rejected, and again, in a slightly different cars on the further side of the form. they have passed. It is now bridge, and cross it-very frequently, I brought forward in a form very slightly am sorry to say, owing to the numerous different from that in which it was pre- changes in our climate-in rain or snow or viously passed. There are two points wet or sludge, of some kind or the other, in the Bill which I would bring before which incommodes them very much durthe attention of the House. In the first ing the rest of the day. If they can be place, the object of the Bill is to bring brought across the bridge into the neighthe traffic across Westminster Bridge; bourhood of the Underground Railway and in the second place, it is to carry it they would be saved a certain amount of along the Embankment. I would ask discomfort, which they can only get rid the House to remember that those are of now by expenses, which they are not not necessarily bound up one with very well able to hear. With respect to another. That point would be clearly a the promotion of this Bill, the London matter for the Committee to decide, as County Council has brought it in because to where the line should be stopped. Of of the pressure that has been brought to course, this House is pretty familiar with bear upon it by persons on the other side the objects of the Bill, and naturally it is of the water. We had a petition to the very familiar with Westminster Bridge. County Council some time ago, which I There is a good deal said against the mentioned when I spoke last upon this Bill, I know, in private conversation, on' subject, which is signed by some 60,000 account of the increase of traffic which or 70,000 of the inhabitants on the other will ensue at this end of the bridge if side of the water. That petition pressed the line is brought across. But I would the London County Council to take up very much wish that honourable and some such undertaking as that which I right honourable Gentleman would take am now advocating. We have communithe trouble to see what happens to the cated with the authorities on the other traffic on the other side of the bridge. side of the water, and I will tell you Across the water the vast population those who are favourable to the underwhich comes off these tramways is in a taking. There is the Battersea Vestry, very difficult position, as any Member Newington Vestry, and St. George the may assure himself of if he cares to take Martyr; Bermondsey takes no action in the trouble to look. This is exactly a the matter, and the Local Board of point which a Committee of the House Wandsworth is against the Bill-I wish would go into and settle, and they would to give the whole thing perfectly fairly see whether the contentions which I am to the House; and the vestry of Lamputting forward are correct or not. There beth is in this position: it supported the are a very large number of persons who Bill of 1891, and the Bill of 1892, which come from the south of London across is practically this Bill, but in the case Westminster Bridge daily to their work. of this Bill. it appears on a petition We have had figures taken of the number against it. That position is taken under of persons who crossed the bridge in very peculiar circumstances. It objects 1892. They have not been taken since. to the Bill on one point only, and that Between the hours of eight in the morn- is that we do not ask for power to work ing and eight in the evening on a day in the tramways in connection with the 1892, when we had them counted, there other tramways on the other side of the were something between 20,000 and water. If we did that it would enable 30,000 passengers crossed the bridge, the the vestry of Lambeth to get rid of a great number crossing northward in the certain amount of refuse. If we had morning and southward in the evening. done that the vestry of Lambeth would That large numbers of people-many of have been prepared to withdraw its oppothem shop assistants, and others sition to the Bill. I may say at once, working in the Strand, in Regent however, that for the London County Street, and the City-especially the Council to have adopted that course City-have to get out of the tram- would not have been in accordance with

one side or on the other, for or against the Bill. It is usual for the House to send up Measures of this description for consideration by its Committees, and there are only two points which I will allude to for a moment, and then I will sit down. Whatever may be one's views as to the right or wrong system of working tramways, whether or not a local body like the County Council should do it, it is absolutely essential that the power of working them should be in the handa of the local authority, in order to enable it to make a proper bargain with the companies who may be working them. The House, perhaps, is aware that it has itself given to the County Council the same power of working their tramways as are possessed by the tramway companies themselves. In the Vauxhall Bridge Tramways Bill the same power was given as is asked for in this Bill. It was urged against this Bill on a previous occasion that it was inadvisable that a tramway should cross the river. But that point has been settled, because the House has already passed in the Vauxhall Tramways Bill a Measure for carrying a tramway across the river, and, therefore, the general principle on that point is no longer one which is open to discussion. Those are the two points that I wish to call attention to in respect of this Bill. Further than that I have no more to say, beyond asking the House to give this Bill a Second Reading and send it to a Committee upstairs.

the Standing Orders of the House, as anyone familiar with the Standing Orders will see. There is another objection to the County Council taking that course, and that is, that it would affect the future of tramways which we might possibly acquire sooner or later. The vestry of Lambeth is in no sense opposing this Bill generally, so far as I can make out from the correspondence. It is not opposed to the making of the tramway across Westminster Bridge. I think I have given to the House the position of the local authorities on the other side of the water. Now, as to the London County Council itself. The London County Council passed a resolution to proceed with this Bill in the middle of last year -that would be the late County Council -the usual time for passing these matters. A very large number of members who are Members of this House and of the London County Council-men of both sides of politics-voted in favour of this Measure. That shows that it is not a Party Measure in any sense of the word, and has never been regarded as such. The whole position I take up before the House in the matter is that this, owing to the circumstances which I have described, is a Bill which may very fairly be sent before a Committee. Tee House must remember that a Committee of this House has passed a Bill which is practically the same as this, and therefore we are only asking the House to send it up again to a Committee, which may consider it under the altered circum- MR. E. E. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, stances. There are altered circum- E.): I have often heard some very stances. In 1891 and 1892 the London clever speeches from my honourable County Council stood more or less alone Friend and colleague, and, although in the matter of tramways. Since that he certainly has got a bad case to deal date the Council has obtained further with in this Bill, he has made a very powers with respect to tramways, and able apology on behalf of the London the whole policy has become perfectly County Council in favour of this Bill. I settled and perfectly definite, and the am aware that the authorities of this consequence is that we are creating a House are not in favour, as a rule, of tramway here, or should be creating a intercepting a Bill from going to a Comtramway here, which would be in con-mittee. They view with disfavour any tinuation of the other tramways which attempt of that kind. For my own part we have practically settled to acquire. I think it is better and fairer that all Under these circumstances, I think there private Bills should go before Committees, is ample reason for wishing Parliament in order that they shall be threshed out, to reconsider a Bill like this, and for because it is quite clear that the House expressing a hope that this House may is not a suitable body for dealing with send it up to a Committee, so that it such subjects. But there are exceptions, may judge upon its various merits or and I think this is one of those Bills demerits, which will be urged on the where exception should be made, and Mr. Stuart.

the House should deal with the policy | Embankment. Logically, it should go which the Bill advocates, and refuse to to Charing Cross, and up Regent allow it to go before a Committee. The Street, or along Piccadilly. I do not description of the Bill is very fairly know whether honourable Members given by the honourable Member for favour that idea, because it is extremely Shoreditch. He says, quite truly, that difficult now to get to the House someit proposes to cross Westminster Bridge, times, as it is, and with tramways passing and then turn at right angles and go and repassing it would be much more down the Embankment to Blackfriars difficult. I say that the Bill is unnecesBridge. The honourable Member for sary for this reason also. Anyone who Shoreditch says it is a Bill brought up in has been on this side of Westminster a modified form from that which was Bridge and noticed the people crossing passed by the House in 1892, but which will have seen how very few of them did not become law, in consequence of turn to go along the Embankment. My the action which was taken in another honourable Friend has mentioned 20,000 place. The only modification that I can who use the bridge. I suppose he means see is that, instead of the tramway being pedestrians; and he has accurately decompelled to stop, as it was made to do scribed their sufferings in walking over by the action of the Committee upstairs, the wet, muddy sludge, which they have at the end of Horse Guards' Avenue, which often to encounter in crossing the bridge. is this side of Charing Cross, it is now My sympathies go with those people to made to go the whole length of the that extent, and I am very sorry for Embankment and stop at Blackfriars them. But they do not turn to the right Bridge. My honourable Friend has at the foot of Westminster Bridge. They given the particulars relating to the pursue their way to Charing Cross, and approval or opposition of the local bodies do not go eastward at all. Anyone can that not more than on the Surrey side of the Thames. There see five per are only a few that are absolutely in cent. of the pedestrians crossing favour of the tramway, but he did not Westminster Bridge turn to the right and tell the House, as I will tell the House go along the Embankment. now, that all the local bodies on this bankment really is for swift traffic, and side of the river through which the tram- when it was opened it was astonishing to way proposes to pass are against the see what relief it gave to the Strand in Bill, and no doubt if the Bill was read a that respect. For my own part, I believe second time and sent upstairs to the that if a tramway were put now along the Committee, these objectors would have Embankment, the cabs and carriages an opportunity of being heard, and would resume their ride along the already of stating their objections before the congested Strand instead of continuing Committee. But I think it is rather hard to take the Embankment, because, if there that we should have to pay on the rates is one thing more than another that a the expenses of the London County Coun- cab-driver, or any other driver, hates, it cil in promoting the Bill and the exis a tramway. There is another proof of penses of these local bodies in opposing during all these years that the Embankthe truth of what I say in the fact that the Bill. The greatest number of people who live on the north side of the river ment has existed no proprietor of omniare not in favour of the Bill, and they buses the London General Omnibus have no opportunity of being heard before the Committee of the House of Commons,

because they have no locus standi, and it is on their behalf that I move that

the Bill be read a second time this day six months, in order that the House may prevent this unnecessary and wanton Bill from going any further. I say it is unnecessary, because a tramway which is put down to cross Westminster Bridge is really of no use if it turns at right angles and goes down the

The Em

Company or the Road Car Company— has thought it advisable to run omnibuses along the Embankment; and the House knows as well as I do that omnibus proprietors are not slow, as a rule, to find buses, which are largely used by the out routes on which to put their omnipublic. More than that, it is quite certain that the tramway companies on the other side of the river, if they had thought there was any prospect of taking any number of passengers along the Embankment would have long since started

MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the honourable Member that this is a question of tramways.

those convenient halfpenny omnibuses in that direction, those 'buses which we see every day going in the direction of Charing Cross, and loaded with some of these 20,000 people from the other side of WestMR. BOULNOIS: I am sorry I was minster Bridge of whom my Friend spoke. led into a discussion on that point by Besides, nobody who wanted to go into the other side. But I do say this-that the City from the Surrey side of West- if the London County Council are now minster Bridge would ever attempt to actually going to destroy and disfigure cross the bridge. If you look at the map what their predecessors did it will be which has been sent round to all of us a great pity. We live, I know, in a this morning, you will see what an enor- utilitarian age; but the destruction, from mous bend the river makes after pass- an artistic point of view, of one of our ing Westminster Bridge to Blackfriars finest and most modern bridges, and of Bridge and beyond; and anyone on the an esplanade, if I may call it so, which Surrey side of the river would save at is second to none in the world, would least half a mile by turning to the right only be justified, in the first place, by on the other side of the bridge, and thus public interests, and, in the second place, reaching Blackfriars Bridge, or whatever by conferring a real benefit upon the his destination in the City might be. I see in the statement which has been sent neither of these considerations exists in people of London. I maintain that out by the London County Council that this case; and, more than that, that the they make a great point that there is an general public, so far from being in enormous congestion of traffic where the favour of this scheme, are absolutely tramway lines end. I believe that there is a congestion; but I believe that if the averse to it. The House of Commons tramways were brought across the bridge last week, by an overwhelming majority, the congestion would be removed to this rejected a scheme which had for its side of the river, because the bend of the object the spoiling of the approaches to tramways is at a very short angle indeed, and the appearance of the Houses of and looking at the traffic which comes Parliament. I trust that to-day we shall along Parliament Street already, I think have as large a majority in protecting anyone will see that, where there are Westminster Bridge and the Embankconstant tramways passing or repassing, the traffic would become much more congested, and we should find that there would be much more congestion outside these Houses of Parliament than there is on the other side of the river. Then there is the artistic point of view, which I will leave to other Members to deal with who can do it much more justice than I can.

1

ment, and the Houses of Parliament, which I think all admit form one of the finest features of our great river. I will not detain the House any longer. sincerely hope that this useless, unneces sary, and wanton scheme will be rejected by a very large majority.

*SIR JOSEPH WHITWELL PEASE I will only observe this, that (Durham, Barnard Castle): In secondmay say that all of us are justly proud of Westminster ing the Motion, I I have been one of those who Bridge and the Embankment, and I think have watched the development of Westwe all ought to be grateful to the old minster Bridge and the Thames Embank Metropolitan Board of Works for having ment with some interest. I happened left two such monuments behind them. to be one of the Select Committee of this When the Metropolitan Board of Works House some years ago, to whom was com ceased to exist, some nine years ago, the mitted the case of apportioning the land London County Council took their place, of the Embankment between rival claims, and since that time has done absolutely and in laying out the building line for occupying that land (which was then derenothing whatever to beautify and imlict), and doing what we could, as Comprove London. [Cries of "No, no!"]mittee of this House, to maintain and imI hear one or two "No, no's" from the other side, but I should like to hear details of any beautifying works. Mr. Boulnois.

prove that which was really brought into existence by the making of the Thames Embankment. I may say I am one of