Lords Sitting of 23 June 1902

ROYAL ASSENT

  COMMISSION.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

  1. Loan.

  2. Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland).

  3. Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.

  4. Dundee Corporation Libraries Order Confirmation.

  5. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2).

  6. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).

  7. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4).

  8. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1).

  9. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1).

  10. Coatbridge Gas Older Confirmation.

  11. Military Lands Provisional Order (No. 2).

  12. Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order

  13. Wadhurst Gas.

  14. Liverpool Grain Storage and Transit Company.

  15. London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.

  16. Wrexham Water.

  17. Shepton Mallet Gas.

  18. Darley Dale Water.

  19. Higham Ferrers and Rushden Water Board.

  20. Brighton and Rottingdean Seashore Electric Tramroad.

  21. Reading Gas.

  22. Grand Junction Water.

  23. Bromley Gas.

  24. Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power.

  25. Birmingham Corporation Water.

  26. Caterham and District Gas.

  27. Barking Gas.

  28. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply.

  29. Great Eastern Railway.

  30. North Warwickshire Water.

  31. Manchester and Liverpool Electric Express Railway.

  1330

  32. Fareham Gas.

  33. Isle of Wight Central Railway.

  34. Birmingham Assay Office.

  35. Deal and Walmer Gas.

  36. Donegal Railway.

  37. Plymouth, Devonport, and Southwestern Junction Railway.

  38. London and South-Western Railway.

  39. Street Urban District Council Water.

  40. Tyne Improvement Commission.

  41. Cornwall Electric Power.

  42. Waterford and Bishop Foy Endowed Schools.

  43. London School Board (Superannuation).

  44. Chigwell, Loughton, and Woodford Gas.

  45. Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society.

  46. Leyland and Farington Gas.

  47. Limpsfield and Oxted Water.

  48. Manchester Corporation Tramways.

  49. Swindon United Gas.

  50. Newcastle and Gateshead Water.

  51. Ashton-under-Lyne and Dukinfield Corporations (Alma Bridge, etc.)

  52. Abercarn Urban District Gas.

  53. Furness Railway (Steam Vessels).

  54. Middlesex County Council Tramways.

  55. Abertillery Urban District Council.

  56. Bradford-on-Avon Gas.

  57. Dublin. Wicklow, and Wexford Railway.

  58. Renfrew Harbour.

  59. Swansea Corporation Water.

  60. Tiverton Market.

  61. Dartford Improvement.

  62. Gloucestershire Electric Power.

  63. Lancashire County (Lunatic Asylums).

  64. Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council.

  65. Bournemouth Gas and Water.

  66. Preston Corporation.

  67. Scarborough Tramways.

  68. Longwood Gas.

  69. Birkenhead Corporation.

  70. Erdington Tramways.

  71. Rhynmey Railway.

The Duke of Manchester sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the; Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12).

Oyster and Mussel Fishery Provisional Orders.

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2.) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House tomorrow.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
  SADDLEWORTH AND SPRINGHEAD TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
KENT WATER BILL,
  WEST HAM GAS BILL,

    SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL,
    CITY OF LONDON (STREETS) BILL,
    CITY OF LONDON (PUBLIC HEALTH) BILL,
    KNARESBOROUGH IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SUBWAYS AND TRAMWAYS) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 19th day of June," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the Instruction which stands in my name on the Paper is, I believe, a somewhat unusual one in this Assembly. It is, however, a practice which is frequently followed in the other House, although I am perfectly prepared to admit that it is not frequently justifiable. Private Bills are measures which almost invariably deal with matters of purely local concern, and they are best left to the discretion of the Committee deputed to consider them; but there are certain exceptional cases in which it may be advisable to take the opinion of the whole House. I do not contend for a moment that this case is one of overwhelming importance, but it seems to me to be one on which the House may fittingly express its opinion, as it is a matter in which every Member is more or less directly concerned. In the first place, we all have a personal interest in this question because we are nearly all ratepayers in this city; and, in the second place, we are intimately familiar with the scene of action, and it is open to any noble Lord who has never considered this question at all to walk out of the House across to the Embankment and form an opinion as to the rights and wrongs of the question I am now bringing forward before the debate closes. As to the Bill

1333
itself, it proposes the construction of an underground tramway starting from Theobald's Row and emerging into the open on the Victoria Embankment in the neighbourhood of Waterloo Bridge. I offer no opposition to the first part of the Bill which relates to the underground tramway, for underground tramways have been recommended as the best means of dealing with the congestion which prevails in the London streets.
With regard to the proposal to firing a surface tramway along the Embankment, I shall not find it necessary to detain your Lordships for any considerable time on the subject, as this proposal has been brought forward on no less than nine occasions during the past thirty years, and you are sufficiently familiar with the main arguments. Neither will I discuss at any length the various points which are raised by the opponents of the Bill. I might mention that among the opponents of this portion of the Bill is the local authority, the Council of the City of Westminster, and it is curious to observe how, upon certain occasions, the opinions of the local authority are habitually disregarded. The Bill is also opposed by the Metropolitan Railway, whose case I shall not enlarge upon. It is also strongly opposed by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons who have an examination hall close to the proposed station. The learned Gentlemen who manage this institution have apparently been so absorbed in their studies that, like a distinguished scientist of antiquity, they seem to have been unaware of the progress of their enemy until he was literally within their gates, and they have now awoke to the fact that if the station is constructed their examination hall will become perfectly useless. I might also mention that this proposal was strenuously opposed by all the frontagers, although these persons were given no opportunity of being heard before the House of Commons Committee. I am not going to enlarge on these different oppositions; neither will I discuss the æsthetic side of the question. I will frankly admit that, if it comes to a question of æsthcticism, an electric tramway is not a more repulsive object than an omnibus covered with hideous and vulgar advertisements, or even motor cars. I will leave the æsthetic side of the question to be dealt with by others, because, in my opinion, if æstheticism
1334
and utility come into conflict, that conflict must result in the success of utility.
I will confine myself to the utilitarian and practical side of the question, and ask your Lordships, as ratepayers, whether there is any financial justification for the proposed line. Personally I am unable to discover that there is. It appears from the report of the Highways Committee of the London County Council of 10th June that the tramways at the present moment under their control are not in a particularly flourishing condition. The report states that the total receipts for the two months following the commencement of the Council's financial year were £69,406 as against £72,437 for the corresponding period of 1901. In other words, this shows a loss of £3,000 on the first two months working of this year as compared with the same period of last year. I think it must be plain that this falling off in receipts is due to the working of the existing tube railways, and I should like to remind your Lordships that a very strong Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament reported last year that underground railways or underground tramways in London or the suburbs appeared to be the best mode of dealing with present and prospective traffic. The London County Council have themselves adopted a report which strongly expresses the same view. Many tube railways are projected. Some have been authorised, and one which will give the north and south communication which is desired is in progress of construction—namely, the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway. To that part of the County Council's Bill which deals with the underground tramway I do not offer any opposition. And let me point out that, supposing the surface tramway portion of the Bill is thrown out, if the London County Council are sincere, which I have no doubt they are, in wishing to establish a north and south communication, that can be done by making a subway under the river coming out on the south bank. This would in every way meet the case, and it is a course which was suggested before the Committee by that very eminent engineer Sir John Wolfe Barry. Surely this is a more practical line to adopt than to construct what is in reality a circuitous route following the bend of the river, and which will, in the

1335
opinion of many people, destroy the amenity of the finest street we possess.
I do not think that I am exaggerating in the least when I say that the proposed tramway would lead to nowhere in particular, because the terminus of the projected line would be on the Embankment, in the neighbourhood of Westminster Bridge, but would not cross the bridge. It ends, so to speak, in the air, and it would be practically of very little advantage to anybody. It would be a very small advantage because it has been shown that of the persons who cross Westminster Bridge, there are not more than 6 per cent who diverge to the east and proceed along the Embankment. If persons desire to go from Westminster into the city they would take the Underground Railway, which is about to be electrified, and the London County Council's proposed surface tramway would merely follow the line of the Underground Railway as far as Waterloo Bridge, and therefore give no additional facilities for getting to the east end of London. What proves my contention more clearly is the fact that there are no omnibuses running on the Embankment. If additional facilities are required for pedestrians, if the traffic along the Embankment is as congested as is stated, why do not omnibuses, which are to be found in every thoroughfare where there is a demand, ply on the Embankment? The mere fact that no omnibuses are to be found on the Embankment is a testimony that no further means of communication are required. I therefore maintain that I am justified in describing this portion of the scheme as an unnecessary piece of extravagance.
But now I come to my other and what I venture to think is a more serious objection. I object to this portion of the Bill because it appears to be legislation of an extremely incomplete and unsatisfactory character. It does not require very much intelligence to see what is really aimed at by the promoters of this Bill. It is absurd to suppose that the London County Council would remain content with a line which stopped, as I have already said, in the air. It is perfectly plain that the object of the London County Council is to use this tramway along the Embank-
1336
ment as a lever to obtain powers subsequently to cross the bridges and eventually to extend their tramway system in whatever direction they choose. Having got Parliament to sanction an unnecessary and useless line, what would be the result? The County Council would come to Parliament next year and say, "You have given us a perfectly useless bit of tramway. We now ask you to give us something that will be useful—the right to carry our tramways across the river." If you go so far as to give them what they ask for now, it would, I contend, be almost impossible to refuse them what they would ask for hereafter. Next year, or the year after, they would demand, and probably get, their tramways over Westminster and the other bridges which they contemplate. And does anybody suppose that the tram lines would be confined to Westminster Bridge and the Embankment? It is an absolute certainty that if these powers are obtained the County Council will carry their system through Victoria Street, Whitehall, Pall Mall, Piccadilly and Park Lane. I do not for a moment assert that they are wrong. I am not prejudiced against the County Council, nor am I prejudiced against tramways. But I wish to point out to your Lordships what you will be doing this afternoon, if you pass this Bill. If you sanction this proposal you will be practically committing yourselves to a gigantic extension of the tramway system in London, and my contention is that if the London County Council are prepared, and they obviously are prepared, to bring a large and far-reaching scheme before Parliament, that they should bring in a Bill showing precisely what they intend to do, and that it should be discussed on its merits. I object to these objects being attained in the underhand way proposed. It is chiefly upon this ground that I ask your Lordships to support the Instruction which I move, and I venture most respectfully to suggest to any noble Lords who may be inclined to support me, that they should not be too much intimidated by any technical reasons which may be given by the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, against the course which I propose.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they shall strike out of Clause 5 of the Bill power to construct any tramway south of the Strand:—(Lord Newton).
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, as I understand, the noble Lord who has just sat down entertains no objection to tramways in themselves, but is opposed to this because it is, as he says, a gigantic extension.
LORD NEWTON: I did not say it was a gigantic extension of the tramway system, but that it would inevitably lead to a gigantic extension.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: The course which the noble Lord asks the House to take would completely knock on the head the tramway which, up to a certain point, the noble Lord approves.
LORD NEWTON: The Instruction would only affect part of the Bill.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: The House is asked to pass this Instruction without hearing any of the evidence. The noble Lord appealed to the House not to be intimidated by any technical objections to the course he proposed, which might be suggested by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. Speaking as an occasional Chairman of your Lordships Committees, I venture to express the hope that you will have nothing to do with the noble Lord's Instruction. I do not know what happens to a Chairman of a Committee if he disregards an Instruction to his Committee, but, short of being put in the Clock Tower, I should be inclined not to pay very much attention to it. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord over all the ground he has covered, but shall try and expose the weakness of some of his leading arguments, and in order to do this I think I had better quote the document containing the reasons for the noble Lord's Motion which has been circulated amongst your Lordships. It is a carefully drawn document and has influential names upon it, and I suppose it contains the well thought out reasons for moving that the portion of the Bill affecting the Victoria Embankment should be struck out. The first reason given is—
1338
"The Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament last year reported that underground railways and underground tramways in London and its immediate suburbs, appear to be the best mode of dealing with the present and prospective traffic."
The second reason given is that—
"The promoters (the London County Council) have themselves recently adopted a report which expresses strongly the same view."
The document goes on to say that it is improper, therefore, for the London County Council to expend public money in promoting Bills for surface tramways on the Victoria Embankment at the present time. The London County Council quite approve of subsection (a) 6 of the Report of the Joint Committee of 1890, on Underground Railways, namely, that underground tramways should link up with surface electric tramways. That is exactly what is being done here. The recommendations of the Joint Committee do not for a moment, bear the colour which the noble Lord has tried to impart into them. The Joint Committee did not recommend that London should have nothing but underground communication. What they recommended was a sort of mixed farming, dictated by circumstances of traffic, and district and financial considerations. Where it is better to run your tramway underground they recommended that that should be done, and where it is better to run it above ground, they recommend that course. It depends among other things, on financial considerations. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is himself a great financial purist. He says that this "gigantic extension" is to be made with the ratepayers' money, and, therefore, we must take great care what we are doing. That is undoubtedly good advice. But what is the exact position? The noble Lord objects to the proposal now before the House, because it will cost money, but he advocates the construction of a subway. The difference between taking the tramways under ground and above ground would mean a difference in cost of £400,000 a mile, as against £30,000 a mile, under the present scheme.
I pass from that to the other objections of the noble Lord. The noble Lord says that no necessity has been shown for the two schemes as forming one continuous route, and he contended that there was

1339
no evidence of a traffic from the north to be served by lines stopping short at Westminster Bridge. That seems to me exactly the sort of thing which a Committee should consider, and not a thing which we can accept on the ipse dixit of the noble Lord. There was strong evidence given before the Commons Committee that Colonel Yorke's Report to the Board of Trade on the Paris underground railways approves this route. Colonel Yorke was asked to give advice as to the best way of constructing shallow underground traction, and he suggested that an experiment of this sort should be tried. Then we come to another objection cited by the noble Lord, that, if the present scheme is sanctioned the promoters will renew the proposal for lines over Westminster Bridge. I understood him to say that he thought they would be quite right in doing that; but, surely, that does not come up for consideration at this stage. The question of Westminster Bridge will be in the control of the House if and whenever powers to cross it are sought. This point was fully raised three times in another place—on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Consideration of Report—and always failed. Then the noble Lord did what I think is rather dangerous. He did not satisfy himself with objections, but committed himself to an alternative. He told us that the proper junction between the systems on the north and south would be by a tube under the river, which would be constructed at no very extravagant cost.
LORD NEWTON: Hear, hear!
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I do not know on what authority he makes that statement.
LORD NEWTON: On the authority of Sir John Wolfe Barry.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: This course was suggested in the Commons by the Metropolitan District Railway, who called Sir John Wolfe Barry to support the view. The answer is that a tube under the river would cost up to £500,000 a mile, and then (to use the words of the noble Lord) upon which he laid great stress in connection with the proposed line in
1340
this Bill) would link on to nothing, as the County Council tried to get a route along the south side of the river last Session and failed. I have answered what I think were the main objections raised by the noble Lord, and I hope the House will reject the noble Lord's Instruction.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Newton. I am not a London ratepayer, but I have a great love for the Embankment, which is one of the most beautiful boulevards in the world, There were one or two points which the noble Lord who moved this Instruction omitted to mention. One was the evidence of the police with regard to the Embankment. The police stated that the Embankment was used for the assembly of processions proceeding to different parts of London and that if tramways were allowed on the Embankment they would be unable to deal with the large crowds who take part in these processions. Lord Ribblesdale stated that the omission of this clause would wreck the Bill, but I fail to see how that can be. I suppose he means that the different systems—the system of electric tube railways and the system of electric tramways—would not be linked up. But I would point out that the Bill itself does not link up the different systems. It is admitted that the traffic over the Embankment is very small indeed, as compared with other highways in London, and I cannot see the object of allowing a tramway there, except it be to spoil this fine boulevard.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Instruction applied two expressions to me which I think are hardly accurate. He begged your Lordships not to be intimidated by any technical objections that I may raise to the course he is taking. I can assure your Lordships that I am too conscious of my own inability, even if it were my wish, to intimidate your Lordships' House, but at the same time I must state the objections I have to the course proposed, and which are by no means purely technical. I do not wish to

1341
go into the merits of the question, which can be more adequately discussed elsewhere, but I do say that an Instruction to a Private Bill Committee is almost entirely unknown in this House. For my own part, I only know of one instance in which an Instruction on a Private Bill was passed in this House, and I referred to a Dublin Bill which came up five years ago, and in connection with which an important question of municipal franchise arose. Those clauses were struck out on an Instruction by the House to the Committee, but with that exception I know of no case where an Instruction was given to a Private Bill Committee. I venture to think that the procedure is highly inconvenient and to be deprecated.
The noble Lord went into the question of the various routes which this Bill was intended to link up in different parts of the metropolis. He went into the disadvantages or advantages of those and alternate routes, which I do not think your Lordships at present have sufficient information to discuss. The noble Lord told the House that the Bill was opposed by the Westminster Municipal Council, by a number of frontagers, by owners of land on the side of the embankment in front of which these tramways will pass. All that shows that that there is no fear that the question will not be thoroughly discussed before the Committee, to which I hope your Lordships will refer these Bills intact. I would remind the House that if this Pill is sent to a Committee, it will be open to your Lordships, if you do not approve the Committee's conclusions, to revise them on Third Reading. On these grounds, and on the ground that the question has been discussed at very great length in another place, both in the full House and in Committee, I suggest to your Lordships that you should allow the question involved in this Motion to go before the Committee and be discussed there. It is not my intention, nor, indeed, have I sufficient information, to discuss the merits of the scheme which this Instruction would strike out, but, generally, I may point out that it is a very large scheme. The main part of the scheme in the Bill with which we are dealing at this moment is the construction of a shallow tunnel under the new road which is being constructed from
1342
Theobald's Road to the Strand. I venture to think that that is a scheme which may turn out in the end to be extremely useful in the way of facilitating the traffic. It is not affected by the noble Lord's Motion, I admit, but the object of the scheme is to connect, by means of the lines to Waterloo and Westminster Bridges, the system of tramways on the south of the Thames with the system of tramways which ends in the neighbourhood of Theobald's Road. It is possible, and very likely, that if the Bill passes, applications will be made to run tramways over Westminster Bridge and the other bridges across the Thames, but those projects can be dealt with upon their merits. Your Lordships, in allowing this scheme to go before a Committee and be thoroughly discussed, do not in any way prejudge your decision in regard to proposals that may be made in the future. As I have said, I do not enter into the merits of the case, but I oppose the Instruction solely in the interests of procedure, and I venture to think that the noble Lord has not made out his case that this is a scheme so bad that it should not be discussed by a Select Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I am sorry to find myself, in disagreement with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, but I cannot on this occasion concur in the views he has put before your Lordships. In the first place, as to the question of practice, Sir Erskine May, in his book on Parliamentary Practice, laid it down that, in the House of Lords, mandatory Instructions were occasionally given to Committees on Private Bills. That seems to me to dispose of the argument in respect of the order of procedure. I consider that it is in the interests of procedure that we should have a real scheme presented. Even Lord Ribblesdale admitted that the present Bill is only a kind of lever for future legislation. To my mind it is in the interests of procedure that we should refuse to pass a Bill which is to be used to furnish an argument in future sessions for still further legislation. Tramways across the bridges have up to the present been resisted, and I hope they will always be resisted in the interests of the public. The way in which tramways interfere with ordinary traffic from time to time is

1343
becoming intolerable. The Thames Embankment is one of the most beautiful thoroughfares in Europe, and it is one of the most favoured resorts for pedestrians. It is also one of the playgrounds of the metropolis for children from all parts of London, and in their interests, and in the interests of the public, I protest against the construction of the proposed tramway and against this magnificent thoroughfare being made use of for private gain. My noble friend says the Bill has been discussed at great length in another place, and an appeal has been made to your Lordships not to run counter to the view of the majority of the other House in this matter. But if your Lordships are not to take an independent view of Bills that come before you, what is the use of having two Houses of Parliament? I deprecate the use of the Embankment in the way propossed, in the public interest and in the interest of the poorer classes, and I trust that the Instruction will be insisted upon.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I listened with great respect to what fell from the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, and if this was a Private Bill in the ordinary sense, I should be disposed to agree with him. But this is, to a very great extent, a Public Bill, so far as the Embankment is concerned. How was the Embankment made? It was not made as the result of the enterprise of a private company, but was undertaken, after very mature and almost solemn consideration in Parliament, by the representative authority for London, and its cost was authorised by Act of Parliament to be defrayed from quasi public sources. Therefore, I object to the Embankment, which was constructed at the public expense, and which is one of the finest works of the kind in the kingdom, being dealt with in a Private Bill of this nature. It is for this House, and not for a Committee, to decide whether the disfiguration of the Embankment, which is involved in this proposal of the London County Council, should take place, and I trust that, in the interests of this magnificent thoroughfare, your Lordships will vote in support of the Instruction moved by my noble friend Lord Newton.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I will endeavour to meet one or two of the arguments used by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. In the first place, I do not think he justly represented the line taken by the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees-Lord Morley did not pretend that it would be ultra vires on the part of the House to pass such an Instruction. What he said was that the course proposed was not a usual way of treating a Private Bill, and was also undesirable. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack supported his argument by quoting Sir Erskine May, but what was it that Sir Erskine May said? He stated that in this House such Instructions were occasionally given. What the Lord Chairman contended was that this was an unusual way of treating a Bill which had been sent up to this House after most careful discussion in another place. The Second Reading was carried in the House of Commons by nineteen votes, and the Bill was then Considered by a very strong Committee. It went back to the House, and on the Report stage was again opposed, but the majority in favour of the Bill at this stage increased to seventy. I do not say that we are to be bound, or even influenced strongly by what took place in the other House, but I contend that the facts afford a strong prima facie case for sending this Bill to a Committee for consideration, and not taking the unusual course proposed. The noble Earl on the Woolsack says that this is not a complete scheme. If your Lordship's are to give weight to that argument, we will reject every measure that comes before the House. How many complete schemes are brought before Parliament? They all deal only with portions of subjects, however great those measures may be. The noble and learned Earl also said that this is, after all, a mere commercial project for private gain. That I entirely repudiate. This tramway scheme is promoted for the convenience of the people of London.
One of the subjects that need the greatest attention and the greatest care, is the method by which people living in the outskirts of the metropolis can be brought into the centre of London, and the congestion in the centre relieved. We believe that it is largely by means of

1345
tramways that this relief can be given. I would ask the House to remember that this great Embankment was constructed by the Metropolitan Board of Works at a cost of £5,000,000 of the ratepayers' money, and that it was constructed for the convenience, not of a small portion of the public, but of the public as a whole. I maintain that those who oppose this tramway along the Embankment must show that it would not be for the general convenience of the people of London. I contend that it would be for the general convenience. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack said, and I agree with him, that the Embankment forms one of the most magnificent roads in the Metropolis, but its great width makes it a suitable place for a tramway. No one can say, if the tramway is properly constructed, that it will seriously interfere with what is admitted to be the light traffic that runs backwards and forwards along the Embankment. There is plenty of room for both, and, as the noble Lord who moved the Instruction admitted, æstheticism must give way to utility. It is said that this scheme links up with nothing at all. I quite admit that it does not effect an absolute junction between the tramways on the North and South of London, but it very nearly does so. The South London tramways terminate at the southern ends of the Westminster and Waterloo Bridges, and by this proposal tramways would be brought to the northern ends, with the result that people desiring to take advantage of this service would only have to cross the bridges. The object is to bring the people who come over Westminster Bridge in contact with the North London tramways and that would be done by taking them east along the Embankment, and then up Theobald's Road. It is highly desirable that the details of the Bill should be examined by a Committee of your Lordship's House, and I therefore hope the Motion of the noble Lord will be rejected.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, during the time I had the honour of being a member of the London County Council this proposal to construct a tramway along the Embankment came forward on several occasions and I always opposed it. I was, however, successful in the Council, but each Bill was rejected
1346
by the House of Commons. This Bill, which has passed the House of Commons, has been defended in your Lordships' House this afternoon by two distinguished members of the London County Council, who have made statements which are absolutely inconsistent with the evidence given by the representatives of the London County Council before the House of Commons Committee. Lord Tweed-mouth stated that the proposed tramway was for the convenience of people passing across Westminster Bridge. Mr. Baker, the manager of the County Council's tramways, stated before the Committee, in reply to a question, that—
"The universal experience in foreign countries is that an electric tramway, if one can say so, creates a traffic of its own. A great many people who use it would not use any other means of locomotion."
That is to say there are people crossing Westminster Bridge who have no desire to use the tramway, but who might use it if it happened to be there. If that argument is to be used, it is only fair and just to the District Railway Company, who are about to electrify their system, that they should be given the opportunity of securings any additional traffic that may accrue. Surely, it would be better to wait and see whether or not the electric system which the company are inaugurating meets the requirements of the public. In speaking on this subject I have no mandate to represent the Government, but am merely expressing my own personal views. I am opposed to a tramway on the Embankment on æsthetic grounds. I have listened with great pleasure to the remarks of previous speakers in praise of the Embankment, and I would ask your Lordships to imagine for a moment what its appearance would be like with a double line of tramways—in my opinion a most hideous and monotonous form of locomotion. I contend that a tramway on the Embankment is unnecessary and undesirable. I hope the Motion of my noble friend Lord Newton will be adopted, and that it will be many years before any further attempt will be made to introduce this ridiculous and preposterous proposal. The noble Lord has referred to the proceedings in the House of Commons. I am bound to say, from my experience on the London County Council, that the votes of elected Members on tramway questions should not receive too great weight. Repre-

1347
sentatives of working class constituencies are pledged to tramway extension, and if a Member votes against any scheme of this kind, even against a tramway in Bond Street or any other narrow thoroughfare, he has to go before his constituents and defend his action. For that reason I hold that too much weight ought not to be attached to their opinion, and that we ought to consider very carefully before consenting to a proposal which would ruin what is perhaps the most beautiful thoroughfare in the metropolis.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in the discussion this afternoon, but after the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, I feel that it is necessary to say two or three words. The noble Earl says that the voice of the elected representatives of London ought to carry no weight in this House.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Hear, hear!
LORD MONKSWELL: I venture to think that a more monstrous proposal was never laid before Parliament. I have no wish whatever to discuss the merits of this scheme. I agree with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees that it would be out of place to do so on this occasion, but it is well known that it has in its favour a large amount of public opinion, as expressed in the London County Council. I maintain that the opinion of the County Council
ought to have more weight in your Lordships' House on a question of this kind than the opinion of the House of Commons, for while Members of Parliament are elected on all kinds of subjects, Members of the County Council are returned on domestic questions in which London is vitally interested. Surely a tramway could not destroy the amenity of the Embankment more than that horrible architectural monstrosity the Hotel Cecil, and even Charing Cross Station can scarcely be called an object of beauty.
LORD NEWTON: I think I ought to be allowed to say one word in justification, if justification is needed, of the course I am asking your Lordships to adopt. Not once, but on several occasions, I have heard noble Lords opposite ask that decisions that have been laboriously arrived at by Committees of your Lordships' House, should be rejected.
LORD MONKSWELL: That is a different thing.
LORD NEWTON: I do not think, therefore, that it lies with noble Lords opposite to find fault with me for what I have done. Their action is that of Satan rebuking sin, and I hope your Lordships will take no notice of it.
On Question, resolved in the affirmative.
Contents, 77; Not-contents, 32.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Lindsey, E.

Abinger, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Mansfield, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Mayo, E.

Balfour, L.

Morton, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Rutland, D.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Orford, E.

Calthorpe L.

Ailesbury, M.

Powis, E.

Clifford of Chudieigh, L.

Bath, M.

Romney, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Bristol, M.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Colville of Culross, L.

Verulam, E.

Congleton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Bradford, E.

Wharncliffe, E.

Coventry, E.

Yarborough, E.

Glanusk, L.

Egerton, E.

Glenesk, L.

Feversham, E.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Haddington, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Cross, V.

Hatherton, L.

Ilchester, E.

Cross, V. Falkland, V.

Hawkesbury, L. [Teller].

Jersey, E.

Knutsford, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

Lathom, E.

Llandaff, V.

Heneage, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Portman, V.

Iveagh, L.

James, L.

Napier, L.

Rothschild, L.

Kelvin, L.

Newlands, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lamington, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweedale.)

Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby).

Playfair, L.

Ventry, L.

Poltimore, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Rathmore, L.

Windsor, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Robertson, L.

Wolverton, L.

Muncaster, L.

Rosmead, L.

NON-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Portsmouth, E.

Monkswell, L.

Russell, E.

Reay, L.

Camperdown, E.

Spencer, E.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Carrington, E.

Barnard, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Cawdor, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Stanmore, L.

Crewe, E.

Brassey, L.

Thring, L.

Dartrey, E.

Davey, L.

Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]

Ducie, E.

De Mauley, L.

Welby, L.

Granville, E.

Farrer, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Morley, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Northbrook, E.

Leigh, L.

On Question, Promoters' Amendments agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Moved, That the order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill he now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection; Then it was moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred, to omit Tramway No. 7 (The Lord Newton); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PICCADILLY, CITY, AND NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OFCOMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, may I be allowed to explain that, in accordance with the pledge I gave to my noble friend, Lord Camperdown, I had the Clauses that were, in regard to all these Bills, introduced in Committee printed separately, and circulated among your Lordships. Those Clauses are two in number. One refers to the damage that may be occasioned by the working of the railway, and the other is what may be called the Board of Trade Clause, which renders it necessary that the Board of Trade should approve of the permanent way, platforms, tunnels, rolling stock, lighting, ventilation, and the
1350
other equipment of the railway before works are commenced. I had the Clauses printed so that what the Committee had done with regard to those Bills should be quite clear. I desire to express my acknowledgment of the immense care and trouble which the two Committees that passed these groups of Bills took in arriving at the conclusions embodied in the Bills now before your Lordships.
Bill read 3a (according to order).
THE EARL OF MORLEY: I now beg to move the Amendments that stand in my name. The Amendments are common to all the Bills on your Lordships' Notice Paper. The Board of Trade Clause, as I propose to amend it, will run as follows:—
"The Company shall from time to time submit for the approval of the Board of Trade plans, sections, and other details of their proposals, with respect to (a) permanent way, tunnels, platforms, stairs, lifts, and other communications; (b) rolling stock; (c) lighting; and (d) ventilation; and the railway rolling stock and other works shall be constructed, re-constructed, and maintained only in accordance with plans, sections, and other details as approved by the Board of Trade."
When that Clause came out of the Committee, it occurred to some of us that, as the Clause then stood, after the Board of Trade had once approved of the construction and equipment of the railway, and had given its certificate that it was fit to be opened, its functions then ended, and that if, at any future date—say two years after—the Railway Company, for economy or other reasons, undertook to alter their equipment or

1351
permanent way, the Board of Trade would be powerless to prevent them. I communicated with the Board of Trade on the subject, and also with my noble friends, Lord Windsor and Lord Ribblesdale, who presided over the Committees to which these Bills were referred, and the result has been the Amendments which I propose in the Board of Trade Clause with the full consent and knowledge of the Board of Trade. The result of these Amendments, which are very simple, will be to insert after the word "constructed" the words "re-constructed and maintained," so that at all times the equipment, rolling stock, permanent way, platforms, and so on of the Railway will be subject to the approval of the Board of Trade. I think your Lordships will recognise that this was an omission on the part of the Committee, and that the Amendments will meet the objections which have been raised to the Clause.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I wish to thank our noble friend at the Table, for having placed these Clauses upon the Paper and given us an opportunity of considering them. So far as I can see, the arrangements which they propose are very fair, and give, perhaps, as much protection to individuals who may be injured by the working of any one of these underground railways as they can reasonably expect. I know how much care and attention were bestowed on these Clauses by the Committee, but I think it was very fortunate that they were laid on the Table of the House, because it thereby became apparent that, although the clauses provided for any injury that might be done by a railway company within two years after its opening, they left the railway company at liberty to do any form of injury at a subsequent date. The effect of the alterations which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees is proposing will be that the company will have to submit from time to time any changes it may intend to make to the Board of Trade, and that the rolling stock and other works are to be constructed, re-constructed, and maintained only as approved by the Board of Trade. It appears to me that the Amendments meet the case, and I think that the noble
1352
Lord has done everything for private interests which could be reasonably expected.
LORD WINDSOR: As Chairman of one of the Committees which sat on these tube railways, I should like to say that the words which my noble friend the Chairman of Committees proposes to introduce into the Board of Trade Clause really carry out the intentions of my Committee, and I trust that the clause, as amended, will be satisfactory to all parties.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: The other Amendments proposed by the promoters, which are mentioned on your Lordships' Notice Paper, are almost entirely of a verbal character. The only one of any importance refers to a clause which deals with the case where two railways run in close proximity either above one another or alongside one another, and there was some doubt as to which of the railways was doing damage. The clause is a complicated one, and I believe even with these Amendments it cannot be regarded as satisfactory. But the Amendments do make it read consequentially, and I trust your Lordships will agree to them.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

LONDON UNITED ELECTRIC RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.],
  GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],

    BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY (NEW LINKS, ETC.) BILL [H.L.],
    GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL [H. L.],
    CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (No. 1 AND No. 3) BILL [H. L.],
    CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H. L.],
    NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H. L],
    Read 3a; Amendments made; Bills passed, and sent to the Commons.

BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed; and sent to the Commons.
STONEHAVEN TOWN HALL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Stonehaven Town Hall, was presented by the Lord Balfour; read 1a to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 127.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
LONDON GOVERNMENT SCHEME (SOUTHWARK) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to order) and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order) and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Special Reports on Educational Subjects.
  1. Supplement to Volume 8. Education in the Netherlands.
  2. Volume 11. Education in the United States of America.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2,826.

  United States (Porto Rico).

  No. 2,827.

  Bulgaria.

  No. 2,828.

  China (Newchwang).

  COLONIES.
  Miscellaneous: No. 19. Selections from Colonial Medical Reports for 1900 and 1901.

  MINT.
  Thirty-second Annual Report of the Deputy-Master and Comptroller of the Mint, for the year 1901.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  1. Time Table of Examinations for the year 1902.
  2. Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, altering the Time Table of Examinations for 1902.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND), 1877 (RULES).
  Order in Council, dated 19th June, 1902, giving effect to a Rule of Court.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Two Orders, entitled respectively the Foreign Animals (Amendment) Order of 1902, and the Jersey (Animals) Order of 1902.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  List of all pensions granted during the year ended the 31st March, 1902, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1901.
  Finance accounts of the United Kingdom, for the year ended 31st March, 1902.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minute, dated 18th June, 1902, declaring that Christopher William Pegrum, second class labourer, Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES POWERS ACT, 1864.
  Report by the Board of Trade on applications made during the year 1901, under the Railway Companies Powers Act, 1864, and of the proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE VOLUNTEERS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.