HC Deb 12 July 1838 vol 44 cc170-82
Mr. Labouchere

moved the further consideration of the Report on the Coal Trade (Port of London) Bill.

Lord G. Somerset

then rose to move, that it be an instruction to the Committee to make provision for the repeal of such parts of the Acts 3 and 4 William 4th., cap. 36 (the Birmingham Railway Act,) 4 and 5 William 4th., cap. 38 (Southampton Railway Act), 5 and 6 William 4th., cap. 107 (Great Western Railway Act), 6 and 7 William 4th., cap. 75 (the London and Dovor, or South-eastern Railway Act), 6 and 7 William 4th., cap. 103 (London and Cambridge, or Northern and Eastern Railway Act), 6 and 7 William 4th., cap. 106 (London and Norwich, or Eastern Counties Railway Act), 6 and 7th William 4th., cap. 108 (Thames Haven Railway Act), 1 Vict., cap. 119 (Brighton Railway Act) as imposes a duty of one shilling and a penny per ton, to be paid to the corporation of the city of London, on coals carried on the several railways, sanctioned by those acts respectively, nearer to London than certain points specified in those several acts, and which points vary in distance from the limits of the city of London, from about fifteen to eighteen miles. As this was the first occasion on which the question had been fairly brought before the House since these clauses had been introduced, the House must affirm the principle, that the city of London dues should be rateable at 1s. 1d. per ton on all coals carried within a certain circumference of the city. But how were these clauses introduced? Without imputing anything to the city of London, he was bound to say, that they were much more careful of what they supposed to be their rights than the House of Commons was of the interests of the public. He might be met by the fact, that the companies had agreed to the clauses; but they all knew, that the companies, when they were applying for their bill, would do much to gain support, and would agree to almost anything to obviate such opposition as that of the city of London. So lax had they been in the performance of their duty, that he did not believe, the attention of the House was ever once called to these clauses. He had no doubt it would be said, why should sea-borne coals be subject to a tax from which inland was exempted? The last time the question was before the House, was, he believed, in 1810. But there was a vast difference between the situation of the question then and now. Then there was a duty of 4s. per ton upon all sea-borne coals, and to protect that duty, inland coals were almost prohibited. The question was now in a very different situation, for there was now no duty to protect, and the duty of 1s. 1d. per ton made all the difference between the possibility of sending up inland coals with a profit, or with none. He might be met by the assertion, that the quantity would be so small, so inconsiderable, that it was not worth discussing. Then he would say, if it was so, it surely was not worth the opposition of the city. The only way to meet that combination, which operated most injuriously against the lower classes, and which was contrary to all principles of supply and demand, was to agree to his amendment. He could not help thinking, that it would be worth the while of the coal-owners in the north to co-operate with him on this object, and to make arrangements with the several railway companies, by which the supply of coals would be conveyed to the London market much more expeditiously and cheaply than by sea. It was the duty of the gentlemen residing in and about London also to assist him in this object; because it was quite clear, that so long as this tax of 1s. 1d. per ton was continued, the railroad proprietors would consider it a complete failure. There was one other point to which he would refer. The hon. Baronet (the Member for the City of London), had stated, that the object was, to continue the revenue derivable from coals to the corporation of London, to the time originally fixed (1858), but he had neglected to point out, that the revenue had so enormously increased within the last few years, that it was expected to expire in the year 1852. He hoped the House, under all the circumstances, would support his proposition; for, if not, they would let slip the only opportunity which would be afforded them, of placing the matter in its proper position, and of breaking down a monopoly which was most injurious to the best interests of the community.

Mr. Hume

seconded the motion. These Acts had been introduced without the knowledge of the country, or the knowledge of the House, and without due notice.

Mr. Labouchere

could assure the House, that nothing would give him greater pleasure than to see a bill pass that House, the tendency of which would be to reduce the price of coals; but that must be done by fair and just means. He would not go into the regulations of the coal-owners in the north, nor would he attempt to justify them; but if they were illegal, an Act of Parliament ought to be introduced to counteract those combinations, and let that act be fairly passed. If the present bill was not passed, the city would not lose anything, because the city would immediately revert to their ancient dues—to dues levied in an infinitely more inconvenient manner to the public than those that were levied by this bill. Looking at every part of the bill, it must be taken as making a good bargain for the public. He felt bound, in justice to the city, and to all the great interests that were concerned, to resist the proposal made as strenuously as he could. It would be most improper to do anything which would tend to injure the shipping interest, for the sake of giving a partial benefit to another interest. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the House would not consent to the motion of the noble Lord. He believed it would cast a most serious impediment in the way of the bill passing at all—a bill which was calculated to confer so great a benefit on the community. There was one provision in the bill, to which he must for a moment refer. The city, under the present law, possessed the right of levying 1s. 1d. for every ton of coals brought within a certain distance. Two circumstances had happened, which deserved the serious attention of the House; one was, that coals were becoming more an article of export than they were formerly; the other, that steamboat navigation was going on with a spirit of enterprise, which became every day more daring and successful. It was of the utmost consequence that London should be able to enter into competition with Liverpool, Bristol, and the other great ports of the country, upon perfectly fair and equal terms. It was of the utmost consequence that ships exporting coals from London for the purposes of commerce, and that steam-boats, taking coals from London, should not be subject to this duty. He therefore urged the expediency and propriety of the city not standing on any rights they possessed, in order to defeat the wishes of the House. The city had already, most liberally, consented to allow a drawback on every ton of coals within a certain limitation, and that was no slight sacrifice, for it amounted to about 5,000l. a year. Under all the circumstances, he called upon the House not to support the proposition of the noble Lord, which would be attended with the greatest possible danger to the bill.

Mr. Warburton

agreed, in a great measure with the sentiments of his hon. Friend; at the same time, he should wish the bill to pass into a law, subject to the clauses proposed by the noble Lord opposite. A more scandalous monoply and a more scandalous combination never existed than that which affected the coal trade. He would now state to the House certain facts which he did not see in the report of the Committee of this year, but which had been partly elicited by the evidence brought before the Committee of 1836. The President of the Board of Trade had introduced a bill exempting coal exported from the greater part of the duty to which it was subjected, and the consequence of this was, that a greatly increased trade was going on with the north of England for the exportation of coals to foreign ports. If the owners of coal merely demanded the same price from the English consumer as they did from the foreign one, there could be no room for complaint. But that was not the rule they adopted. They sold their coals at 1s. per ton less than they would supply any for home consumption. That was not the worst of their conduct. There was a small sort of coal, called Bean Coal, which was fitted for lime-burners, engines, and steam-boats. The coal-owners sold that coal to the foreigner at 8s. 6d. the Newcastle chaldron, while they actually refused to sell a ton of it to the English consumer at less than double that price, so that the foreign consumer got it at a cheaper rate than the Englishman. Was there ever such a want of public spirit—such selfishness—that in order to drive the manufacturers of England and the steam-boats to use the large coal, they did that which was eminently calculated to promote the growth of foreign manufacturers. Was there ever such a monopoly—it was really infamous, and he hoped Parliament would adopt such regulations as would put the trade upon the principle of fair and open competition.

Mr. Bell

acknowledged, that it was with extreme surprise, that he had heard the proposition of his noble Friend, who was usually very anxious to do justice to all parties. He heard, with much surprise, the proposition of his noble Friend, because he had always found, that his noble Friend upon former occasions, when he had any matter on hand, showed the greatest disposition to do equal justice to all parties. In this instance he thought he had a fair right to complain that his noble Friend was disposed to treat a large portion of his constituents hardly. The great injustice of repealing the duty on inland coal, and leaving it in force as regards seaborne coal, was so apparent, on general principles, as not, in his opinion, to entitle it to the serious consideration of the Legislature. If, however, his noble Friend persevered in his motion, he hoped it would be dealt with in the way in which it deserved. It was, he conceived, a sufficient answer to the proposition of his noble Friend that, if carried, it would have the effect of giving a bonus to one set of traders over their competitors in the same market, which was contrary to sound policy and fair legislation. It should be borne in mind, in discussing this question, that the inland coal was charged as well as the sea-borne coal, with the 1,000,000l. for the improvements of the metropolis, and, if his noble Friend's proposition were carried, it would have the effect of throwing the whole charge on the sea-borne coal, which would be an act of great injustice. His noble Friend and other hon. Members had alluded to monopoly and combination, Now he could take upon himself to say that nothing of the sort existed. He understood monopoly to mean the privilege of selling confined to a few. Now the pri- vilege of supplying London and other places was not confined to the coal-owners of Northumberland and Durham; it was open to the coal-owners of Wales, Scotland, Yorkshire, and other places. The reason why the coal-owners of the North had the preference was, because they deal in a better article, and at a cheaper rate, as the following returns proved:—Wear Coals, 1st class, per ton, 11s. 6d.; 2d class, 9s. 6d.; 3d class, 7s. 6d. Tyne coals, 1st class, per ton, 10s. 6d.; 2d class, 8s.; 3d class, 6s. This is on shipboard. Tees coals average between the two prices. Scotch coal—Elgin's Wand, 12s. per ton; Parrot, 21s. per ton. Welsh coal—Swansea, 14s. per ton; Milford, 19s. 6d. per ton; Merthyr, 11s. per ton. Yorkshire from 8s. 6d. to 10s. 6d.; Staffordshire, 11s. 2d. per ton. Combination he took to mean the union of parties for the sake of raising prices. The effect of the regulation in the North had not produced that effect, coals having fallen there in price 2s. and 2s. 6d. the ton within a few years, and the rise in London had been a mere trifle. Stewart's had increased 11d. between 1836 and 1837; Hetton's 1s. in the same period, and New-mart's 17d. per ton. Neither had the regulation had the effect of limiting the supply to London. It had increased 750,000 tons between 1806 and 1827, and 250,000 tons between 1836 and 1837; and so far from the regulation being general, there were fourteen or sixteen collieries that did not belong to it at all. Perhaps hon. Members were not aware that the coal-owner received very little more for the expense and risk of working a ton of coals than the coal merchant received for conveying them to the consumer's cellar from the ship. The charge was as follows;—Cost of coals on shipboard, 10s. 6d.; charges in London, city dues, 2s. 8d.; freight, 9s. 4d.; London coal merchant, 10s.; total, 1l. 12s. 6d. per ton to the consumer. He trusted he had said enough to vindicate the coal-owners from the charge of monoply and combination; enough, also, to induce the House to reject the motion of his noble Friend. Although he had a great respect for the city authorities, yet, for one, he could not give his consent to a proposition that would have the effect of giving them the power of ordering a collier below Gravesend or into dock after the first market day if she had not disposed of her cargo, because such a proceeding would be very prejudicial to the interest of all those connected with the coal trade of the north of England. Any such enactment would press very hard upon the colliers when it is considered that vessels laden with grain and other traders would still be suffered to remain a month waiting for a favourable market, as was now the case. It should be borne in mind, that within a very few years the number of colliers suffered to remain in the Pool had been reduced from 170 to 146, in consequence of complaints of the crowded state of the river. Moreover, several tiers of these vessels had been removed from their berths to make entrances to the London and St. Katharine's Docks, the entrance to the one requiring a radius of 600, the other of 300 feet. To this the individuals connected with the coal trade submitted without a murmur, and he thought, therefore, that it was very hard that they should be still further interfered with. For one, he was of opinion, that neither the Legislature nor the City of London ought to interfere with individuals in the disposal of their private property, but that they should be left to make such arrangements as they should, in their own wisdom, deem most beneficial to their interests. Although he entertained those opinions, yet he would support the original motion rather than the amendment.

Sir Robert Peel

could not agree to the proposition of his noble Friend, as it involved a dangerous principle—viz., that of interfering with places which had natural and physical advantages, in order to bring them down to an equality with those which were less favoured. Every place ought to get the fair advantage of its local position; and to say, that goods brought from one place by sea should be subject to an impost, while those brought by land, from places not having the same facilities were exempted, was most unfair. The county of Essex, for instance, from its proximity to the London market, had great facilities for the disposal of its corn. But, would any one say, that the corn brought from Essex should be subjected to additional duties in order to bring it down to the level of other places more distant and less favoured? He agreed with the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) that there was a practical monopoly upon the part of the coal- owners, and that they were anxious and eager to get as much as they could. He was only surprised at the hon. Gentleman's indignation at the circumstance, and his disappointment at not finding disinterestedness and patriotism in a coal-hole. He, for one, never expected to find more patriotism in a coal-owner quà coal-owner than he did in a horse-dealer. He never expected anything but great selfishness from the coal-owners. He had foreseen the consequences of permitting foreigners to purchase their coal duty free several years since. He foresaw the injury it would be likely to create as regarded competition with foreign manufacturers, and it was the fault of that House that an exception had not been made with regard to that particular article, and thereby securing to England the elements of future prosperity. He acquitted the coal-owners of all blame, but he could not pass upon them those panegyrics which his hon. Friend, the coal-owner behind him, had complimented them with. Why, Quintus Curtius himself, if he was a coal-owner, would extort as much as he could. As the right hon. Gentleman had observed, they had legislated much too hastily upon the subject of railways. It was right that inland coals should pay as high a duty as those carried by sea; but the City had no right to demand more than a fair proportion. It was their duty to say to the City, "We will reduce the tax on inland coals, but then we require you to diminish the duty on sea-borne coal in similar proportion." He for one, could not consent that sea-borne coal should be charged with a duty while inland coal was allowed to pass free. The City, in his opinion, had a vested interest in this matter, which he was willing to protect to the uttermost. It had shown a great example of liberality in appropriating so large a proportion of these funds for the protection and convenience of trade. Although he could not concur in the proposal of his noble Friend, he would at the same time express a strong opinion, that it was impossible that anything could be more advantageous to the City than to make every reduction they could in the price of coals. The facility of procuring fuel was one of the greatest advantages which could be conferred upon the labouring classes of the community. It was most important to facilitate the delivery of coals. The metropolis was gradually becoming a great manufacturing town; and this, coupled with the improvements in steam navigation, rendered it most important that the price of coals should be reduced to the very lowest scale possible. The improvement of this great city he considered an object most worthy the application of its funds; and he thought, therefore, it was a legitimate application of part of this duty to the construction of a Royal Exchange. He should give his cordial support to the gradual reduction of the coal duty. He should be happy if there were none at all. He thought that would be the proper way of meeting the monopoly. But he would never consent to an attempt to secure to the consumers greater advantages than they ought justly to possess. He was of opinion it would be setting a most dangerous precedent to interfere with the property of other persons—not that he denied the existence of the monopoly—not that he did not believe in the existence of the combination, and he was quite ready to put an end to it by every legitimate means, but, at the same time, he would resort to no means not reconcilable with the principles of justice.

Mr. Pease

said, the coal-owners of the north did not object to competition on every ground. Till a few years ago coals from Yorkshire, Wales and Scotland, were gradually increasing in quantity, but the reduction in the price of coal from Durham and Northumberland had produced the practical monopoly which the country wished—the cheapest and the best. The coal trade in Durham and Northumberland had not, nevertheless, been a fair paying trade for the last ten years. He spoke feelingly on the question. He did not think the coal-owners of the north had much to do with it. The coals might rise to-morrow a shilling—the Staffordshire coals might then come into the market, and the market would be opened. After having heard all the evidence, he considered the best way would be to take the duty off, and let all parties stand fair.

Lord Teignmouth

could not support the motion of the noble Lord, because it appeared to him to be a partial way of meeting a great question, which was, whether this coal-tax should be continued or not. He thought considerable delusion existed on the subject of the coal-tax, and if that tax were removed, the consumers would not derive much benefit; but that if any party was benefitted, it would be the coal proprietor. He should be extremely sorry to gain a little popularity with his constituents by voting for a proposition that was manifestly unjust.

Mr. W. Attwood

should vote against the proposition of the noble Lord on the ground that the result of it would be, if carried, to give a bonus to the land-borne coal at the expense of the sea-borne coal.

Lord G. Somerset

said, the sense of the House did not appear to him to be so much in favour of his proposition as to justify the House in dividing on it.

Motion withdrawn.

The House went into Committee.

On the 13th Clause,

Mr. Hume

moved the omission of the last paragraph—"Provided also that no such regulations which apply exclusively to the coal trade shall prevent any vessel from remaining with the cargo thereof unsold within the port of London for a period not exceeding fifteen days." One great nuisance connected with the coal trade was, the great number of vessels allowed to remain in the river, frequently for several weeks. The committee discussed the remedy to meet this complaint, and it was agreed, that powers should be given to the committee of the city to make such regulations as would remove the complaints now existing of the great crowd of colliers that interfered so much with the navigation of the river. In order to protect the interest of the public against the errors of the city authorities, it was proposed, that all the regulations should be made by the navigation committee, but could not be acted upon without the sanction of the Board of trade. If the proviso were retained, the city authorities could not remove any vessel unless they had remained in the river more than fifteen days. Any one at all acquainted with the state of the river, must be well aware that such a length of time was too long, for it was much incommoded, and the authorities ought to have power to remove them sooner. He thought the proviso would stultify the whole powers given by the bill. He hoped the House would concur in the propriety of leaving the whole of the regulations in the hands of the city authorities, and he moved the omission of the proviso.

Mr. A. Chapman

denied, that the river was in the state represented, for, owing to the great exertions of the harbour-masters, the river, from the Lower Pool to St. Katharine's docks, was clear for ships. If the object of the hon. Member's proposition was, that the vessels should not be allowed to remain in the river any longer than fifteen days, unless below Black wall, he (Mr. Chapman) would not object to it. But he was of opinion, that any compulsory measure by which the ship-owners would be obliged to send their vessels into certain docks, entailing upon them additional expense, would inevitably throw that additional expense upon the consumer.

Mr. Labouchere

objected to the House making those regulations which might be much more conveniently left to the corporation of the city of London, assisted by the Board of Trade. The hon. Member opposite objected to these vessels being sent into collier docks, and he (Mr. Labouchore) quite agreed with him, that it would be inconvenient to send them in, but that was not the question before the House. As a general principle he objected to the limitation which these regulations imposed, which should be more properly left to the discretion of the corporation of the city of London and the Board of Trade.

Mr. Pease

complained of the unfair and harsh manner in which hundreds of thousands of ship-owners from the north were treated, by placing them in a position from which all other ship-owners were exempted. It was too much now to call upon the House to strike out the only clause which afforded a protection to the ship-owners. After a certain period they were to be driven out of the river, whether they had succeeded in selling their cargoes or not. The ship-owners in the north had full confidence in the fairness of the Board of Trade, but they had not confidence that the city would, on all occasions, administer those regulations with fairness.

Mr. Hume

agreed with the hon. Member, that if the provision was applied to the coal-owners alone, it would be highly improper; but he wished the regulations to be applied to all vessels frequenting the port of London.

Lord G. Somerset

contended, that the city, under the supervision of the Board of Trade, should have perfect freedom of action. He was anxious, that this clause should stand part of the bill; but he could not agree, that this proviso was to be considered as having the sanction of the Committee. The proposition of the hon. Member for Kilkenny was, to leave the question unfettered, and he hoped the hon. Member would succeed.

Mr. Bell

said, within the last few years the number of colliers in the river allowed to stand had been reduced from 170 to 146, and lately four or five tiers had been removed. The coal-owners of the north had agreed to this, and they ought not to be further fettered. Neither the legislature nor the city had any right to interfere with them in the disposal of their private property; they ought to be suffered to use their own discretion in making regulations beneficial to themselves and to the public.

Mr. Poulett Thomson

said, that they had agreed to give to the corporation of London, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trade, the power of making bylaws, and the question was, whether they should limit that power to a particular period? He presumed it had been considered for the advantage of the coal trade of the metropolis, and of the navigation of the river, that that power should be given; and if it were given in one thing he saw no reason why it should not be given in another, or why it should be limited. If they conferred on the city the power of making by-laws, because they considered it inexpedient, that that House should legislate by by-laws, it would be the height of inconsistency, if they acted on that principle, to limit the power by this proviso. He would not offer any opinion as to the time, he would not say whether he thought fifteen days, or thirteen, or ten sufficient, and his reason for wishing to exclude the proviso was, because they could not ascertain now, much less for the future, what number of days ought to be applied. If they were to adopt this proviso, they would effectually bar themselves from obtaining any advantage of a regulation, that should fix less than fifteen days. He did not believe, if it were left to the corporation of London, that they would make any regulation, that would be inexpedient, and if they did, the Board of Trade would not consent to enforce it. He thought, upon the whole, that it would be better that power should be given in this instance, as well as in the others, to the city authorities to make what regulations they should think proper.

Mr. A. White

said, that if the ship-owner was not allowed fifteen days for the sale of the cargo he would be put in a worse condition than the merchant who imported corn or any other produce into this river. It would be making a very improper and invidious distinction between shipowners.

Mr. Hume

thought, the navigation committee ought to have the power of fixing the time, lest the parties should make use of the time for the purpose of combining for the raising the price of coals.

Mr. Alderman Thompson

considered this a question which should be decided according to the extent of confidence the House had in the navigation committee. He for one should state, that, having been a Member of that committee, and having taken very great pains to have certain regulations carried into effect, but not having been able to succeed, he had no confidence whatever in their being fit persons to make by-laws on so important a question. He had been long convinced, that the way in which the navigation committee exercised their power was a most unwise mode of exercising it, and that it called loudly for redress. He had not confidence enough in the navigation committee to allow them to deal with so large and important a part of the shipping frequenting the port of London. Why were they to make laws for colliers, excluding all other vessels? The tendency of the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny was to drive the colliers into the docks. There was a project for constructing such docks, and no doubt if they should be found useful and convenient the colliers would enter them, but he protested against compelling them.

The Committee divided on the question, that the proviso remain part of the clause:—Ayes 49; Noes 96: Majority 47.

List of the AYES.
Alsager, Captain Dungannon, Lord
Barrington, Lord Eastnor, Lord
Blackburne, I. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Blackett, C. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Blair, J. Gladstone, W. E.
Blandford, Marg. Of Gordon, hon. Capt.
Bowes, J. Goulburn, H.
Bramston, T. W. Graham, Sir J.
Broadley, H. Grimsditch, T.
Bruges, W. H. Hardinge, Sir H.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Heathcote, G. J.
Chapman, A. Hinde, J. H.
Darby, G. Hodgson, R.
D'Eyncourt, C. T. Holmes, W.
Dottin, A. R. Hope, hon. C.
Duke, Sir J. Hope, G. W.
Hughes, W. B. Rolleston, L.
Hurt, F. Rose, Sir G.
Ingestrie, Lord Style, Sir C.
Kemble, H. Thomson, Alderman
Manners, Lord C. S. Waddington, H.
Meynell, Capt. White, A.
Ord, W. Wyndham, W.
Palmer, G. TELLERS
Praed, W. M. Bell, M.
Richards, R. Pease, J.
List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D. Langdale, hon. C.
Aglionby, H. A. Marshall, W.
Ainsworth, P. Maule, hon. F.
Archbold, R. Melgund, Lord
Attwood, W. Mildmay, P. St. J.
Bainbridge, E. T. Miles, P. W. S.
Baines, E. Morpeth, Viscount
Barnard, E. G. Morris, D.
Barry, G. S. Murray, J. A.
Beamish, F. B. Nicholl, J.
Bewes, T. O'Connell, J.
Blake, M. J. O'Connell, M.
Blake, W. J. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Bridgeman, H. Paget, F.
Brodie, W. B. Palmer, C. F.
Brotherton, J. Parnell, Sir H.
Bryan, G. Pattison, J.
Callaghan, D. Pechell, Captain
Campbell, Sir J. Perceval, G. J.
Cayley, E. S. Polhill, F.
Clay, W. Power, J.
Clements, Lord Price, Sir R.
Crawford, W. Rich, H.
Curry, W. Rundle, J.
Divett, E. Salwey, Colonel
Douglas, Sir C. Sanford, E.
Dundas, hon. T. Somerset, Lord G.
Easthope, J. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Eaton, R. J. Stewart, James
Egerton, W. T. Stuart, Lord J.
Ellis, J. Strutt, E.
Farnham, E. B. Tancred, H. W.
Finch, F. Teignmouth, Lord
Gibson, T. Thomson, C. P.
Gillon, W. D. Thornley, T.
Grant, F. W. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Grattan, H. Turner, E.
Grote, G. Vigors, N. A.
Hawes, B. Villiers, C. P.
Hawkins, J. H. Wallace, R.
Hector, C. J. Warburton, H.
Hill, Lord A. M. C. Wilbraham, G.
Hobhouse, T. B. Williams, W.
Hodges, T. L. Wilshere, W.
Howard, F. J. Wood, C.
Howard, P. H. Wood, T.
Hutton, R. Yates, J. A.
James, W. TELLERS.
Kinnaird, A. F. Hume, J.
Labouchere, H. Parker, J.

Proviso struck out.

Clause agreed to.

The House resumed.

Bill with amendments reported.

Back to