HC Deb 02 May 1867 vol 186 cc1913-25

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [11th April], "That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday the 29th day of this instant April;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the words "Monday the 29th day of this instant April," in order to add the words "this day six months,"—(Mr. Edward Craufurd,)—instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words Monday the 29th day of this instant April' stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would suggest the adjournment of the discussion till Monday, when he thought a more satisfactory solution might be arrived at. It would be inconvenient now to discuss the Bill, and still more inconvenient to dispose of it without discussion. He moved the adjournment of the debate till Monday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

MR. PAULL

said, that the gas com- panies were extremely desirous that no further delay should take place in dealing with this question. He believed his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) had a statement to make which would greatly facilitate the settlement of the question.

MR. J. GOLDSMID

said, there was a strong opinion entertained against the Bill, and many who opposed it were not present, not thinking the Bill would come on. Hon. Gentlemen who opposed the measure were not aware of the arrangement with the gas companies, and under these circumstances he hoped the Bill would not now be proceeded with.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he had no desire to proceed with the Bill against the feeling of the House; but he wished to take the opportunity of stating how the question at present stood. This was a Bill introduced by the Government as arbiters between the gas companies and the gas consumers of the metropolis. He might remind the House of the mode in which the question was raised last year. A Bill was introduced on the part of the City of London for the purpose of enabling the City to manufacture gas. That Bill was opposed by the gas companies, and was referred to a Select Committee, to which it was also referred to consider the operation of the Act of 1860, by which the gas companies of the metropolis are regulated. That Committee sat some time and produced a Report pointing out that the Act of 1860 had failed to secure to the consumers of gas those advantages and safeguards it was intended to provide, and recommending accordingly that an alteration should be made in it. The Government undertook to act as arbiters between the consumers and companies, and to introduce a Bill which might go before a Select Committee and settle the question. That Bill was prepared, and it had been matter of considerable discussion. Communications had passed between the Government and the companies, which were embodied in a paper before the House. Those communications had proceeded till to-day. Since the House met the Government had come to a final arrangement with the representatives of the gas companies of the metropolis—the parties affected by the Bill—that the companies would withdraw all opposition to the second reading on his making a statement to the House of the modifications he was prepared to introduce in the Bill. It was for the interest of all parties—certainly for the interest of the gas companies themselves as well as of the public—that if the Bill were to be discussed before a Select Committee no time should be lost. In consequence of a desire to settle this matter as far as possible out of doors, they had already lost the first half of the Session. A good deal of evidence must be taken, and if further delay took place, there might be difficulty in completing the investigation in time to legislate on the subject this Session. The parties really interested having come to an arrangement so far as to enable them to send the Bill before a Select Committee where the terms of arrangement would be finally settled, he did not see why the matter should be further postponed. A number of Gentlemen who did not represent gas companies in London, but water, railway, and gas companies in different parts of the country, had been urged by their constituents and others to oppose the Bill on the ground, as they called it, of principle. He denied that there was anything in this Bill that affected other companies. It was a Bill introduced for the purpose of arranging matters between gas companies and consumers in the metropolis. Let him remind the House what was the peculiar position of the gas companies in the metropolis. Their position was not like that of other companies, one of unlimited competition. They had, by the Act passed seven years ago, a monopoly accorded to them. That monopoly was attempted to be regulated; but Parliament not being very familiar with the subject did not succeed in giving the public all the protection which the Act purported to give. The question, then, was whether they should leave the companies in that position of unregulated monopoly; whether they would attempt to regulate it in a better manner than had hitherto been done; or whether they should attempt altogether to upset the arrangement of 1860, which, no doubt, many persons in the metropolis would be glad to do if no arrangement were made this year. The Government had undertaken this matter in no spirit of opposition to the gas companies of the metropolis, but in the spirit of the arrangement of 1860, for the purpose of introducing such further regulations as would make it work. But if they were to be met by an opposition of this character, which had been displayed by parties not connected with the gas companies of the metropolis, the Government could not proceed any further in the matter. He was authorized, on the part of the gas companies, to state, and his hon. Friend (Mr. Adair) would confirm he statement, that they had agreed to withdraw their opposition to the second reading on his stating to the House that he proposed to modify the provisions relative to the Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847, which regulated the profits of gas companies throughout the kingdom, so as not to interfere with the appropriation of profits within the limits defined by the Act of 1860. He proposed also to omit the purchasing clauses. There were other modifications in the Bill, upon which he had been in communication with the companies, and the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, with alterations in detail, which were referred to in the printed correspondence. He now made that statement. If the Bill was read a second time he would undertake on the part of the Government that Amendments of that character should be introduced; but if it was the feeling of the House that it was undesirable to proceed with the matter, he had no wish to do so. He could not, however, see any advantage in keeping the matter hanging over; it would be better to withdraw the Bill. The Government had assumed a thankless and disagreeable task when they undertook to decide in this matter. He had himself been dealt with rather harshly. He had received letters without numbers from clergymen and widows stating that the Bill would ruin them, would destroy all the foundations of property throughout the country, and that its provisions were infinitely more to the advantage of the consumers than of the companies. The gas companies themselves were not taking a wise course if they refused to go into a Select Committee and have the matter fairly discussed and evidence taken. If they wanted any arrangement, it must be on the principle that it afforded a satisfactory solution of the question. The petitioning resorted to of which they had, in this instance, the nest extraordinary examples, was such that no Bill of any kind could possibly be proceeded with against an opposition of that character. It made a use of the privilege of petitioning which was unfair and not in the spirit of the Constitution. ["No, no!"] The persons who were conducting the opposition to this Bill had sent out circulars and forms of petition, which they requested might be signed by individuals and presented in a mass to that House. Great numbers of persons had been induced to sign these petitions on the representation that their interests had been attacked, which was not the fact. Under these circumstances, the only course he could take in the matter was to regard a decision of the House in favour of adjourning the debate as a convenient mode by which the House expressed its opinion that the Bill should not be further proceeded with. ["No, no!"] It was impossible that this matter could be kept hanging over, day after day, the result of which would be that the Bill would be thrown over altogether, as it could not be got through the Select Committee in time to pass it into law during the present Session. He therefore should decline to proceed with the Bill in the event of the Motion for the adjournment of the debate being carried. The House must recollect that by permitting the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee they did not preclude themselves from discussing its detail, on a future occasion.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he thought the House should permit the Bill to be read a second time, seeing that the opposition of the gas companies had been got rid of. The petitions of which the right hon. Gentleman complained so bitterly had had the effect of inducing him to introduce important modifications into the Bill, and had enabled him to ask that the Bill should be read a second time. He scarcely thought the right hon. Gentleman would be entitled to construe an adverse vote on the Motion before the House as one which was fatal to the Bill, still he should vote against the adjournment of the debate.

MR. ADAIR

said, he had to a certain extent conducted the negotiations between the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the gas companies on behalf of the latter. As he had stated on previous evening, besides the question of details which the gas companies were perfectly willing to submit to the arbitration of a Committee, there was a much graver and larger question upon which they wished to obtain the opinion of the House—namely, the question which dealt with their dividends, which they believed were guaranteed to them by the deliberate Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman however, moved by the petitions which had been referred to, and by the representations that had been made to him, had agreed not to interfere with the dividends, and therefore the gas companies did not con- sider it necessary further to oppose the second reading of the Bill. The companies were perfectly willing that the remaining question should go before a Select Committee, who, while taking care of the interests of the public, would also protect the interests of those who had invested a vast amount of capital in these gigantic undertakings. With the reservation that their dividends as guaranteed by Parliament were not to be interfered with, the gas companies invited the fullest inquiry into the subject.

MR. AYRTON

said, that after the intimation which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote), he should ask leave to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he did not hold a single share in a gas company; but he could not help observing that a more despotic Bill than that of the right hon. Gentleman as it originally stood had never been introduced into that House. It had proposed to confiscate the property of orphans and widows, and it was the duty of those threatened to petition against it. He was glad that the petitions of which the right hon. Gentleman complained had compelled him to modify his original intention upon the subject.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he thought that the Government had acted very fairly in this matter, in which they occupied the position of arbitrators between the public and the gas companies. He wished to bear testimony to the justice and discretion which had characterized the whole of the right hon. Baronet's (Sir Stafford Northcote) proceedings in the matter.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. AYRTON

said, he had to animadvert upon the conduct of the Government. There had been much communication between the late President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the gas companies upon the matter, and it would appear that some arrangement had been come to by which it was settled that the Bill was to be read a second time. As a representative of the metropolis he begged to disclaim being bound by that agreement. They were no parties to it and could not be affected by it. As an arbiter between the gas companies and the metropolis, the right hon. Baronet seemed to have carried on the arbitration too much with a view to the interests of one party. He protested against the extraordinary illusions propagated by the proprietors of gas companies, who had talked about a confiscation of their rights, but they must remember that others had rights as well as themselves. While the gas companies were permitted to divide £10 per cent upon their capital, there was nothing in any Act of Parliament which precluded the local authorities of a borough from starting new gas companies on their own account, a course of proceeding which might speedily reduce existing companies to insolvency. If therefore the gas companies took their stand upon the mere question of right they would find themselves met by rights on the other side which would place them in a worse position than that contemplated by this Bill. The real question both for the gas companies and the inhabitants was whether they should have cheap gas by competition or by guaranteed monopolies. But even then it was a question whether the gas companies should have a guaranteed monopoly without anything being given in exchange. The course the right hon. Gentleman was taking seemed to amount to an abandonment of the interests of the metropolis in favour of the gas companies with whom the right hon. Gentleman had been in communication. The sooner, therefore, he withdrew from all responsibility in connection with this Bill the better for the interests of the inhabitants. He himself saw no necessity whatever for adopting so violent a course, and he had therefore suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the postponement of the debate until Monday next, because from what he had seen he thought there was a disposition on the part of the gas companies to appreciate the whole question, and to endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory solution. He did not oppose the second reading of the Bill as it was now framed; but he did object to any arrangement or understanding being arrived at which was to be binding upon the inhabitants of the metropolis, made without the sanction either of their representatives in the House or those to whom they had delegated authority out side. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would still do wisely in postponing the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped that some course would yet be taken which would be more satisfactory than the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. HUBBARD

said, he was not surprised to find that the Government had brought in a Bill upon this subject. He thought that the competition of gas companies might very fairly be made the subject of regulation. But though it might be necessary to introduce a Bill to protect the interests of the public, he thought that the Government had granted protection in too many ways. He had no objection to the proposal of the Government to limit the price to be charged. That could be reviewed from time to time. But he could not see any necessity for limiting the amount of dividend to £10 per cent. Such a limitation would naturally have the effect of depriving the companies of all inducement to exercise economy in the management of their affairs. If those two matters could be reconciled, he saw no reason why the Bill should not be read a second time.

MR. J. GOLDSMID

said, he wished to call attention to a point of order. The Motion on the Paper was that the Bill be read a second time on "Monday the 29th of April." To that an Amendment was moved that the Bill be read that "day six months." The form of putting the Question would be "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question;" but in case of that Motion being carried, as it certainly would be impossible to read the Bill a second time on Monday the 29th of April, it appeared to him that it would become a lapsed order.

MR. HENLEY

said, that this Bill introduced by the Government contained very strong provisions, to say the least of it. They were, however, told by the Government that these objectionable provisions, by some kind of negotiation which had been carried on outside the House, were to be got rid of when the Bill went into a Select Committee. But the House was placed in this mischievous position, that they were called on to affirm the principle of the Bill upon a kind of understanding that certain things were to be cut out of the Bill. This was not a desirable position for the House to be placed in. The subject was not an easy one. The House had created certain regulated monopolies with regard to the manufacture regulated some six or seven years ago by some summary act of the Government, and now it appeared they were required to be re-regulated. If this were to be done, the Government should do it in its integrity. He thought that would have been more just and satisfactory if the matter had gone pure and simple, as the phrase was, before the Committee, instead of the Committee being hampered by the provisions of the Bill. It might be said in some sense that the House had affirmed the principle of the Bill; though he protested against being bound by it in any way. He thought the principles unjust, that they should lay down the maximum of dividend which should be obtained, and that when a company had been brought down to a certain position then other persons were to be allowed to buy them out upon terms created by the Bill. That was a proposal as strong as any that they had often been called upon to sanction. If they had gone to a division upon the second reading he should have voted against it. He thought it would be more consistent with their practice that the Bill should be withdrawn, and that the subject should go to a Select Committee. Then they would be in a fair position to deal justly with it.

MR. MORRISON

said, he thought it unadvisable that too large a field of inquiry should be imposed upon the Committee at the present period of the Session. All political economists had objected to the 10 per cent regulation. He would suggest that the Committee should make certain alterations in the present law. Let the gas companies have the choice of submitting to the limitation of a 10 per cent dividend, or of endeavouring to increase their profits by improving their method of manufacture, They would then exercise economy it the management of their affairs, at the same time conferring increased advantages on the public. As a matter of fact, with the exception of the last year or two, almost all the gas companies had paid to dividend of 10 per cent. There was therefore no inducement which could lead to improved manufacture and increased economy, and, at the same time, cheaper rates for the public.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, that the gas companies were desirous to have all questions affecting their interest and that of the public submitted to the Committee, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote).

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid) has raised question upon which it will be necessary for me to say a few words. The House will observe that the Question proposed is that this Bill be read a second time on Monday the 29th of April. As we have arrived at the 2nd of May, it is impossible to read the Bill on the 29th of April. That indeed, would be beyond the power of even an Act of Parliament. The difficulty arose in this way. Late in the evening, when this question was last before the House, and when different Motions were being postponed, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) who had charge of this Bill proposed to put it for the 29th of April, upon which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) moved that the Bill should be read that day six months instead of the 29th of April. I have before pointed out the inconvenience arising from Gentlemen violently interposing with the ordinary course of business in the House. Happily, it is an unusual thing, when a Member having charge of a Bill proposes, from the lateness of the hour, to postpone it, that another interposes and insists upon moving an Amendment to that simple proposal. However, that course was taken upon this occasion, the debate was adjourned, and the matter stands thus:—The original Motion is that the Bill be read a second time on the 29th of April; the Amendment proposes to substitute "this day six months" for the 29th of April; and the Question to be put is that the words proposed to be left out should stand part of the Question. As the hon. Member for Honiton observes, the House cannot properly negative the proposal to read the Bill upon this day six months, and permit the original words, the 29th of April, to stand as part of the Question. I therefore propose that the House get over the difficulty by negativing the Motion that the words proposed to be left out—namely, "the 29th of April," stand part of the Question. The Amendment, "this day six months," then becomes the original Motion. If the House negative that also, the Motion—which has not yet been put—that the Bill be now read the second time, can with propriety be put.

Amendment and Original Motion put, and negatived.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said he moved that the Bill be now read second time. What he proposed in regard to the measure was, of course, not intended to bind the Members for the metropolis or any other parties. In referring the Bill to a Select Committee an opportunity would be afforded to all parties interested in the matter to introduce Amendments. He, however, only bound himself to the Government proposal. In reply to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) to the effect that the Go- vernment ought not to interpose in this summary way, and that it was better the matter should go independently before the Select Committee, he would remind his right hon. Friend that the subject did go last year before a Committee, and it was in consequence of the Report of that Committee that the present measure was introduced by the Government. It was framed as nearly as possible in accordance with its recommendations. As the gas companies had said that their case had not been fully heard before the Committee referred to, it had been proposed to them that a Bill founded as nearly as possible on the recommendations of the Committee should be introduced, and the gas companies could then have an opportunity of securing a satisfactory completion of their case. With respect to the impression current on the subject of dividend, he assured the House that the intention of the Government was simply to permit the gas companies to increase their dividends in proportion as they decreased the price in gas. This proposal he thought would offer an inducement to the gas companies to be economical, and lead to the benefit of the public, whereas now the companies had no such inducement when they had once reached the maximum dividend. The gas companies had objected that the Government had fixed too low a rate of dividend to commence with. The Government had accordingly consented to let £10 per cent instead of £7 per cent stand as the maximum of dividend, without corresponding decrease of price. To use a somewhat famous phrase, they had no wish to draw a "hard and fast line" at 10 per cent with respect to the dividend, but to make the 10 per cent the starting point, and fix the dividends on a sliding scale in accordance with the reduced price of gas. Those, however, were questions for the Committee to which the Bill was to be submitted. He denied that there was the slightest intention on the part of the Government to confiscate the property of the gas companies.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished it to be understood that no arrangement was made by the inhabitants, the local authorities, or the representatives of the metropolis in the House. They entirely repudiated the whole matter, and as far as he knew they would be entirely dissatisfied with what was proposed.

Motion agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

said, he wished to propose that the Bill should pass merely pro formâ through the Committee, in order that the alterations of the Government should be inserted before the Bill was referred to a Select Committee.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to suggest that the Select Committee should consist of ten Members—five to be nominated by the House and five by the Committee of Selection.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he was not aware whether the forms of the House would permit that.

MR. PAULL

said, he thought it would be undesirable that the right hon. Gentleman should pledge himself to the number of the Select Committee. The Bill had better be referred to a Select Committee of five rather, than ten.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, the Bill should be sent in its present form to the Select Committee for them to deal with it as they thought best.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, it would be better to commit the Bill pro formâ, and refer it with the Amendments to the Select Committee.

MR. POWELL

said, he hoped the Bill would be committed pro formâ, and reprinted with the Amendments. Much anxiety was felt in the country with reference to the principle of the Bill.

MR. ADAIR

said, he agreed with the suggestion that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, and reprinted with the Amendments before being sent to the Select Committee. The Metropolitan Gas Bill of 1860 was sent to a Select Committee of five Members, and he thought the House would exercise a wise discretion in following that precedent. A Select Committee of five would be most satisfactory to the House and those whose interests were concerned. The Committee should be moved by the Committee of Selection.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, the Committee should consist of ten Members, and care should be taken that they were not shareholders in, or directors of, gas companies.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, that in deference to the opinion of the House, he would commit the Bill pro formâ, and introduce the Amendments.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill committed, considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]