that people from the East End never went along the Embankment. He differed from the hon. Member in that. Times out of number crowds from the East End went along the Embankment on their march to Hyde Park to listen to the oratory of the hon. Member for Battersea. Mr. William Fisher, police superintendent, who gave evidence before the House of Lords Committee, stated that the only means of getting access to that instructive entertainment was the Embankment. It was, therefore, in the interests of liberty of speech and in the interest of the East-Enders, who used the Embankment and wished to be guided in their opinions by the hon. Member for Battersea, that he considered the House should not allow tramways t here. He went a little further. He did not consider that the London County Council had any right to promote a Bill seeking to forestall and possibly come in conflict with the Report of the Royal Commission. That Commission was composed of very able commissioners, and he thought the House had a right to expect that at the very latest they would present their Report towards the end of autumn this year. He thought that they should wait for the Report of the Royal Commission. The House would be ill-advised to sanction 706 an arrangement of this kind before the Commission had reported.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)said this tramway would be a great boon to the great mass of people living in his constituency. He admired the ingenuity shown by hon. Members who opposed the proposal. He had read the whole of the debates with reference to this scheme since 1891, and most amusing they were. The hon. Member for Chelsea said to-night that this was precipitate action on the part of the County Council. How could he apply the term precipitate to a proposal which was brought forward by the London Tramway Company so long ago as 1891?
§ MR. WHITMOREsaid this was not quite the same scheme; but apart from that the proposal was precipitate because of the fact that a Royal Commission was inquiring into the whole question of travelling facilities in London.
§ DR. MACNAMARAsaid this was in essence the same proposal as that of 1891. It was killed on that occasion by two main arguments. The first was that the members of St. Stephen's Club were opposed to it, and the second was that the members of the West End Ratepayers' Association were against it. Of course, there was nothing more to be said. In 1892 the proposal came in under the auspices of the London County Council, and in those days that fact alone was enough to kill it. His hon. friend the Member for Wandsworth said—
My main ground of objection is that this Bill is promoted by the London County Council. I hope to show the House before I have done, and in a few minutes, that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge for proposals which, if carried to their logical conclusion, will be of a colossal description, involving London in socialistic experiments for extracting capital from the pockets of those ratepayers who have it and turning it into the pockets of those who have rates to be repaid Heaven knows when.On that occasion Sir Charles Fraser, the Member for Lambeth, said—Every Member at the present time recognises that but for the attention of the police in Bridge Street we should all be killed every afternoon.That, of course, again killed it at once. Later, they had the first suggestion of the 707 æsthetic objection. Several Members came forward as the champions of aesthetics and the supporters of the Bill were the Vandals and the Philistines who desired to ravish the slender beauty of Westminster Bridge. The bridge was so beautiful and slender that it was by no means to be ravished by a tram-car, even though hundreds of 'buses might pass over it. The slender beauty of the bridge was vamped up year after year until it would run no longer. In 1902, hon. Members turned their attention to the Embankment. The hon. Member for East Marylebone, in opposing the Bill of that year, said—The enjoyment of those who used the Embankment would be destroyed by the everlasting clang of the gong and the grating of wheels attached to the trams. The beauty of the Embankment, too, would be greatly discounted by the hideous overhead wires. If a plebiscite of the inhabitants of London were taken, be would undertake to say that there would be an overwhelming majority against this vandalism and vulgarity.The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that the scheme was "an attempt to get over the bridge by a sidewind. "That settled it at once. Last year came a new argument, "Wait for the Report of the Royal Commission." This year the same argument was doing duty; and so it would go on for years. He had a number of documents which he would read to the House, showing how the opposition to the Bill had been organised. It was purely an omnibus proprietors' opposition. A circular letter issued by Mr. Rickards, hon. secretary of the Jobmaster's Protection Association, was as follows—I am informed that on Monday evening next, at about 9 p.m. in the House, Sir Frederick Banbury, M. P., is moving an Instruction for the opposition of London County Council Tramways over Westminster Bridge and along the Embankment. As this is a matter of the greatest importance to our trade in general (in fact to all persons who drive about London), my Association, representing upwards of 40,000 horses working in the streets of London, would esteem it a great favour if you would make it convenient to be in your seat that evening and support Sir Frederick Banbury's opposition to this scheme.He had another communication from a gentleman, who, he understood, was a wholesale hay and corn dealer, asking him to oppose the scheme. A communication issued to the shareholders of the London General Omnibus Company had 708 come into his hand. It was in the following terms—I am directed to inform you that the London County Council has again brought forward in the House of Commons its scheme for a tramway over Westminster Bridge. This is most important to the omnibus trade, and my directors will be obliged if you personally will write to your local M. P., or any other Member you may know, urging him to be present in the House on Monday next, the 7th inst., and support Sir Frederick Banbury's Motion against such tramways. As you doubtless know, the Royal Commission on London Traffic is still considering the whole question, and until they report it is absolutely premature to bring forward more tramway schemes.A communication from Thomas Tilling, Limited, ran as follows—As a shareholder in this company I wish to call your attention to the fact that the London County Council are promoting a will in Parliament, one of the proposals in which is to construct a tramway over Westminster Bridge, which, if it succeeds, will seriously affect the earnings of the omnibus portion of the company's business. I would, therefore, ask you to get the Member of Parliament for your district to support Sir Frederick Banbury. Bart., M.P.'s Instruction to the Committee that the tramway in question be omitted from the London County Council's proposed measure. Sir Frederick Banbury's Motion is down for Monday next, 7th March, so that no time should be lost, in communicating with your Member.The opposition to the proposal of the London County Council proceeded mainly from the omnibus companies, and that opposition had been very carefully organised and engineered by them. He should vote for the proposal, whatever might be the Report of the Royal Commission, and hon. Members opposite would vote against it whatever that Report might be. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, some of them would. The great trouble and inconvenience which working people experienced in getting on the trams at the Westminster Bridge terminus under existing arrangements would be removed if the scheme of the County Council were adopted. It would be an unspeakable boon to the poor working people of North Camberwell, and he pleaded with the House not to refuse it.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD () Liverpool, West Derbysaid it was rather unfortunate that a proposal of this kind should be discussed from the point of view of interested motives. He thought it would be much fairer to discuss the proposal on its 709 merits. He said that the proposal in the Bill was that there should be a connecting link between the two systems of tramways, so as to have a continuous route from the north to the south of London. Before the House decided against that proposal, and adopted the Instruction of the hon. Baronet, there ought to be some weighty argument put before the House to show why the London County Council should not make that connecting link. It was said that there was no necessity for a continuous route. Now he had been a member and chairman of the Tramways Committee of the Liverpool Corporation, which had the most successful system of tramways in England, and therefore he claimed to know what would be the conveniences and inconveniences involved in a continuous route. Their experience in Liverpool was that a continuous route presented the greatest advantages to the community. It was found that if there was excessive traffic for ashort distance in the middle of a long route and special cars were put on simply for the portion where the excessive traffic existed these did not accommodate the public, whereas, cars which ran from end to end of the route did. It was stated by the supporters of the Instruction that there was no evidence of any traffic from north to south, or vice versa; but no sensible person who looked at the traffic on Westminster Bridge would deny that such a statement was unfounded. A third objection to the London County Council's proposal was that an alternative scheme was in existence, viz., a proposed tube railway; but that was no reason against the London County Council's scheme for making a continuous route in the open air across the bridge. Another objection was that this scheme would spoil the Embankment for fast traffic; but he contended that it would do nothing of the sort, and that the electric trams being themselves in the nature of fast traffic would rather assist the other fast traffic. It was perfectly preposterous to say that this connecting link would, as alleged, prevent members of the Royal College of Physicians from examining their patients. He insisted that the scheme of the County Council to do away with two termini, both of which must cause con- 710 gestion, and to make the route continuous from north to south, thus avoiding the congestion necessarily involved in the existence of a terminus, would prevent the existing congestion at the south end of Westminster Bridge. He had examined all the evidence, and had come to the conclusion that the London County Council were grappling in earnest with the serious problem of the congestion of traffic in the streets of London, and the House should hesitate before it interfered with the legitimate work of that important body.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTS () Westminstersaid that his hon. friend the Member for Chelsea had referred to the circumstances under which the City of Westminster had no voice or representation in the consideration of this matter; and that fact justified him in taking part in the debate. It was rather remarkable that the local authority should have no locus standi in regard to a proposal which, dealt with its own area. The City Council of Westminster considered that this tramway would be a great obstruction to locomotion. He supported the Instruction, but he should not do so if he were convinced that it would interfere in any way with the extension of the facilities of locomotion in London, or if he thought a tramway was the only way of relieving the daily inconvenience of the working classes who had to cross the bridge on foot. He approached this subject from the point of view, not whether increased facilities for locomotion for London were needed, but whether this proposal of the London County Council was the best means to promote these increased facilities. His contention was that the action of the London County Council in promoting this Bill was premature and utterly unreasonable, when the Royal Commission to which, the whole question of London locomotion had been formally committed for consideration was taking evidence week after week upon this very point of the advisability or inadvisability of carrying a tramway over Westminster Bridge, and had not yet reported. Why should the House be called upon to forestall the decision of the Royal Commission, and to discredit or disregard the evidence laid before it? His experience did not incline him to place an inordinate value 711 on the decisions of Royal Commissions, but there were Royal Commissions and Royal Commissions; and the present Royal Commission on London Traffic was a very good one, and was taking evidence in an impartial manner. He deprecated very much the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Camberwell as to the opposition which that hon. Gentlemen said had been engineered against the Bill. He wanted to know exactly what the hon. Member meant by his remarks. Did he mean that that opposition was any other than the ordinary opposition which was always organised by any trade or industry injuriously affected by a Bill before that House, or did he mean that it was organised in some improper way to unduly influence Members of that House? [Dr. MACNAMARA: Both.] Very well. He personally looked at the question entirely apart from the interests of any trade, and he thought the hon. Member ought to give every hon. Member of that House credit for freedom from such undue influence. The hon. Member proceeded to describe the ingenuity of the objectors in finding reasons against this proposal. But that did not compare with the ingenuity of the promoters in finding arguments for it. This proposal had been before the House for many years, and during the greater part of that time all that had been heard in favour of it was that it would carry passengers across the bridge to the City; but that argument fell to the ground when it was shown that the passengers who crossed over the bridge did not enter the omnibuses going to the City. And of all the thousands of omnibuses crossing Westminster Bridge either now when omnibus proprietors were looking everywhere for new routes, or formerly when these omnibuses belonged to the County Council, not a single one had ever turned to the right towards the City. That argument, so long relied on, having failed, the promoters turned to a new one. The new street from the Strand to Holborn with a shallow tramway below came as a deus ex machiua to the promoters of this Bill,and they thought that that was an argument for carrying the tramway over Westminster Bridge. He was not going to deny that the linking up of the tramways north and south would be an advantage, but this he believed should 712 be done by a tunnel or tube under the river. The House ought to look at the real object of getting a tramway across the bridge, which was to run trams through the already overcrowded streets of the West End. All evidence showed that tramways in the centre of London were the greatest cause of the congestion of traffic. The rigidity of their lines made it impossible to wind through a crowd; and expert opinion, he believed, had come to the conclusion that the real solution of this difficult problem of London locomotion would be found to be tube railways for long distances motor-buses for short ones in the central area, and trams in the less crowded streets and roads of the outer area.
They had an endless amount of testimony that the omnibus possessed greater facilitiesfor moving amongst traffic than the tramway. This proposal would put on one side the valuable evidence obtained by the Commission, and would declare that tram lines were the best means of locomotion in the crowded streets in the centre of London. He, for one, could not accept that view, and he submitted that before sanctioning this scheme the House should await the Report of the Royal Commission on the question of street traffic.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS () Batterseathought it a remarkable commentary on the ways of the House of Commons that it should be engaged not with high Imperial matters but in debating at that hour parish pump politics, which, had they concerned any other body than the London County Council, would have been left to be settled by the local authorities concerned. It was the London County Council alone among municipalities whose wishes were to be ignored when it sought the material interests of the vast population whom it served. Johannes-burg and Jerusalem could do as they: pleased, but whenever the poor London; County Council wished to give effect to the material interests of the vast population it served it was tabooed and ignored. What were the facts of this case? The opposition to the Bill was; limited to about fifty omnibus proprietors, reinforced by certain promoters of tube railways from the other side of the Atlantic and in the interests largely 713 of alien shareholders. The tube promoters had joined the omnibus proprietors solely because they feared the trams would interfere with their business between Westminster, Charing Cross, and Blackfriars. The House ought not to defer to pushful promoters from the other side of the Atlantic, and thereby prevent the municipality of London from giving its vast population rapid means of transit from north to south. Another interest had expressed itself that night—the interest of a bonâ fide public represented by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down—that was, the fashionable area of Westminster and Belgravia, whose inhabitants did not want the poor of London to come across the river. But the people of London wanted to go north and south by tramway, and they ought not to be resisted by fashionable caprice or transient prejudice. Why should Westminster object? The Council had within the last four years voted a million of money for one street almost within the precincts of Parliament, and they had also street improvements for Westminster and the Strand alone. The workmen in the south of London had a right to their quid pro quo, and they preferred to take it in the shape of ½d. tram fares between Westminster and Lambeth. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham was of course opposing the Bill. He admired the hon. Gentleman's consistency, but he was afraid he would soon enjoy it in splendid isolation. The hon. Member came from a district in which, out of forty Unionist candidates who stood at the last County Council election in South London, five only were returned. "Mene, mene, tekel upharsin." Let him read the handwriting on the wall. The hon. Member's reasons for opposing the Bill were certainly not endorsed by his own constituents. It was argued that the omnibuses did not use the Embankment. The answer was that the Embankment was not a good route in which to get their passengers. But the same rule did not apply to tramway traffic. In the case of tramways it was a question of through passengers. The hon. Member for Westminster had done splendid service by his action in connection with the hospitals of South Africa. Let him exercise his charity a little nearer home. There was, 714 under the present circumstances, much congestion in the neighbourhood of the Nelson Column.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTSThat it not in my constituency.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSIt is next door to it. Let the hon. Member note what was daily occurring near the Nelson Column. Young women could be seen fighting with young men to obtain entrance to omnibuses. It was a sad sight, and a recent development in London, due, he feared, to the growth of papers like the Daily Mail. He noticed that nearly every young man who pushed a woman aside had a copy of the Daily Mail in his hand. If these trams were laid all that pushing would cease, and the congestion of traffic would be got rid of. The objection had been raised to tramways that they preserved a rigid line. But nearly all motorists supported the Bill on that very ground, preferring traffic about the conduct of which there was no uncertainty to the three thousand omnibuses which plied in the streets. The congestion which now prevailed on the south side of the river was due to the fact that the terminus was there, and would be greatly diminished if a through system of tramways were established. Colonel Yorke had given very strong evidence in favour of this scheme. The Member for Peck-ham, however, preferred to rely on the testimony of a police inspector. Had he noticed that his name was "Novice"? Even that inspector, however, admitted that large numbers of accidents occurred at the Westminster tram terminus, and that the remedy was to carry the trams across the bridge.
§ MR. MALCOLM () Suffolk, StowmarketWhat is it going to cost?
§ MR. JOHN BURNS£60,000 or £70,000. The question of cost does not need consideration for the tramway system is a remunerative undertaking. He asked Parliament to think imperially on this subject. The broad issue was whether the bridge affording communication between the north and the south of London should be opened for traffic. The County Council were prepared to 715 defer to the opinion of the police and to the public convenience as to the particular part of the road on which the tramway should be constructed, and under these circumstances he could not see any occasion for opposing the Bill. The omnibus proprietors—not the men—constituted the only reason, and in his opinion they ought not to be allowed to prevent London having that system of traction across the river which the Bill provided and which was so generally desired.
§ SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said he had always voted for this tramway until last year, because he thought there should be a line of communication between north and south. He was quite aware of the great hardship the people had to suffer in changing at the end of the Westminster Bridge Road. Circumstances, however, had convinced him that this was a great question, which must be considered as a whole. The condition of London traffic had been referred to a Commission, and he was convinced that the only way in which efficient means of communication could be established throughout London was to look at this problem as a whole. The difficulty was due to the system having grown up in this accidental way and there was no uniformity in it. He did not think it was fair to quote indi-
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Coates, Edward Feetham | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.. | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Faber, George Denison (York) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Compton, Lond Alwyne | Fardell, Sir T. George. |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Fison, Frederick William |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Flower, Sir Ernest |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Cullinan, J. | Forster, Henry William |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir. Michael Hicks | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. |
| Bignold, Arthur | Davenport, William Bromley | Fyler, John Arthur |
| Bigwood, James | Delany, William | Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. |
| Bond, Edward | Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | Gilhooly, James |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Dickson, Charles Scott | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. | Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Hambro, Charles Erie |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Doogan, P. C. | Hare, Thomas Leigh |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. | Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley |
| Chapman, Edward | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. |
| Charrington, Spencer | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Heaton, John Henniker |
§ vidual sentences from the evidence which had been given before the Commission to show the opinion of any members of that Commission. The hon. Member for Battersea had referred to the chairman's opinion, but the chairman of that Commission had not given any opinion, and he had only asked questions, and to infer from his questions that he was in favour of this or that tramway was not fair. He was certainly of opinion that the only way to remedy congestion was to have communication right through. He should, however, ask that this matter should be delayed until the Report of the Commission, which was sitting now two days a week considering this enormous problem. The Commission had been sitting for over a year, and he believed they would report before the end of this year, and the question would then be in a proper shape to be considered. It would be very much to be regretted if this most important problem was forestalled by the adoption of this scheme. He therefore urged the House to wait for this Commission to give a general Report upon the whole question of London traffic.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Aves. 159: Noes. 131. (Division List No. 70.)
719| Helder, Augustus | Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) | Milvain, Thomas | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Hickman, Sir Alfred | Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Hogg, Lindsay | Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute | Sheehy, David |
| Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Nicholson, William Graham | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Hunt, Rowland | O'Dowd, John | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichetster) |
| Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | O'Malley, William | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Tomlinson, Sir Wm Edw. M. |
| Kilbride, Denis | Percy, Earl | Tuff, Charles |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Pierpoint, Robert | Valentia, Viscount |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N.R | Plummer, Walter R. | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Randles, John S. | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Reddy, M. | Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.) |
| Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) | Reid, James (Greenock) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr. | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Renwick, George | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| M'Fadden, Edward | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson | |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Whitmore. |
| M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Roche, John | |
| Manners, Lord Cecil | Round, Rt. Hon. James | |
| Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.) | Fuller, J. M. F. | Moore, William |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Gardner, Ernest | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Allen, Charles P. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Moulton, John Fletcher |
| Asher, Alexander | Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin & Nairn) | Mount, William Arthur |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Murphy, John |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Grant, Corrie | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Guthrie, Walter Murray | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| Black, Alexander William | Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Boland, John | Hayden, John Patrick | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Brigg, John | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Pym, C. Guy |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rea, Russell |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Redmond, John E.(Waterford) |
| Bull, William James | Horniman, Frederick John | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Burns, John | Hoult, Joseph | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Butcher, John George | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Caldwell, James | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Runciman, Walter |
| Cameron, Robert | Jordan, Jeremiah | Russell, T. W. |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Kearley, Hudson E. | Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lambert, George | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Langley, Batty | Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J. |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Shackleton, David James |
| Cremer, William Randal | Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Crombie, John William | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Crooks, William | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Lewis, John Herbert | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Dobbie, Joseph | Lloyd-George, David | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lough, Thomas | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Sullivan, Donal |
| Edwards, Frank | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw'sBghs | M'Crae, George | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Malcolm, Ian | Thomson, E. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Toulmin, George |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Tritton, Charles Ernest | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) | Wood, James |
| Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | |
| Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Dr. Macnamara and Mr. Watson Rutherford. |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | |
| Weir, James Galloway | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
§ Motion made and Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (Tramways
§ The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 71.)
720§ and Improvements) Bill to omit Tramway No 2A." (Mr. Whitmore.)
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.) | Guthrie, Walter Murray | Rea, Russell |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Allen, Charles P. | Hayden, John Patrick | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Asher, Alexander | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Runciman, Walter |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Horniman, Frederick John | Russell, T. W. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Hoult, Joseph | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Black, Alexander William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J. |
| Boland, John | Jordan, Jeremiah | Shackleton, David James |
| Brigg, John | Kearley, Hudson E. | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Lambert, George | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Langley, Batty | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Bull, William James | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Burns, John | Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Butcher, John George | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Caldwell, James | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lloyd-George, David | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lough, Thomas | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Cremer, William Randal | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Crombie, John William | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Toulmin, George |
| Crooks, William | M'Crae, George | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Malcolm, Ian | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Dobbie, Joseph | Markham, Arthur Basil | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Edwards, Frank | Moore, William | Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.) |
| Ellice, Capt EC (St. Andrw's Bghs | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Morrell, George Herbert | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Mount, William Arthur | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | Murphy, John | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wood, James |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid | |
| Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin &Nairn) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Dr. Macnamara and Mr. Watson Rutherford. |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Power, Patrick Joseph | |
| Grant, Corrie | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Pym, C. Guy |