MPs were debating the London Traffic Bill on August 1 1924.
They were considering a series of Lords amendments.
There were not many issues of contention but cyclists, trams and police powers were among disputed issues.
Edmund Harvey, the Liberal MP for Dewsbury, asked: “Can we have some indication from the Government as to their general attitude towards these Amendments?”
Transport minister Harry Gosling, MP for Stepney Whitechapel and St George's, responded: “In the main, I propose to accept these Amendments.
“But there are two matters with which the Government must disagree. One is the question of the introduction of the regulation of trams, and the other the length of time which the Bill is to run. It is only on those two points that I ask the House to disagree.”
Labour’s first government, under Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, was opposed to giving “power to restrict the running in the streets of trolley vehicles and tramway cars as well as of omnibuses” in London.
Mr Gosling explained: “If the number of omnibuses in a particular street be restricted, they can move at once to another street in which the restrictions do not operate, but this does not apply in the case of tramway cars, which are absolutely tied to the streets in which the permanent way has been made.
“The same considerations apply to trolley vehicles, which, though they have no permanent way, are, in this respect, on the same footing as tramway cars, because they are tied to their overhead trolley wires and equipment, and cannot be transferred to another route, if prevented from using a particular route.”
He stressed that London County Council had asked MPs “generally” to support trams.
But Chatham Tory MP Lieutenant-Colonel John Moore-Brabazon backed the Lords amendment which would have regulated trams.
He emphasised that the number of passengers carried by “omnibuses and trams during the year in London is practically equal”.
He then alleged: “It is rather curious that the Labour party and the Liberal party are undoubtedly supporting vested interests when they support the trams.
“They do so because of the undoubted advantages given to the trams in the past—advantages which it is desired to continue to hold. Although trams may he run by municipalities, they are run primarily with the idea of making a profit.”
Battersea South Conservative MP Captain Viscount Francis Curzon also supported the Upper Chamber.
He argued: “Members should not forget that, where trams are run in quick succession, ordinary wheeled traffic of all classes is concentrated on the other parts of the highway, between the outer rails and the kerb.
“They must remember, also, the obstruction to traffic that is caused by trams, the effect that they have upon houses and so on, and the effect that their rails have upon other classes of traffic.”
He then turned to bikes.
“Hon. Members opposite are always anxious to tell us that they are, like ourselves, trying to represent the underdog, and the underdog of modern traffic is, surely, the bicycle,” he said.
“I am sure that the hon. Member for South Hackney (Herbert Morrison) does not want to mislead the House, and that he is just as anxious as any other Member to look after the interests of cyclists.
“Does he not realise the effect that tramlines have upon cyclists, and how difficult they make it for them under modern traffic conditions?”
He continued: “The Chief Commissioner the other day drew attention to the very grave danger caused to cyclists, and to other traffic generally, by the presence of cyclists in London traffic.
“This danger is very largely added to where there are greasy tramlines, which make it very difficult for cyclists to ride.”
However, South-West Bethnal Green Liberal MP Percy Harris supported the Government’s stance.
“If you stop an omnibus running along a particular road because it is too narrow, another road can be found for it both in London and in any other part of the country,” he said.
“That is where the omnibus has a very great advantage over the tramway.
“It is always possible to divert it to a new route of traffic if the Minister finds the existing route unsuitable, but with tramway lines it is quite different.
“The tram is there for all time. It has to be paid for, and therefore it is not a sound thing to interfere with its general use.”
The Lords amendment was rejected by 171 votes to 30.
The Government also corrected what it saw was a drafting error from the Lords so that police officers would only be able to take action to prosecute for obstruction against people who disobey their orders when they were “engaged in regulating traffic” rather than on other duties.
