§ As amended, considered.
Clause (For preventing obstruction at Westminster Bridge).
Whereas it has been arranged between the Council and the Commissioner of Police that on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and five, the Council shall not run any car on that portion of the tramway in Westminster Bridge Road which lies to the west of its junction with York Road on such days and
at such hours as the Commissioner of Police may from time to time direct. Such arrangement is hereby confirmed.
Provided always, that if any question shall arise between the Council and the Commissioner as to whether any such direction is reasonable, such question shall be determined by the Secretary of State for the Home Department."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
§ DR. MACNAMARA () Camberwell, N.
said he gathered from the new clause that something in the nature of an agreement had been arrived at between the London County Council and the Commissioner of Police. He had great respect for the judgment of the London County Council in these matters and greater respect for his hon. friend the Member for Battersea, who was the faithful historian of the poor of London for all time. At the same time he was sorry to see the London County Council tacitly agreeing to this new clause. Of course there was congestion at Westminster Bridge, but that was because the Government would not allow the tramway to be run across the bridge. Colonel Yorke, the railway inspector of the Board of Trade, had stated that the real remedy to remove the congestion was to allow the trams to be run over the bridge. This proposal was to remove the terminus 250 yards further south. He greatly regretted that that decision had been come to. It would constitute a great hardship to the working people of South London. They would have to walk this distance in order to make their connection with the traffic going east and west by St. Thomas's Hospital, and that was bad enough, but when they came to go home it would be far worse. People going home found it impossible to get a seat at the terminus, and they walked down very often as far as the South-Western Railway Bridge and got into a tram there which was coming up to the terminus, and paid an extra halfpenny for the privilege of riding home, and if this line was thrown back to the middle of York Road, these poor people would have to walk nearly to Christ Church before they could obtain a seat. 1298 He could not, however much he regretted the decision which had been arrived at, divide the House against this clause, because the hon. Member for Battersea was a very shrewd man in all these matters, and of course it was quite possible that he had obtained a quid pro quo for this arrangement. He contended, however, that the difficulty would be accentuated by sending back all these trams to the middle of York Road. He would not labour the matter, but he would just ask the representative of the Home Office two questions. The new clause said the trams should stop at York Road "on such days and at such hours as the Commissioner of Police may from time to time appoint." Would it be contended for the police that for the whole of certain days no trams should come past York Road? He hoped no such interpretation would be put upon it. The second question was, would the halfpenny buses, which now were the property of private owners, and ran from St. Thomas's Hospital over the bridge and so linked up the tram system, be compelled lo start from York Road, because if that could be done the difficulty might be mitigated a little.
§ CAPTAIN JESSEL () St. Pancras, S.
said that they had always heard from the representatives of the London County Council in this House that it was essential, if this congestion was to be removed, that the trams should run over the bridge; now they heard that in spite of all those protestations the London County Council had come to an agreement with the Government which made it impossible for the tramways ever to cross Westminster Bridge. He reminded the House of the very strong evidence given by the police before the Committee upstairs as to the congestion.
§ CAPTAIN JESSEL
said he did not propose to argue that question at the present time, because it had been already decided by the Instruction given to the Committee on this Bill. If any justification had been required for the course which had been taken in this matter, it was to be found in the fact that the 1299 London County Council had agreed to this clause. But he was surprised that the hon. Member for Battersea had taken it lying down. He rather suspected there must, as the hon. Member for Camberwell had said, be some quid pro quo. and he could not; but think, with all due deference to the London County Council, in the face of the clause before the House, that those hon. Members who had always strenuously opposed the extension of this tramway across the bridge had been amply justified in the course they had taken.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS () Battersea
said he declined to be drawn upon a subject which would be very properly discussed at a later stage. Sufficient for the evening was the good thereof. He had no complaint to make of the very just strictures which the hon. Member for Camberwell thought fit in a genial way to pass, but he would remind the hon. Member for St. Pancras that by force majeure the hon. Member for Peckham, assisted by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, put a disabling Motion upon the London County Council. They were responsible for denying to the people of South London the right of access to the bridge and over the bridge by tram. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham was a full blown reactionary, and was proud of his reaction, but he, Mr. Burns, had such confidence in the courage of the hon. Baronet that he knew when be took a right course he would face his critics with the courage he always displayed when doing the wrong thing. This course had been put on the London County Council by the House of Commons. The London County Council had had to defer to the House of Commons in this matter. Then the Home Office, which was responsible for the police and the regulation of street traffic, came along and suggested that in consequence of the congestion on the south side of Westminster Bridge, which could not be removed except by bringing the trams over the bridge, and turning them down the Embankment, they must do something. The police already had power to make the London County Council do this, without this clause. The London County Council did not initiate this clause; the Home Office asked for it and 1300 the London County Council had to defer, showing that sweet reasonableness which they always did, and which ought to count to righteousness. He acquitted himself of all responsibility for this clause, and the only consolation he had in his misfortune was that the London. County Council was not responsible for it, and only gave a reluctant consent to it. He repudiated the suggestion that the London County Council had derived any advantage elsewhere in consideration of accepting it.
§ *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,) Ayrshire, N.
said at one time he did not think it necessary to say anything in regard to the clause which he had moved, but after the speech of the hon. Member for Camberwell, who took upon himself to speak on behalf of the London. County Council—
§ *MR. COCHRANE
said the hon. Member, speaking for Camberwell, had accused him of seeking some quid fro quo from the hon. Member for Battersea for the clause he now moved, and, that being so, he was compelled briefly to state the steps which led up to the moving of this clause. He failed to understand what the hon. Member for Battersea meant when he said that the London County Council reluctantly accepted this clause.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said to prevent any misunderstanding he would explain that he meant reluctantly in the sense that the London County Council wished to get rid of the congestion by carrying the trams over the bridge and down the Embankment: that having been beaten upon that scheme, they were reluctantly compelled to consent to the suggestion of the Home Secretary only in that sense.
§ *MR. COCHRANE
said he thought it was not quite accurate to say that the Council reluctantly accepted the clause. The hon. Member for Camberwell appeared to accuse the Home Department of being the friends of the omnibus proprietors, and not of the public. It was because the Department were the friends of the public that they had thought it necessary to move this clause. Representations had from time to time been made as to the danger arising from the congestion of traffic at this point, and when the County Council took over the tramways system their attention was called to the matter. The Council took up a non-possumus attitude; they were not prepared to do anything.
§ *MR. COCHRANE
said the Commissioner of Police stated before the Committee that in two years there had occurred at this point in the Westminster Bridge Road 179 collisions and ninety-three accidents, of which three were fatal und six or seven were serious. The hon. Member for Battersea did not seem willing to accept it, but the London County Council very frankly and fairly recognised the true state of the case when it was pointed out to them. He had no complaint to make of the manner in which he had been met, and they entirely agreed in substance with the clause which he had now put down. They suggested some slight alteration in the wording, but that made no difference as to the stringency of the provisions, which gave authority to the police to regulate the traffic on the spot any day the Commissioner of Police might think fit. Power was given to stop omnibuses at certain parts, so as to ^facilitate traffic. He hoped he had made out a case for the clause. He felt that it was unnecessary for him to deal with ancient history, and he would not have detained the House so long but for the terms in which the hon. Member for Camberwell had twitted him with being squared by certain particular parties.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause added to the Bill.1302
§ MR. REMNANT () Finsbury, Holborn
said that the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name referred to the extension of the Hampstead Road Tramway down half the length of Tottenham Court Road. His opposition to this extension was not to the tramway as a tramway. The district which he had the honour to represent would do their best to support any reasonable proposal for a tramway where facilities were wanted and could properly be given. But he hoped the House would agree with him that a case for this particular line had not been made out. There was a tramway terminus at the north side of Euston Road, where, on account of the narrowness of the street, there had been for a considerable number of years great congestion of traffic. The proposal now before the House was to carry the tramway across Euston Road, and practically half way down the length of Tottenham Court Road. The original proposal was to carry it the full length of Tottenham Court Road to Oxford Street, but that had been unanimously rejected by the Committee. He was not opposing the present extension in the interest of any private people, but on broad grounds of public policy. He held that tramway termini in the central districts of London were a mistake. They should be placed in the outskirts, or away as far as possible from the congested areas. Sanction had already been given for a tube railway down Tottenham Court Road, and no reason had been shown for this short extension of the tramway in a narrow street. Instead of relieving the congestion at Euston Road, it would increase it. One was led to believe that the London County Council had some ulterior motive in asking for this short line which led to nowhere, but after the Traffic Commission, which was shortly about to issue its Report, had made its recommendations the rejection of this small extension line would not prejudice any large comprehensive scheme which included the Tottenham area being adopted. There was no urgency for this short line, which could not be worked by itself. Moreover, the Chief Commissioner of Police had reported that this tramway would cause great delay at Euston Road, and render the traffic there almost unworkable. In 1303 one part of Tottenham Court Road there was not sufficient room for a double line of rails and to give the statutory nine feet six inches clear roadway from the kerb. He begged to move.
§ MR. BULL () Hammersmith
said he seconded the Amendment on the ground that this extension should be rejected until the report of the Traffic Commission was issued. He hoped that the Traffic Commission would give some attention to the question of tramway termini, which were practically butt ends in the middle of large thoroughfares. What they must have was some system, tinder which the tramways would start in a side street. The London County Council should set aside a large piece of land at the side of the road where the cars should start without stopping the traffic, and where the people could wait for the cars they wanted without danger.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 7, line 17, to leave out the words in lines 17 to 24 inclusive."—(Mr. Remnant.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. COMPTON BICKETT () Scarborough
said that the Committee upstairs, of which he was Chairman, had considered this short line quite apart from the Report of the Traffic Commission. They had interpreted the necessity for it on the principles adopted by Parliament for existing lines. The centre of London was approached from several sides. There were tramways along Gray's Inn Road, and there were tramway termini in Theobald's Road, Aldersgate, Aldgate, Whitechapel, and in Moorgate Street, and the amount of traffic in these thorough-fares was rather more than less than the traffic in Tottenham Court Road. The conditions of Tottenham Court Road were in no way such as to claim exception compared with these other lines of approach to the centre of London. Parliament had decided that London should have a tramway system as well as a tube system. People who were only going a short distance would not go to a tube station, be carried down in a lift to the tube, and then at the next station go up 1304 a lift again, when they could jump on a tramway and proceed to their destination more pleasantly. The Committee had declined to allow a double line of tramways to be carried along Tottenham Court Road beyond the point at which there was a clear width of nine feet six inches on either side of the outer rails. In the portion of the line now sanctioned there was that width, and in some places more. The Committee had also to consider the question of Euston Road. The block of traffic there was caused not only by the tramway terminus at the foot of Hampstead Road, but by the narrowness, of the street proceeding westwards towards Portland Street Station. Moreover, at present the tramways were horsed, and it was always cumbersome to change the horses at the terminus, and that process tended to increase the block. When the electrification of the line took place there would not be the same blocking by the moving of the horses. It had been said, why not adopt a shallow subway as in New York—a system which allowed the tramway to get underground when the streets were crowded, and to return to the surface at spots where the traffic was less? That system was impossible in Tottenham Court Road, for the very good reason that the Metropolitan Railway passed along Euston Road, and the crown of the tunnel came within 8 feet of the surface.
The lease of the tramway company for the Hampstead line would fall in shortly, and the London County Council desired to extend the line down to Oxford Street. That the Committee declined to sanction; and the line would now stop short at Francis Street, which would relieve the congestion of traffic at Euston Road and Hampstead Road. The width of the road at Francis Street was 48 feet, which gave a margin on either side of the rails of 16 feet 8 inches. The pavement on the west side was 22 feet in width, and on the east side 18 feet, so that there was ample accommodation for the foot traffic at the terminus. There was, therefore, ample accommodation; and even if the terminus at Hampstead Road were widened, there would only be the same width of roadway. The proposed terminus at Francis Street would be far more convenient. 1305 It was little over one-third of a mile from Oxford Street; and the trams running down Tottenham Court Road would collect a great deal of traffic. Moreover, the vast number of people employed in shops in Oxford Street would be able to avail of this service, and distribute them selves throughout the North and North-East of London. Therefore, even if the line were not to run to Oxford Street, there was a good case for having the terminus at Francis Street. Messrs. Maple and Shoolbred appeared to be afraid that their interests would be affected. He had had a great deal of experience of Tramway Bills, and he found, as a rule, the same evidence given and the same fears expressed; but the fears immediately disappeared when the line was constructed. A tramway only effected a certain class of residents. The little shops were benefited as was also property of a residential kind of a lower character. Carriages coming from the West End would only have to cross the line and put down their occupants at the shops and then wait in a side street. Further, the tram cars would take the place of omnibuses, and that would leave a greater margin for carriages.
With regard to electrification, although the London County Council would not possess themselves of the tramways until 1909, they had the right to compel the company to electrify them. Therefore, within twelve months this new line would be laid; and the whole system in North London would probably be electrified. The decision of the Committee was not unanimous; but he trusted that the House would support the majority.
said as the Member representing the Division in which the new tramway was proposed to be put down, be hoped he would he pardoned for intervening in the debate. It was not a very usual course to take in this House to ask the House to upset a Report sent from a Committee upstairs; but on this occasion the circumstances were not of a usual character. It had been frequently said that the fact that the Traffic Commission was sitting was no reason why this tramway should not be passed. Counsel for the London County Council upstairs said that it was an extraordinary thing that no Instructions to this Bill were moved in 1306 the House; but they were so confident that the Committee upstairs would reject the scheme that they did not wish to waste the time of the House by moving an Instruction. If however, they did not object now, their action might be construed if the Bill went to another place as being favourable to it. He wished to remind the House that the scheme of the Bill was not the original scheme. The original scheme was for a tramway from Hampstead Road right down to Oxford Street. The Committee stopped the tramway half way down Tottenham Court Road, and he thought they were wise, but they were not quite wise enough. There was no doubt, as the hon. Member for Scarborough said, that it was the intention of the London County Council to connect North and South London; but it was precisely because the question of connecting North and South was such a very important one that he hoped the House would not prejudge the case by sanctioning this small extension, especially as a Royal Commission was now considering the subject.
As regarded St. Pancras, he would tell the House frankly the position. Three out of the four Divisions were in favour of the tramway. The reason was obvious—people who lived away from the tramway did not mind; but as regarded his own Division there was the most strenuous opposition to this scheme. Fifteen members in wards in his constituency were returned in opposition to the tramway; and at the last London County Council election both county councillors in his Division were returned more or less because they were not in favour of the tramway scheme. With one exception, every single local municipal representative was against the extension of the tramway. With reference to the proposed terminus at Francis Street, everyone knew that driving to Euston, St. Pancras, or King's Cross from the West the usual way was to turn down Tottenham Court Road and up Francis Street. If the terminus were at Frances Street there would be a tremendous amount of congestion there, which would cause accidents and block the traffic right in the middle of one of the most busy streets in London. He would remind the House that the London County Council would not proceed to widen Hampstead Road, which was one of the most dangerous 1307 spots in London unless the borough council consented to the tramway being extended down Tontenham Court Road. Under the circumstances, it was only natural that the representatives of North-west and East St. Pancras should have voted for this tramway when they were going to secure a great benefit in the widening of Hampstead Road. He was very much in favour of linking up the tramway system between North and South; but he maintained, with all due deference, that this was not the best method of doing it. There were other alternatives; and he would ask the House to wait until the Traffic Commission, which was specially appointed to consider the subject, had reported, and not allow a few yards of tramway to be laid down in Tottenham Court Road against the wishes of the inhabitants of the district.
§ *MR. HUDSON () Hertfordshire, Hitchin
said he had frequently himself had to wait at the junction of Hampstead Road and Euston Road before the police would permit him to pass. There was very heavy traffic from the West End to the stations of the Central Railway, the London, and North-Western, and the Midland Railway, and the greatest possible inconvenience was caused at that point. The road was very narrow, and if the London County Council would make it wider it would be a very great convenience, or general traffic.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said not for the first time the House of Commons had resolved itself into a sub-Committee of the High-ways Department and discussed matters which would have been much better left to the London County Council acting with the local authorities. They had the duty imposed upon them of defending in the House of Commons proposals that were remitted by the House to a Committee, and which, after thirteen days of exhaustive consideration, were passed. After that they had resurrection pie in the House itself, to an extent which interfered with the business of Parliament and which was a discredit to every hon. Member when the broad facts of the situation were considered. He did not see why the House of Commons should waste its time in 1308 discussing the question of Hampstead Road, Tottenham Court Road, or Westminster Bridge. The proper tribunal for all such details was the Committee upstairs. The House of Commons had, how ever, decided to adopt this view on tramway questions and, therefore, he was compelled reluctantly to reply to one or two points put forward by various speakers who opposed the Bill. First, there was the hon. Member for Holborn who, strictly speaking, had no locus standi at all, because no portion of the tramway allowed by the Committee was within the jurisdiction of the borough of Holborn. The hon. Gentleman said that the difficulty which this extension would remove could be got rid of by the widening of Hampstead Road. As a matter of fact, the London County^ Council, by arrangement with the local authorities, were going to widen Hampstead Road at the point where the tramway now stopped. But, when that widening was carried out, at enormous expense, the road would not be any wider than at the new terminus.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said that that difficulty could be easily got over by removing the entrance to the pavement. The hon. Member for Holborn asked what was gained by extending the tramway a few feet? The few feet happened to be 1,800 feet.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said be would accept the correction; but the little distance was 600 yards along the widest part of Tottenham Court Road with afoot pavement twenty-seven feet in width, which would permit a large number of people to collect there without any inconvenience. That was the reason why they wished to remove the terminus. The hon. Member for Holborn spoke about tube railways. Whenever tramways were mentioned tube railways were always suggested as an alternative. He had only one opinion about tube railways, and he would strongly recommend investors 1309 not to put their money in them, because in ten years time he believed Mr. Yerkes and Mr. Perks would be handing their tubes over to the London County Council as relief sewers because people would not travel in them. Tube railways were no alternative. People preferred the trams. Why? Because they were cleaner, cheaper, and more rapid than the tubes and less dangerous than the omnibuses. The omnibuses were the main cause of congestion in the London streets. The hon. Member for Holborn said that the extension would lead nowhere. He could assure him that it would. It would lead into the widest portion of Tottenham Court Road and to a terminus much more suitable than the present terminus. The hon. Member tried to catch the ear of the House by saying that there was no intention to electrify the trams. There was such an intention, and it would be proceeded with as soon as engineering difficulties could be got over. He was surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who represented a district through which the London United Tramways ran. The hon. Member said that tramway termini were practically railway stations. That was in a sense true; and the only way to get over it was by having a circular route. But pending that, the only plan was to avoid, as far as possible, putting termini at cross traffic roads. They should be put in the widest portion of the thoroughfare, where they would do the least harm. In that way the London County Council were pursuing the line of least resistance, because they did not propose to have termini at shops or cross roads. The terminus at Hampstead Road, where four roads met, was one of the worst places for such a purpose.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said that then the hon. Gentleman should agree with him. What induced the Home Office to seek powers to put the terminus at Westminster Bridge further back? It was to avoid the congestion of traffic coming from a number of converging roads. It was worse still at Hampstead Road, because the horses had to be changed, 1310 and that occupied a very considerable part of the roadway. Their proposal was to have no stopping place for 100 yards at either side of the present terminus; and then impatient Members of Parliament driving to railway stations would be able to get across without being stopped. Therefore, he contended that the hon. Member for Holborn had no case. As regarded the hon. Member for St. Pancras he did not represent his own constituency in the matter. The hon. Gentleman was elected on higher questions. He was told to think Imperially, and to vote patriotically in the House of Commons on political questions. The hon. Gentleman claimed to represent St. Pancras in the matter; but three of the four divisions in St. Pancras were in favour of the Bill. What was more, the Mayor and several aldermen stated before the Committee that St. Pancras wanted the congestion at the Hampstead Road terminus removed. The view of the House of Lords on this question of tramways was more acceptable than that of hon. Members opposite, and when the House of Lords agreed with Battersea they were unanimous. The House of Lords gave the London County Council permission to take the trams over Putney Bridge. It had only a width of twenty-two feet between the herbs, and yet the House of Commons was now asked to reject a Bill for a tramway through a road with a width of forty-eight feet and very large pavements on either side.
Messrs. Maple and Shoolbred were the only firms who objected to this scheme. He had great respect for both those firms in their proper lines, and no one regretted more than he the lamentable death of the genial Baronet the Member for Dulwich. They all admired Mr. Shoolbred's four-in-hand. He had often seen it in Hyde Park, and it was a beautiful turnout. But every Londoner could not have a four-in-hand; the substitute was the half-penny tram. What right had Mr. Shoolbred to deny his shop-girls, warehousemen, and assistants the right to ride in a tram from Highbury or Islington down the Tottenham Court Road? These people had been compelled to write letters from here, there and everywhere, against this Bill because a kindly-hearted governor asked them to I do so. Shoolbred's and Maple's might 1311 supply Members of Parliament with furniture and other domestic conveniences, but they had no right to supply them with arguments or legislative directions. The omnibus owners also had opposed the Bill, and they had been exceedingly busy during the last fortnight. The House of Commons would soon have to take into consideration the extent to which'bus owners, tube railway promoters, and other interested persons frequented the precincts of Parliament. No doubt the 'bus-owners had a perfect right to take every legitimate step to maintain their present monopoly of the streets of London, but on a wet day thousands of people had to walk the whole distance of Tottenham Court Road to secure a conveyance, so full were the omnibuses, and this Bill was required to make good the deficiency of transit the omnibuses were responsible for creating. Provincial authorities had had to fight this battle over and over again, but fears had been shown to be ungrounded, and apprehensions misplaced, and he appealed to provincial Members to resist this Motion. Even if the Bill would do one or two shopkeepers harm, Parliament had no right to ignore the rights of the 300,000,000 passengers who in the course of a year would use the tramway. As the police had no objection and the Home Office did not oppose, he appealed to London Members, especially those on the other side of the House, to confer the boon of this Bill upon their constituents, and to reject the Amendment which had been moved.
§ MR. ERNEST GRAY () West Ham, N.
said it was most regrettable that the hon. Member for Battersea should invariably attempt to make out that these questions necessarily involved a struggle between the rich and the poor. That was not the case at all. If any other county council in the kingdom came forward with a proposal of this kind it would be received by the House with the utmost astonishment; but Parliament had become accustomed to all sorts of grotesque proposals from the London County Council, who ought now to be told that no decisions on these matters would be come to until the Commission which was inquiring into the whole matter had reported. It was not right 1312 that the recommendations of that Commission should be prejudiced by the adoption of this tramway scheme. As a Londoner familiar with the district concerned, he submitted that the present proposal was altogether unjustifiable. For many years the County Council had enjoyed the right to call upon the company working the Northern lines to electrify those tramways, but they had made no real effort in that direction, and there was no immediate prospect of electrical traction being adopted; therefore, the Amendment, if carried, would lead to no delay. All sections of the community could be properly served without the inconvenience which this terminus would create, and if the decision of the matter was left to Members who either represented metropolitan constituencies or dwelt in London, he had no doubt the Amendment would be carried by an overwhelming majority.
§ *MR. PEMBERTON () Sunderland
reminded the House that the Committee upstairs were not unanimous in their decision. Personally, he was strongly in favour of a tramway connection between the North and South of London, but such connection should be by sub way or some other means and not make the existing traffic more dangerous. The points which induced him to vote against the proposal in Committee were the decidedly dangerous character of the crossing at Euston Road, and the fact that, in consequence of a cab-stand and a shelter, there would be a distance of only about ten feet between the cars and the kerb at the north end of Tottenham Court Road.
§ MR. JOHN DEWAR () Inverness
said that a consideration which weighed with him on the Committee was that the line was to be made not by a private company for private profit, but by a public authority for the public convenience. The matter had been carefully considered by the County Council and their experts, and all agreed that the construction was highly desirable in the public interest The last borough election in St. Pancras was fought mainly on this question, with the result that the composition of the Borough Council was completely changed, so strong 1313 was the feeling in favour of the proposal in the locality. The only opposition came from the frontagers, who were usually against tramways, although it had not been proved that tramways necessarily harmed the frontagers. As to the danger at Euston Road, there would probably be less danger in crossing in a tramcar than on foot, and as 150 electric tramcars would do the work of 300 omnibuses the condition of the traffic in that neighbourhood would be greatly improved by the adoption of this scheme.
§ MR. CREMER () Shoreditch, Haggerston
, as a ratepayer of St. Pancras and one who had for thirty years lived within 200 yards of the present terminus, said that for twenty-five years the local authority of the district had had this matter under consideration, but in their desire to get the tramways extended they had always been defeated by the forces in
§ Tottenham Court Road and by the two publicans at the corners of Hampstead Road, who preferred that passengers crossing London should be tempted to patronise their respective establishments by being dumped down at the present terminus. Every effort had been made by the people of St. Pancras to get this improvement carried out, and if ever there was a matter in regard to which attention should be paid to the views of the locality it was the case under consideration. It was monstrous that the time of the House of Commons should be taken up in discussing a matter which had long been sanctioned and urged by the localities concerned, and he earnestly hoped the Amendment, would be rejected.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 143).1315
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Harwood, George||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Hayden, John Patrick||Price, Robert John|
|Allen, Charles P.||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Rea, Russell|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry||Helme, Norval Watson||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Rickett, J, Compton|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Horniman, Frederick John||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Boland, John||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Roc, Sir Thomas|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Brigg, John||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire||Runciman, Walter|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Jordan, Jeremiah||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Joyce, Michael||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Caldwell, James||Kearley, Hudson E.||Shackleton, David James|
|Cameron, Robert||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John R.||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Kennedy, Patrick James||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Lambert, George||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Spear, John Ward|
|Cremer, William Randal||Leng, Sir John||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Crooks, William||Lloyd-George, David||Sullivan, Donal|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Lough, Thomas||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Lundon, W.||Tomkinson, James|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Doughty, George||M'Crae, George||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Ellice, Capt E. C. (S Andrw'sBghs||Murnaghan, George||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Murphy, John||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Norman, Henry||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Gardner, Ernest||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert Jn.||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS TOR THE AYES—Mr. John Burns and Dr. Macnamara.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Malley, William|
|Hammond, John||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bain, Colonel James Robert||Banbury, Sir Frederick George|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Balcarres, Lord||Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Mich. Hicks|
|Bignold, Arthur||Graham, Henry Robert||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Bigwood, James||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Gretton, John||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)|
|Brassey, Albert||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Bull, William James||Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry||Percy, Earl|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Perks, Robert William|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hunt, Rowland||Reddy, M.|
|Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Renwick, George|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Keswick, William||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.||Knowles, Sir Lees||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Rose, Charles Day|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Cullinan, J.||Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Sheehy, David|
|Delany, William||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Denny, Colonel||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Lowe, Francis William||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes,|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Maconochie, A. W.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Dobbie, Joseph||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Stroyan, John|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Majendie, James A. H.||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriesshire||Tuff, Charles|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Milvain, Thomas||Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.|
|Forster, Henry William||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Mount, William Arthur||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)|
|Gore, Hon. S.F.Ormsby-(Linc.)||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Remnant and Captain Jessel.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
§ Bill to be read the third time.