The London County Council and Motorbuses.
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
At the meeting of the L.C.C., on January 2211d, a report of the Highways Committee was brought up with the following recommendation :— " That the Secretary of State for the Home Department be urged to give effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Cabs and Omnibuses in the Metropolis as to the desirability of public control over the routes of motor omnibuses, and that, having regard to the heavy wear caused to the public streets by motor and other omnibuses plying for hire, it be also suggested to the Secretary of State that he should consider whether legislation should not be introduced requiring a proper contribution to be made by the owners of these vehicles towards the cost of maintaining the streets."
The CHAIRMAN (Sir E. A. Cornwall, J.P.) said the reFort and recommendation would not be moved.
Mr. R. A. ROBINSON (South Kensington): What is going to happen to it? It was understood, at the last meeting, that it was withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN: I was mistaken, it is to be moved.
Capt. HEMPHILL (Central Finsbury) then, formally, moved the adoption of the report and recommendation.
Mr. WALLACE BRUCE (Bow and Bromley) said, as one interested in the housing question, he must oppose. Overcrowding was gradually being lessened in the central districts, and, to his mind, it was a retrograde move to advocate putting a tax upon locomotion of any kind. He fell, strongly, that they ought not to do so.. Motor omnibuses, especially in the East End, were doing a useful work, however much some people might dislike the noise and the smell. Because the Council happened to be the owners of tramways, they should not try to put a stop to the motor omnibus traffic. It would tell very much against them, in the opinion of the public. As an amendment, he moved the omission of all the words after " routes of motor omnibuses."
Mr. DEW (South Islington), in seconding the amendment, said, as one of the Housing Committee, he thought the proposal too drastic. While it was true that motor omnibuses were not worked as well as people might like, he would be very sorry to assist in putting a tax upon locomotion, or to do anything to bring back the state of affairs which existed in the old toll gate days. He advocated that the Council should move to get rid of the tax upon their tramways, rather than to put a tax upon motor omnibuses.
Mr. ALLEN BAKER, M.P. (East Finsbury), in supporting the report and recommendation, said it was very hard on the tramway undertaking to have to pay for the upkeep of the streets, and, also, be rated, whilst the motor omnibus proprietors had neither to pay for the upkeep of the streets nor were they rated. In Paris, every motor omnibus had to pay A',813 per year for the use of the streets. He was not an enemy of the motor omnibuses, which had their uses, as feeders of tramways but he did think that the companies ought to be compelled to pay something.
Alderman W. H. Dic it I NSOX, J . P., considered that it would be a great mistake to tax motor omnibuses upon the ground that the tramways were rated. In his opinion, there was no justification in principle for compelling the tramway undertaking to contribute to the rates of the Borough Councils, and it was in that direction, rather than in a tax upon motorbuses, that an endeavour should be made. Motorbuses might not, now, he very popular, but they were rapidly becoming a public institution, and, if the Council wished the buses to become less objectionable than they are now, they would not forward this by putting a tax upon them. Even as regards the first portion of the Committee's recommendation, he considered there was matter there for grave consideration, and he suggested that the Committee should re-consider the whole subject and bring it up, on some future occasion. It was a very serious thing to put in the hands of the police the power of defininc.r, motor omnibus routes. In his opinion, that power should be in the hands of the representatives of the people.
Mr. HARRIS (South Paddington) said that they all felt the desirability of having some control over motor omnibuses. Mr. Baker had stated that he was not an enemy of
motor omnibuses; it was well that he had said so, because, otherwise, from his speeches inside the Council and his writings outside, he might be suspected of enmity to every other kind of locomotion except tramways. (A laugh.) The Council ought to co-operate in assisting all forms of Locomotion, because all kinds of locomotion, and the improvements thereof, were in the interests of the people of London. He hoped that the recommendations would not be pressed, as it would look like the Council putting itself forward as an enemy of the motorbuses, which were very useful vehicles.
Sir MEtvituf BitAcitcRoFr (North Paddington) considered that great credit was due to the police for the moderation with which they had exercised their powers in regard to motor omnibuses. At the same time, the Council should very seriously consider, before they advocated putting into the hands of any authority, outside the representatives of the people, the fixing of motor routes. It would be a confession that the L.C.C. did not know what to do, or was unable to tackle the problem. Motorbuses were a great nuisance, but it was to be remembered that the industry was in its infancy, and it was, also, to be remembered that the nuisance had been mitigated, in some cases, by objectionable vehicles being turned off the routes by the police. He hoped, with Mr. Dickinson, that the Committee would see its way to withdraw the first part of the recommendation. The situation in London was very different to that in the provinces, where the police were, in many cases, under the control of the Municipal Authorities. Apart from everything else, he was not at all sure that the police wished to have their powers enlarged.
Alderman SANDERS supported the report and recommendation, as he believed that motor omnibuses should be brought into line with the railway companies and the tramways, and be made to pay for the upkeep of the roads over which they go. Owing to motor omnibuses in his constituency, the sum of ,to,000 had to be spent in putting down. wood where macadam was, before, and which served its purpose well, until this traffic was initiated. In another route, opposite Battersea Bridge, he referred to Beaufort Street, Chelsea, motorbuses had involved the Local Authority in a considerable amount of expense. Why should ratepayers have to pay for the upkeep of roads used by motorbuses run by a monopoly? (Cries of Oh, Oh !) Members might say "Oh, Oh! " but it was only the other day that they read in the papers about meetings of shareholders which were held to bring about a combination of motorbus companies.
Capt. HEMPHILL said that, undoubtedly, the subject was a difficult one and the debate had shown, to his mind, that, until they had a satisfactory system of Foal government, it was impossible to carry out local government in a satisfactory manner. In deference to the opinions expressed, he would withdraw the report and recommendation, and take an opportunity of consulting the Local Government and Taxation Committee upon the subject.
The report and recommendation were then, by leave, withdrawn.