HC Deb 29 March 1906 vol 154 cc1612-20

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS

said that as one who had consistently opposed tramways being brought over Westminster Bridge and down the Embankment, not only on the merits of the scheme but because the representative local authority of the district for which he sat had always requested him to do so, he would like to say a few words at this final stage of the discussion. He would not go over the many reasons that had in former times been urged against it. There were, however, two which he thought it was sufficient to mention in order to dismiss. It had been alleged that people who had carriages and horses objected to these tramways because they interfered with their pleasure. It had also been alleged that for some occult reason they desired to see poor people trudge in the rain and mud over the bridge. He thought he might put such arguments aside. The real reason for their objections was that they considered the great and complicated problem of London locomotion ought to be viewed as a whole, and that it had not been established that tramways in such a position were the best means of dealing with it. Their doubts had been increased by the many different and conflicting forms in which the London County Council had brought this proposal before the House. First it was a project to cross Westminster Bridge and go along the Embankment to Blackfriars; then it was a project to cross the bridge only and transfer the block at the south side to the north side, close to that House; then they had proposed a tramway to Waterloo Bridge only; and then they proposed to lay the tramway on the Embankment only from nowhere to nowhere. All this showed either that the London County Council did not know its own mind or that it had some purpose which was not disclosed. The arguments used on behalf of the proposal were equally?conflicting. During the earlier stages the whole argument was that it was necessary, after bringing the public across the bridge, to take them along the Embankment to the city. But they had found that of all the omnibuses belonging to competing companies, which were always looking out for new routes, not one ever turned towards the city. Then it was pretended that they wanted to link up the south with the north. But there was no point within practical distance on the north side to link to. Later on, the scheme of a tramway down the new street from Holbern to the Embankment, came into view; and he was quite prepared to admit that now that project was nearing completion, it afforded a justification for the proposal now before the House. But the Royal Commission on London Traffic was then appointed. While that Com- mission was sitting and actually taking evidence on this very project, and before it had reported, the London County Council twice brought in this Bill and sought to forestall the decision of the Commission by the action of that House. That was the case last session. When the Bill was before the House the Commission had not reported and the division resulted in a tie, the Speaker giving his casting vote in favour of the Bill for the express purpose, as he stated, that the House might have another opportunity of considering it. The Bill was rejected by the House of Lords and he, for one, thought that the outcry got up against the House of Lords on that account was quite unreasonable. Surely there could not be a case in which the House of Lords was so legitimately free to exercise its discretion as one dealing with a subject on which a Royal Commission had not yet reported and on which the lower House had been equally divided. The Commission reported in favour of an extension of the tramway system. But by that time an entirely new factor in the problem had come into view in the shape of the motor omnibus. No one who had been in the former House of Commons could accuse him of holding a brief for motors. He hated motors, he had not got one and never used them—except at an election. But although the motor omnibus had yet only been tried on a small scale, it was evident it was destined to play an important part in London locomotion; and those who believed, as he did, that the real solution of that problem lay in tubes for long distances, tramways for the outer districts and broad roads, and motor omnibuses for the more central and crowded thoroughfares, were justified in attaching great importance to this new means of conveyance. He remembered that while as early as the 1904 debate on this subject, he was arguing this proposition, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Beard threw an interjection across the House— "Motor 'buses are done for already." [Mr. JOHN BURNS: Hear, hear!] What a prophecy! In addition to the large number of motor omnibuses already on the streets he understood there were something like ten times that number now on order. The Road Car Company had raised £60,000 for motor omnibuses, and he believed the London General Omnibus Company was about to raise £500,000 for the same purpose. There could not be a moment's question that motors were destined to play an ever increasing part in the solution of this problem. They were much faster in crowded traffic; their flexible line of progression caused far less blocking and inconvenience; when streets were blocked or in repair they could be diverted, so as not to suspend the public service; they could follow the changed current and volume of traffic and no one could deny that in a great city like London, changes of that kind were constantly occurring. They had two other advantages of greater importance. They did not require a great capital outlay in laying tram lines, an outlay which, once it was applied to a fixed route, was buried there and could never be recovered if the route was abandoned or the traffic became less or some other means of locomotion—tubes, railways, and the like—supplanted the use of the tramcar. Secondly, being in the nature of private or private corporate enterprise, they involved that healthy principle of competition which was the surest safeguard of the public interest, as to cheapness and efficiency. But they had one great disadvantage which, in the eyes of the London County Council, outweighed all the claims he had spoken of. They did not involve a great and risky outlay of the ratepayers' capital, and they did not secure to the London County Council a great body of labour which, when elections came, would vote for the promoters of the scheme. They did not play any part in that policy of Socialism which had been ingeniously transferred from Hyde Park to municipal bodies. To that policy he had always given, and always would give, a determined opposition. But on this occasion the Westminster City Council had not requested him to oppose the Bill; and in the recent election he found that a certain number of his poorer constituents were in favour of the trams being brought over Westminster Bridge. For those high reasons of State he would not vote against the Bill.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

congratulated the hon. Member or the rather graceful manner in which he had accepted the inevitable. It had been a long and gallant fight, extending over sixteen years, and had ended in the right being given to the people of London to use their roads to the best advantage. In passing from this point he desired to pay a real tribute to the aims and genius of those put up to oppose and fight this scheme. The arguments first used by them were that it would spoil the artistic effect of the slender lines of Westminster Bridge if cars were brought over it. But that argument disappeared when it was pointed out that omnibuses were just as ugly. Then came the argument that what might be termed the umbrageous solitudes of the Thames Embankment would be invaded by the rattle of tramcars and the clanging of bells, and that that was not desirable. That argument was eventually given up. Then there was the Royal Commission on London Traffic for whose Report they had had to wait. They eventually got the Report last year, before the Bill was discussed in another place. The hon. Member had said that the Members of the Upper House were entitled to throw out the Bill because they had not the Report of the Royal Commission before them, but that was not accurate. As a matter of fact the Bill was thrown out by the Upper House without any practical discussion. The mover of its rejection said that the Bill merely proposed to take people for a little pleasure trip on the Embankment, and on those grounds it was rejected. The hon. Member was aware with what indignation the population of London received that verdict. They had now, however, got to the end of the struggle and he was much obliged to the hon. Member for the graceful manner in which he had accepted the position. It was right, in the opinion of 5,000,000 of the people of London, that these trams should come over the bridge. It was the determination of the London boroughs, of the London County Council, and of this House that they should come over, and he would suggest to the London County Council that they should proceed at once with this great scheme and confer this unspeakable boon on London.

MR. BAKER (Finsbury, E.)

said the hon. Member for Westminster had made one or two statements with regard to motor omnibuses, and with regard to the action and the reasons of the County Council in promoting this measure which should be, he thought, referred to. One of the County Council's electric tramcars carried double the number of passengers carried by a motor omnibus. In the early morning about 4,000 persons alighted at the tramway terminus at Westminster, and while sixty tramcars would be sufficient to carry these passengers over the bridge it would require 120 motor omnibuses to do the same work. At the Elephant and Castle 440 tramcars passed a given point in a single hour, and the number of motor omnibuses required to carry the same number of passengers would be 900. Therefore, from the point of view of the congestion of traffic, the tramways had the advantage. Again, the cost of the tramcar was about 6d. or 7d. a mile, as against 11d. or 1s. a mile in the case of the motor omnibus. He had just received a message from the chief tramway officer of the County Council stating that in his opinion they were not seriously affected by the motor omnibuses. The tramway receipts were steadily increasing, and they only required more power and a through service over the bridges to make the opposition a negligible quantity. He also reminded the House that on this occasion the County Council were in the position of having the hearty co-operation of the City.

MR. NEILD (Middlesex, Ealing)

congratulated the hon. Member for East Finsbury, whose experience in these matters was considerable, on the speech he had made in support of this Bill. Speaking also in support of the Bill, but from a different standpoint, since he was in no sense interested in the question of over-bridge tramways, he thought, so far as the Edgware Road part of the scheme was concerned, that it would greatly facilitate the action of those who desired by means of these light railways to secure a better means of communication with London. At present Edgware was very badly served, being wholly dependent on the Great Northern Railway, whose line went through Finsbury Park and Finchley, and whose service left much to be desired. The proposal of Middlesex which was contained in the Bill that would follow this was to make a direct connection with London by a line of trams along the Edgware Road, by doing which they would confer a very great benefit on the population. The boundary of the two counties of Middlesex and London was for some distance down, the centre of the Edgware Road, between Kilburn and Brondesbury,, and it was most desirable that the Councils of both counties, as well as of the Borough of Hampstead and the urban district of Willesden, should be in agreement, especially on the question of the necessary widenings. The objections urged by the hon. Member for Westminster had been heard more than once from the Conservative side of the House. Whatever might be said about the motor omnibus being best adapted for the streets of inner London, he thought that the system of electric tramways was that best adapted to deal with suburban traffic. But his objection with regard to the control of these lines by a local authority was-the fact that the large body of municipal employees might be manipulated at times of election to the interest of the municipal body, but this consideration did not apply to the County Council of Middlesex. Under the agreement which was mentioned in the Middlesex County Council Tramways Bill, the Middlesex County Council had arranged for the line to be worked by a private company on terms which would give the Council and the company a good rate of interest on their capital expenditure, and under all circumstances the arrangement ought to be very beneficial to both the parties, securing as it did a preferential rate of interest to the County Council of Middlesex, and an ultimate share of the profits to be derived from the undertaking, an arrangement which already applied to all the existing lines of the Council in the county. He ventured to hope that no further opposition would be offered to this Bill, but that it would now be sent to a Committee, and finally passed, in which case it would supply facilities much needed by Londoners.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BEARD (Mr. JOHN. BURNS,) Battersea

said he rose to take this opportunity of saying a few words, because of the extraordinary spectacle which the House had witnessed this evening on the termination of what might be called the battle of the bridges. It was to the credit of all, and particularly to the credit of the hon. Member for Westminster, who had led the van in this fight against the population of London in this matter. He had now given up his policy of opposition and said he did not intend to take any part in opposing the tramways coming over Westminster Bridge. They then had the remarkable fact that the name of the senior representative for London, whose absence they all deplored, was on the back of the Bill. That was followed by the still more extraordinary fact that the representative of one of the Divisions of the County of Middlesex had joined hands with the City of Westminster and the City of London and had appealed for the Bill. Surely their happiness was overdone, and as one of the hon. Members who from the back benches had preached in favour of this Bill, and who saw the fruition of one of those useful schemes which had been too long delayed, he wished from the vantage ground of the Treasury Bench to say how glad he was that the City of London had taken a more useful way of serving the citizens of this vast Metropolis than it did thirteen or fourteen years ago. Moreover, although the hon. Member for the City of Westminister had made reparation rather late in the day, he forgave him for his past. He also welcomed the support of the hon. Member for Ealing, who, in making his first speech on this subject, had joined hands with the London County Council, and he would only say he was sure that the hon. Member would regret that the Middlesex County Council had not had the prescience of the London County Council in this matter and taken steps to own and work by their own men the London tramways. Five years hence there would be no regrets for the course which the House was taking, and now it was roses, roses, all the way. They would, he hoped, get over Westminster Bridge. He trusted the House would allow the tramway to go down the Embankment in order to link up the north with the south. He believed that the scheme would lead to the people both in the south and in the north having greater access to the river. It would also, he thought, give workmen that greater mobility which they ought to have in a place like London. It would give them freedom to get to and fro from their work and to convey their wives and children to every part of London. From every point of view he thought the Bill would receive the blessings of all Londoners, even of those by whom it had hitherto been condemned. It had indeed come as a boon and a blessing to London, and he believed that London would be thankful and pleased to all sections of the House of Commons for coming to so sensible a decision, although it had been long delayed.

MR. C. DUNCAN (Barrow-in-Furness)

said he should like just for a few-moments to address the House upon the Bill before it—not because he had any particular interest in the business, but because at the present moment he was one of those who were suffering from a very bad dose of private enterprise. For many years now he had been living in Hampstead, and if this House sat to an unreasonable hour, as it did quite recently, it meant that he had to walk no less than four miles because of the lack of system which existed in regard to the tramway arrangements. As to the motor omnibuses it was a common sight to see them broken down at the side of the road and of no use to anybody who wished to travel. When one wanted to cross London from the north to the south or vice versa it took an hour and a half. One might just as well live ninety miles out of London, as if one did it would be possible to travel the distance in the same time. He was delighted to be present to see an end put to the opposition to the London County Council system, and he hoped the people of London would appreciate what was being done for them. It would be a great advantage to the people to be able to get to and from their work quickly and cheaply, and it was obvious that working men could not afford to call a hansom when they were going to work in the morning.

Question put, and agreed to.