COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 15 July 1882 vol 272 cc565-632

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

COLONEL MAKINS

said, that when the question of holding a Saturday Sitting was discussed on Thursday night he intimated that he would not make the Amendment that stood on the Paper in his name with regard to this measure until the third reading of the Bill; but after a consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he came to the conclusion that it would be better to raise the question he intended to bring before the House with regard to the measure on the day when the Bill was specially fixed to be taken rather than on the stage of its third reading. As the Forms of the House, might, however, preclude him from moving his Amendment, he should content himself with drawing attention to the matter. As it was known that he was more or less connected with Gas Companies, he wished to state at the outset that he did not appear on that occasion as the Representative of their interests in opposition to this measure. On the contrary, the Gas Companies, as far as he was able to gather, were satisfied with the general scope of the measure, and, indeed, regarded it as a very strong and a very commendable effort on behalf of the Board of Trade to grapple with a very difficult question. But, although the Gas Companies were not opposed to the Bill in its general details, they were opposed to it on two points of principle to which it was desirable the attention of the House should be called. In the first place, in regard to the question of electric lighting, no Bill the House could pass would have any effect upon the competition which naturally must arise between various systems of lighting. The results of that competition must, in the end, depend on efficiency and economy; and, although regulations might be valuable in the interests of the public, he did not see how, in any way, they could affect the interests of the Gas Companies, who could well afford to look on as to what was taking place in the world in reference to electric lighting. They had had 40 years' start, and in the course of that period an enormous amount of capital had been provided under the sanction of Parliament, and expended in gas lighting in every part of the Kingdom. During the last few years electric lighting, a novel mode of illumination, had made great progress. That progress, he ventured to think, had been more scientific than practical; but no doubt it had made even practical advance, and the Exhibitions at Paris and the Crystal Palace had demonstrated its valuable qualities. Within the last few weeks 55 Companies had been registered, dealing with the question of electric lighting; and the aggregate capital approached, or even exceeded, the £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 expended during the last 40 years in gas lighting in the Metropolis and district. Although he should be the last person in the world to grudge the scientific men who had been engaged an adequate reward for their labours, he thought, at the same time, it would be patent to the House that a considerable portion of this capital was not likely to prove remunerative, except to the individuals to whom he had referred. The two points to which he wished to call the attention of the House were—first, the powers taken by the Board of Trade to grant licences to persons and to Companies to supply lighting by electricity; and, secondly, the fact that the local authorities were to be entrusted with the powers contained in the Bill, and might plunge into large expenditure for purely experimental and speculative purposes without being under the necessity of obtaining the assent of the ratepayers. As to the first point, the power asked for by the Board of Trade had hitherto only been granted by Parliament, either by express Acts of Parliament, or by Provisional Orders which had subsequently the sanction of Parliament. It was, therefore, an entirely new departure for a Department of the State to assume, or indeed usurp, the powers of Parliament to grant Charters to Companies or Corporations for purposes of this kind. Such licences should not be granted without the full sanction of the House after full discussion. Under Section 2, "public purposes" would mean the lighting of any street or place belonging to or under the control of the local authority, or any church or place of public worship, vestry hall, or theatre. Homo of the buildings mentioned in the clause were frequently occupied for other than public purposes, and certainly a theatre could not be called a public place. Besides, the licence would give power to the local authorities to raise money on the rates for private purposes—namely, for supplying electricity to private consumers. He did not know that such a power had ever been entrusted to local authorities before without their having first obtained the existing supply. In his opinion, it was undesirable to entrust public authorities with the power of using money derived from rates for purposes which might not unfairly be termed speculative. If the money were raised in this way there would be a temptation to create a bureaucracy within the local authority, which would have the power of spending money that they had not personally contributed except to a very small extent. Finally, he would ask the House to consider that there was no provision in the Bill for the ratepayers exorcising any control in this matter over their representatives when they were once elected, or for the auditing of the accounts of these undertakings. In con-elusion, the hon. and gallant Member moved the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is undesirable to retain in the Bill the novel powers proposed to he given to the Board of Trade to grant licences to local authorities, Companies, or persons, enabling them to exercise powers which have hitherto only been granted by Act of Parliament, or Provisional Order confirmed by Act of Parliament, and the power given to local authorities under Clauses live and six, and other parts of the Bill, to raise money on the credit of local rates, without the consent of the ratepayers, for the purpose of competing with private capital, are contrary to every principle hitherto recognized by the Legislature, and that no Bill containing such powers will be acceptable to this House,"—(Colonel Makins,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. CARBUTT

said, he was glad the hon. and gallant Member had called attention to this Bill, which was an entirely new departure in legislation, the principle of which, if carried out, would probably hereafter be applied to railway property, and entail, by the arbitrary mode of purchase now proposed, enormous loss on the present shareholders. The Purchase Clauses he very strongly objected to, and he thought they should be considerably modified. The principles of the Bill were a violation of political economy, and if the Purchase Clauses were passed they would be contrary to the principles of fair play. The public wanted a new mode of lighting, public bodies would not risk the money, and yet were to have the power of buying up the undertakings if these proved successful. Nothing was to be paid for past, present, or future profits; nothing was to be given for goodwill; but a valuation was to be made at what might be called auction price. This would be an injustice, not only to the private Companies, but to the public generally, and would prevent the laying out of money in such undertakings and improvements. All these Companies, up to the present time, were Companies anxious to sell their inventions. If they were to buy up the Companies at the end of 15 years it would not be to the advantage of the country, because it would prevent any improvement, and instead of increasing the use of the electric light, it would decrease it. In order to enable the shareholders to get back their money, they would require to make 10 per cent profit throughout the period. In the case of tramways, the period at which Corporations could purchase or re-let was 21 years, and he trusted in the case of electric lighting some concession would be made by the President of the Board of Trade in this direction, because he would find, if this were not done at the end of the 15 years, that a great injustice had been inflicted, and that no advance in electric lighting would be carried out. The evidence given before the Committee had only recently been placed in the hands of hon. Members, and he greatly regretted that they should have been called together on a Saturday morning to consider this subject.

MR. SLAGG

said, that all those who bad read the Report of the Select Committee must have been impressed by the fact that no data of any value in regard to electric lighting, certainly none of a commercial description on which calculations could be based of such a nature as to give solid foundation to commercial enterprize, had been elicited; and therefore this Bill, from the very nature of electric science, was necessarily of a purely tentative character. That fact certainly imposed a very great difficulty in attempting to legislate on the subject at the present time. His hon. Friend who had just spoken complained of the way in which Electric Lighting Companies were to be treated under the Bill, being tied down by the compulsory sale of their undertaking. But he (Mr. Slagg) took this view very strongly in regard to the establishment of Electric Lighting Companies in districts where gas was at present supplied by local authorities, who must necessarily be the best judges of what was good in such matters as lighting. He did not consider it to the public interest necessarily that outside Companies should be invited to come in and make an exploiting ground of an area which had already been supplied on the most favourable and economical terms by existing local authorities. Why should they encourage any outside body of people to come and abstract a profit already made by a local body applied to local purposes in the matter of rates? On that ground he considered that no encouragement was due from that House or the Legislature in getting private persons to invade towns where Corporations had already well discharged their duty to satisfaction. He would take the case of his own Corporation in Manchester. They had a very efficient gas supply, and supplied not only their own local area, but also 21 out-townships, at a very much lower rate than they could possibly supply themselves. What would happen under the aspirations of his hon. Friend? He wished to give encouragement and protection for the Board of Trade to allow Companies entirely outside the sympathy, accommodation, and interest of those bodies, to obtain and take away the profits which they had been accustomed to enjoy to the very great advantage of their community. He did not see that Electric Lighting Companies had any logical ground for assuming such a position. The provisions of the Bill were of such a nature as in no degree to discourage the progress of electric science. That science had made the most remarkable strides without any expectations whatever such as had been held out by his hon. Friend. It would continue to make those strides, and, no doubt, Corporations would avail themselves of that progress, and become the supplying authority, instead of leaning on the aid of outside Companies. As to the purchase of the plant of Electric Lighting Companies, considering the wholly uncertain and experimental nature of electric science at present, the terms provided in this Bill were amply sufficient and perfectly generous. Upon what ground could a Company claim to have compensation for any huge profit they might make during the 15 years for which they had obtained a Provisional Order? They might make a huge profit during that term—a profit acquired from the uncertain and experimental nature of the science, and that ought to be quite sufficient to indemnify them for the risk. It would be rather too hard to ask those communities whose territory had been invaded, and whose money had been extracted to pay huge dividends, to compensate the Companies for the business they had planted there. It was impossible at the present time to estimate accurately or with complete abstract justice what should be the terms upon which the purchase should be made. They could only guess, because it was remarkable that in the whole of the scientific evidence given before the Committee there was not even an enunciation or express declaration of opinion upon the elementary point as to what the cost of electric lighting was. The scientific authorities differed in the widest degree upon the point; and when they could get no data as to the cost of the light, the cost of the plant, or of any commercial item of importance, it was impossible that they could make any accurate provision as to purchase. They must not, therefore, attempt to tie down Corporations by onerous terms with regard to profits and to prospects which were at present without accurate foundation.

MR. W. FOWLER

said, the powers and terms of compulsory purchase were unfair to the Electric Lighting Companies as compared with those which were given to the Tramways Companies. After 15 years—an inadequate period considering the risks of the undertaking—the Corporation or local authority might come in and buy up the business if it was successful; if it did not pay, the Corporation would lie by; but if successful, they might come in and sweep the Company up on unfair terms. He wished to enter his protest against this, and considered that these Companies ought to have as long a time granted to them to recoup themselves as the Tramway Companies had. The object of Parliament ought to be to encourage people in these undertakings. They seemed, however, to be going from one extreme to the other; they gave Gas Companies too much, and now they were giving Electric Companies too little. He quite admitted that people were wild about electric lighting; but what they advanced their money for was not for the transaction of regular business, but for speculation, in the hopes of selling their shares at some gigantic profit. He noticed the other day that the £4 paid shares of the Brush Company were worth £28. That was a very demoralizing price, He was afraid if they did not take care they would discourage people from laying out their money. They held out the prospect to them of "heads I win, tails you lose," as the Corporations could not lose. His strong conviction was that Parliament was going too far in the way of protecting local Corporations and discouraging private enterprize.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he did not think the Bill was calculated to check en- terprize, for even since the decision of the Select Committee on the matter there had been no diminution in the operations of those interested in electric lighting. Speculators, he might further remind the House, would have the fullest notice of the terms upon which they would be bought up, and could not, therefore, complain. It appeared to him that the discussions which had been raised seemed more fit for the Committee stage of the Pill. He hoped the House would go into Committee as soon as possible.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he rose for the purpose of supporting the recommendation just made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) that they should go into Committee. The questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) affected matters of considerable importance, and if his Amendment was carried it would strike at one of the principal clauses in the Bill, and might be considered as almost fatal to the measure. The questions raised subsequently by his hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth Boroughs (Mr. Carbutt) and by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) could be more conveniently discussed in Committee. At all events, he should confine the observations he had to make to the very important question which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex. The arguments used by the hon. and gallant Member, and subsequently by the hon. Members for Monmouth Boroughs and Cambridge, were arguments which might be brought before the Committee upstairs on behalf of the Gas Companies and Electric Lighting Companies. He did not say those arguments were any the worse on that account; they were both important interests which had deserved to be fully represented before the Select Committee upstairs and also before the House. The subject in detail had been fully discussed by the Committee upstairs, presided over by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) with, he ventured to say, the greatest ability. The Committee was a strong and hybrid Committee, and gave the very greatest care and attention to the matter. All those powerful interests were represented by counsel; the Committee held a great number of meetings, and everything that could be said on the subject was carefully listened to; and he was glad to say that upon all important matters upon which they had decided the Committee was practically unanimous. There was some difference on matters of detail; hut even in cases on which the Committee divided there was, with one exception, a very large majority in favour of the views represented in the Bill. Now, the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex told them that the power proposed in the Bill to grant licences was a novel power. He at once admitted that was so. It followed out, however, a recommendation made by a very strong Committee which sat in 1870, and was presided over by the present Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair), and that Committee recommended the giving of facilities to Companies to conduct experiments. That sentence must be taken as guiding the discussion. Electricity was in an experimental state at present, and the object of the Bill was to give every facility for experimental processes in connection with electricity. But if they resorted to the practice which obtained in other matters, of proceeding by way of Provisional Order, the probability was that such Provisional Order might, at any rate, be opposed by great vested interests, which were to a certain extent hostile to the new illuminant; and the vendors and consumers, who were desirous of having this new light, and the inventors who were desirous of introducing it, would be at such a great disadvantage in consequence of the enormous cost of obtaining powers that they would materially interfere with the progress of this new science. Therefore, it was thought desirable to introduce some new method by which this experimental stage might be conducted with less expense. And what was that method? It was this. That where a local authority which was entitled to represent fully the wishes of the district, the representative authority for the district, agreed, that then the Board of Trade, after hearing all the parties who desired to make any objection or representation on the subject, might grant the licence—of course, for the experiment—for a limited period of five years. Certainly, they thought that would be an extremely convenient proceeding, and one which he hoped the House would see fit to adopt. The hon. and gallant Member for South Essex went on to matters, which were rather of detail, as to the new distinction which he con- sidered had been created between lighting for public and private purposes. He would say at once that was not a question of any importance. It might be that Companies, in the present state of electric lighting, might desire to light public buildings and streets, when they would not wish to undertake a general district illumination. It had, therefore, been considered to be expedient to make a distinction. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to protest against borrowing or raising money on the rates in competition with private capital, and without the consent of the ratepayers. This raised two important and separate questions. The first was whether it was justifiable to raise public money in competition with private capital. [Colonel MAKINS: Raised under Act of Parliament.] Whether under Act of Parliament or otherwise. The second point was whether such power should be permitted without the consent of the ratepayers. These were quite separate questions. With regard to the first question, it was a mistake to assert that Parliament had never given power to public authorities to raise and expend money in competition with private capital. It was done in the case of tramways, which came into competition with omnibuses, which were supported by private capital; and railways, the capital for which was raised under Act of Parliament. In the case of gas itself, Corporations with public money not only competed with other forms of illumination, but, in the majority of cases, they supplied fittings to private houses in competition with private enterprise. Now, the opposition proceeded on an assumption which he ventured to think was entirely without foundation. It was the assumption that in some way or another Gas Companies, or other parties having at the present time authority to supply gas, had obtained from Parliament the right to supply lighting. [Colonel MAKINS: I explained that distinctly.] He was not putting the words into the hon. and gallant Member's mouth. He was saying that it was only on such an assumption that the argument of the hon. and gallant Member was justifiable. The contention was one which had undoubtedly been presented to the Committee, and it was one entirely without foundation. In his opinion, Gas Companies or Corporations, having powers to supply gas, had obtained no right whatever to be protected by Parliament against the introduction of any new light. Then there came the second question, whether the local authority should exercise its powers without the consent of the ratepayers; and the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex appealed with good reason and considerable force to the experience of the Borough funds Act, under which Corporations were compelled, if they desired that their expenses should be borne by the rates, to appeal to the rate payers before the time of application for an Act of Parliament. He denied the statement of the hon. and gallant Member that that Act worked well in the opinion of those who he thought best qualified to judge. On the contrary, there was no provision in the Municipal Act which was more resented, and very properly resented. But let them understand. He always found in that House an almost certain method of obtaining a cheer was to speak of the great local government which had done so much for the happiness of the population and for the education of the people. Yet another way of obtaining a cheer was to sneer at the Corporations which had done the work. Hon. Members must choose between the two. If Corporations were really representative of the true interests of the ratepayers, which it was his contention was shown by the history of the last 30 years, then it was an unconstitutional proceeding to submit their opinions to a plébiscite whenever they went for now powers. Undoubtedly it tended to degrade them in their own eyes and to lessen their responsibility. It certainly seemed to him that the effect of it was bad in more ways than one, for it certainly lessened the efficiency and authority of Corporations. He hoped to see the time when the clauses of the Borough Funds Act containing this objectionable provision might be repealed. He had only one other remark to make. The hon. and gallant Member for South Essex had perhaps failed to observe that, although the Bill did not in this ease give an appeal to the ratepayers by plébiscite, yet it did provide that before any licence or Provisional Order was granted all persons interested should be heard by the Board of Trade. The objections of the ratepayers, therefore, would undoubtedly be attended to, as they were now when Provisional Orders were applied for and granted by the Local Government Board for a great number of purposes. Now, very largo powers for raising money, for consolidating loans for all kinds of municipal work, were granted to Corporations and local authorities after a local inquiry held by an officer of the Local Government Board, at which every ratepayer had a right to be present, at which all objections were heard and carefully considered; and he might say that this system had worked admirably—had saved the time of Parliament and saved the money of the ratepayers. It was that system, and no more, that the Bill proposed to substitute for the Borough Funds Act. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex would, as he understood it, abolish the power to grant licences, and would prevent Corporations and private persons from developing this new illuminant. That might be in the interests of Gas Companies, but not, in his opinion, in the interests of the public. His hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth Boroughs (Mr. Carbutt), who had a great interest in the progress and development of the electric light, would not vote for the Amendment, which would have a distinct tendency to prevent its general adoption. With these few observations he left the matter in its present state to Members of the House, and reserved to a later period his observations on the clauses.

MR. WARTON,

who had given Notice of his intention to move that the House go into Committee that day three months, said, that he was mainly concerned for the interests of inventors, whoso efforts would be trammelled by this Bill. Very strong evidence was given by one of their number, the owner of 10 patents and the recipient of numerous distinctions and decorations; and when such a man, speaking as the representative of his class, said that it would deprive them of security they ought to have, the House ought to pause before it placed them at a disadvantage. The Bill gave too much power to the Board of Trade, for which he had no great respect. Without offence to the right hon. Gentleman, he might be permitted to say that the Board of Trade did not content itself with its own business, but showed the tendency to encroach on the duties of other Departments. It had taken away from the Trinity House the management of lighthouses, and, if he might use the expression, it had stolen from the Admiralty certain duties connected with foreshore. No doubt this was all very natural, and that was the reason why they had been called down to the House on a Saturday to discuss a Bill which might, under different circumstances, have taken its chance with others in the ordinary way. He was not aware that there was a single scientific person connected with the Board of Trade. It was desirable to get behind this magnificent shadow to see what was the actual substance, because there was nothing this Board would not undertake to do, oven to altering Acts of Parliament by new orders. He regarded the adoption of the bureaucratic, or French principle of leaving everything to such a Board and its highly intelligent President, as unsatisfactory, if not unconstitutional. Not only did he advocate freedom for inventors, but he urged freedom for the Electric Companies to make their own way in the world as other Companies had hitherto done, untrammelled by the Board of Trade and unfettered by having to apply for licences, and being obliged to stand or fall on their own merits. There was another point—the interests of the ratepayers—and he regarded the continual attempts to press more and more heavily upon them as really abominable. Let them burn tallow candles, gas, or the costly electric light as they pleased, but do not, he said, compel them to do either of the three.

MR. MAC IVER

said, he could not help rising to enter a word in protest against the Bill. It seemed to him that objections could reasonably be made to the Bill which were in no way removed, but, on the other hand, rather increased, by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his remarks, seemed to him to speak as though there were only two parties to be considered—the private Electric Companies and Gas Companies. He entirely forgot and overlooked the case of boroughs, for instance, like Birkenhead, where the Corporation were the owners of the gas. If there had been longer Notice of this Sitting, he believed more Members would have been present to support his view. Personally, he (Mr. Mac Iver) had not any interest either in respect to gas or the electric light; but the House would pardon him for saying that he could not help feeling and seeing that this Bill was regarded as a fight between those who were respectively interested in gas and electricity. He did not believe that electricity was still in an experimental stage; on the contrary, it was proved that for very many purposes electric lighting would have permanent value, while gas would be used for other purposes. Further, he believed that an endeavour was being made in this Bill to obtain unfair advantages on behalf of certain speculators in electric lighting to the disadvantage of those who were in the position of the Corporation of Birkenhead, and who, like them, were making and providing the supply of gas for the town. He thought he in no way overstated the views the people of Birkenhead were likely to Lave on this subject when he mentioned that while they had no prejudice or any wish other than well in respect of electric lighting generally, yet they failed to see why the promoters of Electric Lighting Companies should have advantages which they—as the promoters of Gas Enterprizes—had not experienced in their time. What they asked—and that was all they did ask—was that there should be the most thorough fair play; that Electric Lighting Companies should be placed in the same position as others before them had been, and that exceptional powers should not be conferred upon them. He wished just for a moment to follow up what the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who preceded him, said with reference to the Board of Trade. That was a Department of which he (Mr. Mac Iver) had had a long experience from various points of view; and, while he had always—and with reason—regarded certain of its members with respect, he looked upon it as a Department which, in more than one particular, was thoroughly incompetent. The Speaker, he hoped, would pardon him for saying this, because not only he, but also the Archbishop of Canterbury, was a member of the Board; but he supposed that neither of them took any active part in its duties. If they did, no doubt his objections would be entirely removed, and the work imposed by the Bill would be in good hands. But no one knew to whom these powers would be intrusted, and he considered it wrong that the Board should possess them. It seemed to him that the President of the Board of Trade gave a peculiarly unfortunate illustration in support of what he was saying in the speech he had just delivered, for he spoke of tramways and their competition with other modes of conveyance, and compared that competition with the relative positions of Electric Lighting Companies and Gas Companies at the present time. Surely he might have gone on and pointed out how unfair some of the competition was. The Department, if at all, ought fairly to consider the whole question as between Electric Light and Gas Companies; and, having now offered his protest against the Bill before the House, he (Mr. Mac Iver) should be very glad to carry the protest further by going to a division.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, after the discussion, he would not trouble the House to divide, but would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Granting of licences authorising the supply of electricity).

MR. WARTON

said, that with regard to this clause he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the curious definitions given in the 3rd and 4th sections of the 2nd clause—he referred to the definitions of "public purposes" and "private purposes." With that omniscience which the Board of Trade possessed, they seemed qualified at any time to draw up a definition of anything, and to be able to exercise any powers on any subject. With regard to "public purposes," the Board of Trade said in the subsection that they should mean lighting any street or any place belonging to or subject to the control of the local authorities, or any known or registered place of public worship, or any vestry hall or building belonging to or subject to the control of any public authority, or any public theatre, &c. A theatre was a public place, no doubt; but the Board of Trade had not included music halls in this subsection, notwithstanding the fact that at the present time music halls were equally as important as theatres. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, or any hon. Member, had been to the Canterbury Music Hall; but if any of them had been there they must have seen that it was quite as important a place, from the point of view of this legislation, as any theatre, and they would have seen that the same class of audience attended the one as went to the other. He would move to insert the words "or music hall."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, after the word "theatre," insert the words "or music hall."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that, judging from the great legal acumen of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he should have thought that the hon. and learned Member would have been aware that a definition in an Act of Parliament was always, to some extent, an arbitrary thing. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not suppose it would be possible to include music halls in the Bill, because, if they went that length, they would have, on the same ground, to include an almost endless number of similar places of amusement. He took it that theatres would be lighted by electricity, as they afforded accommodation to large numbers of persons; but they were to a certain extent under public control. Moreover, theatres had often been included before in definitions of Acts of Parliament. They had been included in measures recently introduced, and he thought the Committee would be entitled to draw the line at theatres. It would not, in his opinion, be desirable to go any further. Of course, if music halls wished to have the use of electricity, they could adopt it in the ordinary way by obtaining a licence for a "private purpose."

MR. WARTON

said, that he had had the pleasure some time ago of going round London on a fire-engine to visit the theatres and places of amusement, and he found the music halls, or many of them, were quite as important as some of the theatres. In one music hall, it was very well known there had been two fires. The building was a very capacious one, consisting of a large central hall and commodious galleries. Some day or other it might be lighted by electricity; but it was not to come tinder the provisions of this Bill as a public place, notwithstanding its previous history, and notwithstanding the fact that it was attended by far bigger audiences than some of the minor theatres, and that it was a very popular institution indeed. If the Government did not accept his Amendment, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee upon it.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, this matter was not of that consequence which the hon. and learned Member seemed to suppose. By excluding music halls from "public purposes," the Government did not interfere with the possibility of these places of entertainment being lighted by electricity. The only thing was that the licence for lighting them would be a licence for "private purposes" instead of for "public purposes." The only question in the matter was as to which category they should be placed in.

MR. WARTON

said, his point was this—that many of the music halls were quite as important as some of the theatres. Some of them had bigger audiences, and there was quite as much danger from fire breaking out in them as in any of the theatres. He should be obliged to press his Amendment.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

wished to point out that there would be less risk from fire by electric lighting than there was at present by the present system of lighting by gas. The possibility of an outbreak of fire, except, of course, in cases where the engines and dynamo machines were on the premises, was prevented by the fact of the introduction of a small piece of lead into the wire. When there was too high a tension, this piece of lead would melt and stop the current. If the engines generating the electricity were on the spot, there would, of course, be danger; but, otherwise, lighting by electricity on the low-tension system was safer than gas-lighting.

MR. M. BROOKS

said, the hon. Member for the County of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton) had an Amendment to the last clause of the Bill, and it ap- peared to him (Mr. Brooks) that it would be advisable to discuss that proposal now, as this was a better place for it. The hon. Member suggested that inquiry should be carried out by the Local Government Board in Ireland.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that question would come on subsequently.

MR. M. BROOKS

said, he did not think he was out of Order, as he was merely pointing out that it would be desirable that the hon. Member for the County of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton) should bring forward his Amendment on this clause.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, the point now before the Committee was the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Warton).

MR. WARTON

Yes; it is whether the words "music hall" shall be inserted.

MR. SHAW

said, that many hon. Members had not the remotest notion as to what the Amendment was, as the words were not on the Paper.

THE CHAIRMAN

The proposal is, after the word "theatre," in page 2, line 7, to insert the words "or music hall." The Question is, that the words "or music hall" be there inserted.

MR. CARBUTT

said, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) came on page 2; but he (Mr. Carbutt) had an Amendment which would come on be-fore that—namely, at the bottom of page 1, in Sub-section 2, which said—"A licence shall be for any period not exceeding five years," &c.

THE CHAIRMAN

That Amendment cannot be put, unless the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. War-ton) withdraws his proposal.

MR. WARTON

said, he should be happy to withdraw any Amendment of his to facilitate the bringing on of any other Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CARBUTT

said, he should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he would agree to any alteration in the Licensing Clause, because, as it stood at present, it would give a Corporation the power of vetoing the existence of a Company altogether? A Company might go to work for five years with the consent of the Corporation, and that Corporation might, at the expiration of that period, say—"You must now clear out your wires and engines, because we want to let somebody else in." He (Mr. Carbutt) should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could see his way to having a revision of the term during which a Company was to be allowed to carry on its operations.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member propose anything?

MR. CARBUTT

said, he only wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he could see his way to making any alteration in the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

But I must point out that there is no Question before the Committee.

MR. CARBUTT

Then I beg leave to propose to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "seven."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, leave out "five," and insert "seven."—(Mr. Carbutt.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

wished to know the exact point the hon. Member desired to raise. He (Mr. Chamberlain') would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the sub-section said— A licence shall be for any period not exceeding five years, but may at the expiration of such period be renewed, at any time, with such consent," &c. The only cases, therefore, in which licences could not be renewed would be those cases where the local authority had refused their consent. If the hon. Member proposed that the Board of Trade should go outside the consent of the local authority, he was really suggesting that the Board of Trade should usurp the authority of Parliament in a way it had hitherto never attempted to do. It was one thing to say that the Board of Trade should be empowered to grant a licence with the consent of the local authority; but it was another and a totally different thing to say that it should override the local authority without recourse to the opinion of Parliament.

MR. MAC IVER

said, he should like to know who were the Board of Trade for the purposes of this Bill?

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, that supposing a Company went to a local authority and said—"We cannot go to the expense of laying down our wires for such a short period as five years, but we will make an experiment in electric lighting if you will give us, say, 10 years," he presumed it would be in the power of the local authority, under such circumstances, to agree to such extension of time. But yet the local authority in existence during the first five years would not have power to bind their successors. He wished to know whether any arrangement for an extension of time could be made at the outset?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that the Board of Trade were not able to grant licences for a longer period than five years; but, at the same time, he saw nothing to prevent a local authority from agreeing with a Company that at the expiration of five years they would continue their consent. With regard to the question asked him by another hon. Member (Mr. Mac Iver), there had been a discussion in the House on the matter referred to some time ago, and the whole question had been gone into. It was perfectly true that the technical constitution of the Board of Trade—coming down as it did from ancient times—included the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and many other personages; but for many years the Board as so constituted had never met.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, that if, at the end of five years, the local authority agreed with the undertakers that the licence should be extended for another five years, he presumed that there would be the same power of objecting as there had been in the case of the original licence. The application would be, to all intents and purposes, for a new licence, only the Local Board or Corporation might have agreed beforehand with the undertakers not to oppose the renewal.

MR. MAC IVER

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Committee to understand that, for the purposes of this Bill, the "Board of Trade" is the right hon. Gentleman himself?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

Certainly, for the purposes of this Bill, the person who has control of my Office, working through, his officials.

MR. CARBUTT

I understand that a Company may arrange with a Corporation for a licence for 10 years.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a Company making an arrangement with a Corporation for 10 years, so far as the consent of that Corporation is concerned.

MR. W. FOWLER

But at the end of the five years there might be a new Corporation, and no bargain of that kind would be at all binding upon them.

MR. SLAGG

said, the 2nd sub-section had these words— A licence shall be for any period not exceeding five years, but may, at the expiration of such licence, be renewed at any time, with such consent as above mentioned, upon such terms and conditions as the Board of Trade may determine. There was nothing in these words to show that a licence could practically be granted for 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) said, however, that a licence could be given by a Corporation for 10 years. That statement seemed to alter the Bill altogether. An agreement for 10 years must be a binding one, and he (Mr. Slagg) did not see anything in the Bill to give such a power.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I was asked with regard to the consent of the Corporation only, and not with regard to the granting of the licence. Hon. Members must bear in mind that it is not the Corporation which grants the licence, but the Board of Trade, which, before doing so, must be satisfied that the conditions are fair and reasonable, and are such that under them they could properly accede to the application. The Board of Trade will make a thorough inquiry into the circumstances of the case, unless, of course, the local authority says—"This inquiry shall not be made, as we do not give our consent." Of course, it is necessary that the consent of the local authority should be given. The Bill does not bind the local authority to say that it shall not renew its consent. An hon. Member says that the Corporation cannot bind its successors; but that is not the case, as Corporations are continually binding their successors.

MR. CARBUTT

said, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. WARTON

wished, before the Amendment was withdrawn—and the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman would tell him whether or not he was in Order—to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to a matter of some importance. He spoke in no unfriendly spirit to the right hon. Gentleman, and would not propose an Amendment, preferring rather to leave the matter to the right hon. Gentleman's good sense. The sub-section said—"At the expiration of such licence, be renewed at any time, with such consent," &c. He should think the licence ought to be renewed immediately it expired, and not "at any time," as the Bill had it. Such things as this, owing to. the hasty way in which they were getting through the Bill, were apt to be lost sight of. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be advisable to introduce an Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment before the Committee has not been withdrawn, and that must be disposed of before any other Amendment can be put.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, there seemed to him to be some difference of opinion with regard to this part of the Bill. As far as he was concerned, he was satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade; but if there was a doubt as to the power of the Corporation to consent to the granting of the licence for a longer term than five years, perhaps the Government would consider the matter before the Report, and make the whole thing clear at that stage.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it seemed to him to be a most alarming doctrine to lay down that a Corporation always had the power of binding its successors. One body might be in office for five years, and it might be succeeded by another of a totally different shade of local politics, and it would be in the highest degree dangerous to say that the first body was to bind the second. This Bill laid down, as a matter of public policy, that a licence should only be granted for five years; and it would be a very inconvenient thing to give the Corporation the power of departing from that line of public policy, and bind- ing over their successors, who might be of a very different way of thinking with, regard to this question.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I did not say that a Corporation would bind over its successors in all cases. The Corporation will not bind its successors as to policy; but if such a body makes an agreement, its successors will be found to adhere to it as in the case of all other contracts. If that were not so, how on earth could anybody have dealings with a Corporation?

MR. E. STANHOPE

If a Company cannot bind a Corporation for 10 years, how can they do it for five? That is the reductio ad absurdum.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

But the Bill gives them power specifically to bind the Corporation for five years.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, that an agreement would be obtained for a licence for five years, and the local authority, at the same time, might enter into an agreement with the undertakers that when the licence came up for renewal they would not, as a public body, oppose it. But, then, the subsection went on to say— With such consent as above mentioned, upon such terms and conditions as the Board of Trade may determine. So that, practically, the local authority and the undertakers could agree that, on the expiration of the first five years, there would be no opposition to application for renewal at any time. In this way the Company might agree with the Corporation for perpetual powers—they might go on for ever. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No!" but he saw nothing to prevent it. A Corporation might agree that they would abstain hereafter from opposing any renewal of the licence.

MR. W. FOWLER

said, he was well aware that a Corporation could bind its successors; but it could not do socontrary to the spirit of the Act, and the spirit of the Act clearly was that a licence should only be granted for a period not exceeding five years. At the end of the five years, seeing that there might be a different Corporation in power, it was only fair to require that the consent should be given over again. That was a very important point, which should not be lost sight of.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, that a Corporation was a perpetual body, which could enter into an agreement in perpetuity or for any term of years. According to this Act, the Corporation could give its consent for five years; but it was within its power to make an agreement with the Company that it would, at the expiration of five years, renew its consent. There could be no doubt in the mind of any lawyer on this point. If such an agreement were entered into by a Corporation, it would unquestionably be binding on their successors, just as agreements of the kind wore binding in other cases. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would allow him to make a suggestion, he would say that the wording of the sub-section was rather loose, and that it would be better, instead of using the words "at any time," to say "from time to time."

MR. STORY-MASKELYNE

said, there was one point that had been lost sight of. The only condition under which the question of renewing the licence would arise would be a case in which a Company had not discharged its proper functions—in which it had failed to discharge the duties the Corporation had intrusted to it. In such an eventuality it was only right that there should be a power to prevent the renewal of the licence at the end of five years. It seemed to him that, under the Hill, when a Company had not done its duty, the Board of Trade could intervene; but in this matter it was not only the Board of Trade, but also the local authorities, who were interested, and at the end of five years the Board of Trade, as well as the Corporation, would have the power of intervening. The power of repeating their consent, he apprehended, was given by the Bill. When they said that the Board of Trade should have power, at any time, with the consent of the Corporation, to issue a licence, and that at the end of five years that licence should be renewed, what they meant was that the renewal should be a renewal for five years. The President of the Board of Trade would bear him out, he thought, in saying that this was the idea of the Select Committee, which had sat to consider the Bill, when this question came before it. He imagined that the point was not sufficiently well put in the Bill as it stood. At any rate, he did not think there would be any objection on the part of the President of the Board of Trade to the insertion of words in the measure to make the point sufficiently clear, if the clause as it at present stood was not sufficiently explicit.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he was not quite sure whether he would be in Order in referring to a technical Amendment on this point; but he thought that the words "at any time" ought to be retained. No application for the renewal of a licence could be granted without giving the Board of Trade a sufficient time to consider it.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he thought the Committee had got into some little confusion. The Bill did not interfere with the powers of a Corporation to make an arrangement beyond five years with a private Company; but what it did do was to give protection to the public—not to limit the power of a Corporation to give their consent, but to limit the action of the Board of Trade. Under the Bill, it would be necessary for the Board of Trade to renew the licences every five years. It was not necessary to limit the power of a Corporation, because their decision was not final. The final decision rested with the Board of Trade, and every case would have to be considered by them every five years.

MR. E. COLLINS

said, that this was a very important point, and he hoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn. No doubt, their great object was to benefit the public, and all those interested in electric lighting. The clause said that the licence should be for any period not exceeding five years, and he could not for the life of him see how objection could be taken to the Board of Trade extending the time during which their consent would apply, seeing that they had power to limit it. If this Amendment were adopted, they would not be bound to go to the extent of seven years; but they might give their consent for six, five, or three years. So many views might develop themselves within five years that the authorities might find it advantageous to have this power. He spoke with some practical experience as to the advantage of leaving the Board of Trade discretionary power in this way, because, from his dealings with that body, he had found that they had a tendency—he did not say on the part of the President, but on the part of the minor officials—to limit their own powers as far as possible. He did not see any objection to giving the Board of Trade the powers suggested; but they would use them or not at their discretion.

MR. SHAW

said, the public would be heard through the Board of Trade. It had struck him very forcibly that there ought to be a provision in this Bill by which the public could be heard in another way than before the Board of Trade in London. Corporations did not always, particularly in money matters, thoroughly represent the views of their constituents; and, therefore, if in questions of this kind there were very strong public opinions entertained in a locality, it would be a wise provision to make some arrangement for local inquiry. In Ireland Provisional Orders were never granted except after local inquiry. Then, as to another point. If the five years' limit was retained in the Bill, it would render the measure, to a very large extent, a dead letter. He did not think any man of capital would be inclined to spend any large amount of money on a five years' licence—on a licence that might be revoked at the end of five years by a Corporation, which was a fluctuating body. An application was made for a renewal of a licence. The old Corporation, which had given their consent in the first instance, might no longer be in power, and the licence might be revoked by the new local authority. He did not see why the Board of Trade should put any limit in the Bill; and it seemed to him that it would be much better that they should grant licences without limit of time, reserving to themselves the power of revoking them whenever they thought it desirable. He was certainly of opinion that if the clause stood as it was, there would be very little money spent on these electric lighting experiments.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that, no doubt, these were points of great importance, and he was in entire sympathy with the hon. Member (Mr. Shaw). With regard to inquiry, the practice of the Board of Trade had, in all these cases, been to provide for local investigations where inquiry in London would cause unnecessary inconvenience and expense to the parties. Undoubtedly, local inquiries should and would be held in many cases.

MR. SHAW

That is not provided for in the Bill.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, it was very true it was not provided for in the measure, but it would be provided for in the regulations which would be made by the Board of Trade. With regard to the second point mentioned by the hon. Member—namely, the period for which the licences were to be granted, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman did not take in view all the provisions of the Bill. It must be remembered that there were two methods by which electrical experiments could be carried out. The first was by obtaining a licence; and the second was by Provisional Orders. If a Company desired power to conduct their experiments for a longer term than five years, the Bill said they must go for a Provisional Order; and if they wished to carry out their experiments without the consent of the local authority, again the measure said that they must obtain a Provisional Order. The Board of Trade had no authority to repudiate any action taken by the House of Commons, and he was sufficiently modest to suppose that the House of Commons would not care to give up its powers with regard to Provisional Orders to himself. With regard to the licence, the period during which it should apply was limited to five years; but, at the end of five years, it was renewable on inquiry.

MR. CARBUTT

said, that suppose a Company went to a Corporation and said this—"We want to make an experiment in electric lighting in your town;" and the Corporation replied,—"We will give you permission for five years;" and the Company said—"If we succeed in five years, after the five years we will make fresh terms with you," might not the Corporation at the end of that period Bay—"Unless you reduce your price by one-half, in spite of the expense you have put yourselves to, we will make you take up your plant and go away?" In this way the Company might be compelled to reduce its price to a minimum. However, after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, to the effect that a Company might agree with a Corporation that at the expiration of the first five years there should be a renewal of the permission, and as he considered that would be a great benefit to the public, as well as being satisfactory to the Electric Lighting Companies, he would withdraw his Amendment.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, the words in the Bill did not carry out the view which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had expressed. The experiment could be renewed at any time on such terms and conditions as the Board of Trade might determine, and he did not see anything in the clause that would render it certain that the permission for a licence could extend beyond the first five years. Would it not be well to insert in the sub-section the words "such further term of five Years?"

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the matter was covered by the previous description of the licences. The sub-section said—"A licence shall be for any period not exceeding five years."

COLONEL MAKINS

Is there any objection to putting in words to make it perfectly clear?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

It is perfectly clear as it is.

MR. CALLAN

said, that in Ireland, if a local authority wanted to borrow money to make waterworks, it could not do so without first obtaining the consent of the ratepayers, who, therefore, had direct control over the Corporation in such a matter as this; and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government would have any objection to putting in the Bill words giving the public the same control with regard to electric lighting as was given to them in the matter of waterworks?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that if the hon. and learned Member had been in his place during the whole of the discussion upon this Bill, he would have heard that point cleared up—he would have heard how far the control of the ratepayers was recognized in the Bill. It was considered that the provision suggested by the hon. Member was not necessary in this case. It was not a matter requiring the consent of the ratepayers for the raising of money, but only a matter of giving consent to the establishment of a lighting undertaking. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was surprised at any objection to the local authority having the powers contained in the Bill conferred upon them coming from persons who were interested in Home Rule and local government. He was astonished to hear any suggestion for destroying the Constitutional form of representative government proceeding from that quarter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

said, the sub-section proposed that a licence could be renewed "at any time." How could it be renewed at any time? What was clearly meant was that it should be renewed after its expiration. He would propose that the words "or at any time after" should be inserted.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 28, after the word "licence," insert the words "or at any time after."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he was much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for pointing out what seemed to him (Mr. Warton) to be a defect in the Bill. He (Mr. Chamberlain), however, did not believe that such defect existed. The words "at the expiration of such licence" seemed to govern the clause; and, as he understood it, a licence could be renewed from time to time after the first licence had expired. He would promise to take note of the point raised by the hon. and learned Member, and to consult the draftsman of the Bill with regard to it; and if he thought it necessary to make any alteration, such alteration would be proposed at a subsequent stage.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, that it would be undesirable to wait until the licence expired before renewing it, because, if they did so, people who had invested might be inconvenienced, and it would be very desirable that they should know beforehand what was to be done, in order that they might make proper use of their capital. It seemed to him that there ought to be powers in the Bill by which a licence could be renewed before it expired.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that an agreement for the renewal of the licence could be entered into before the licence expired.

MR. WARTON

said, that after the promise of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

said, it was necessary that they should know for what period a licence was to be renewed. The clause did not give the period. He would propose, therefore, that in page 2, line 1, after the word "time," they should insert the words "for a like period." The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, might mean that in his own mind; but it was for the Committee to consider what the Bill actually said. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Corporation would have power to agree to the renewal of a licence; but that renewal should be for some definite time, and he (Mr. Warton) therefore proposed that it should be for a like period—namely, for five years.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after the word "time," insert "for a like period."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that, perhaps, the hon. and learned Member would allow him to suggest, for the purpose of saving time, that the words at the beginning of Sub-section 2—namely,"a licence shall be for any period not exceeding five years"—would control the rest of the section.

MR. WARTON

said, that a great deal would depend on the form in which the licence was to be drawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the licence would fix the number of years, and it would be for the Company to agree with the Corporation as to the period it should operate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL MAKINS

wished to know how many renewals could take place before it became necessary to go for a Provisional Order?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there was no limit to the number of renewals.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is no Question before the Committee, and we must go on in a systematic way with the Amendments.

MR. MAPPIN

Shall I be in Order in moving the omission of the words "at any time?"

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes.

MR. MAPPIN

said, he would move the omission of those words. It was very important that the Committee should come to a decision on these matters, and that legislation should be decided. It was quite evident that before five years were over they would have to give satisfaction to the local authorities. Some arrangement would have to be made, or, if not, the whole thing would lapse. The omission of those words, "at any time," would make the matter definite, and compel the parties to come to some arrangement with the authorities.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 28, to leave out the words "at any time."—(Mr. Mappin.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

The Amendment which is now moved by the hon. Gentleman raises a now question. I do not know whether he intends to raise it; but if you strike out these words, the construction of the clause will be this, that there may be one renewal but no more, and you limit the powers of the Board of Trade, even with the consent of the local authority, to make more than one renewal. I do not know whether this is what is meant; but I would say, under these circumstances, that it is no doubt desirable to limit the discretion of the Board of Trade in some way. I quite believe that the application for a renewal should be put on exactly the same footing as the application for the original licence. There will be the inquiry of the Board of Trade, which will take into account all opposition that may be raised to the licence and the conditions of the licence, and only after such inquiry and consent will they be ready to grant the renewal. I think there should be a continuing power to grant renewals so long as these conditions exist. But, putting that aside, there is a now point. If all that is desired is to make it perfectly clear what the words mean, I will promise the Committee to consider the subject with the draftsman, and if I find it necessary to make any alteration for the sake of clearness, I will bring it up at a subsequent stage.

MR. J. K. CROSS

suggested that if the words were "from time to time," it would then be necessary to leave out some of the words before them.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had been about to suggest the same thing, and he understood the effect of it would be to make it possible to renew the licence from time to time, from five to five years, and nine to nine, just like an Irish lease.

MR. MAPPIN

said, he thought that where the Board of Trade and the Corporation were not satisfied with the arrangements made, it would be better that those arrangements should come to an end. If the Company having the licence could not arrange with the Board of Trade, it was better that some other power should take their place.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

No doubt, it would be desirable, under those circumstances, that the licence should come to an end; and so it would, because if it were proved that the undertakers had not carried out their obligations, undoubtedly the licence would not be renewed. But that is not all. There are powers under the Bill to bring it to an end before the term is reached.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he thought there was also another question raised. The words were "that the consent of the authorities should be obtained from time to time," and it would then be in the power of a Corporation to agree beforehand that their consent should from time to time be given, the result of which would be, that so far as their consent was concerned, they would be in the hands of the Company to whom they would have delegated a perpetual power of electric lighting.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, because he thought that, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had pointed out, it would prove very inconvenient. The omission of the words "at the expiration of such licence," in order to insert the words "from time to time," would, he thought, carry out the general views of the Committee.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

That is the suggestion that was made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and in order to meet it I have already said that I will consult the draftsman, and if he sees no objection, the alteration shall be made.

MR. JACKSON

wished to point out one other objection to these words. It might be desirable that in the first instance the licence should be, say, for two years and not for five, and it might also be desirable to continue it after- wards for a like period. [An hon. MEMBER: The words are "not exceeding five years."] The proposal was to add the words "for a like period." He did not desire to see those words there. One point had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade which he confessed he did not quite understand. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was power in the Bill to terminate the licence before its time.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

You will find it in Sub-section 7.

MR. JACKSON

said, he had not understood that there was power to terminate the licence if they failed to perform their duties. It would be very unfair to a Company having a licence for five years to be at the mercy of a Corporation. It would be very much safer for the clause to stand as it was.

MR. MAPPIN

said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

said, that in order to get an opinion from the Government, he believed that he would be bound to move some Amendment. He would, therefore, move, in page 2, line 14, after the word "licence," the insertion of these words—"or for the renewal of the licence;" and he made the Motion in order not to press those particular words upon the Government, but to get from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade some statement as to what form, if any, was to be gone through by the licencee to have his licence renewed. He thought the same things ought to be done when the original application was made as when a renewal was applied for. He did not find any form in connection with this clause which would show how or in what way an application might be made for a renewal of the licence.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 14, after the word "licence," insert "or for the renewal of the licence."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the same proceedings should be taken for the renewal as for the original licence. But I understand that to be the case as it stands.

MR. WARTON

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CALLAN

wished to make a suggestion. In line 16, which provided for an explanation, statement, or notice, it was set forth that it should include "such particulars as the Board of Trade may from time to time approve." He proposed to insert there these words— And such notice shall state fully the terms on which it is proposed that the electric light shall he supplied. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance on the subject; but it should be clearly understood that the particulars which the Board of Trade required to be published should contain the terms on which the light was to be supplied, or otherwise the people who were interested—the ratepayers—would not know the terms—terms which, if they had known what they were, they might have come forward and objected to. The interested ratepayers should have full notice of the terms on which the licence was to be granted.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, insert "and such notice shall state fully the terms on which it is proposed that the electric light shall be supplied."—(Mr. Callan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

In the 3rd clause it is set forth that the undertakers shall give a statement of the prices; but it would be difficult to put it in the application, as a statement of prices could only be arrived at after full consideration between the parties.

MR. CALLAN

said, he only wished the consumers to know. He would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

moved the omission from line 30 of the word "make," in order to insert the word "contain." The words, as they stood in the clause, provided that the licence might make such and such regulations. He supposed the word really meant to be used was "contain." How a licence could make anything he did not know. Did it mean the licensing body? They could make regulations. As the matter stood it was nonsense.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "make," and insert "contain."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought, they might as well retain the word "make." It was commonly used in that sense in Acts of Parliament, and it was scarcely worth while to make any alteration.

MR. WARTON

said, he must press the Amendment in the interests of the English language. A licence could not make regulations. A maker was a person, not a thing. A maker made something; a licence could not make anything at all. "Contain" was a far better word than "make" in such a connection. A licensing body could make regulations; a licence could not.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MAC IYER

wished, for the sake of greater clearness, to move an Amendment in line 36. He proposed to introduce before the words "Board of Trade" the words "President of the." He wished to do that for this reason. It was very desirable, under this Bill, to bring home a personal responsibility fur carrying out the measure. The Committee knew, from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself, that for the purposes of this Bill there was no Board of Trade, and that the Board of Trade was simply the President. Now, it might so happen that the right hon. Gentleman who at present filled that office might not always be President of the Board of Trade. The Committee knew that the right hon. Gentleman possessed the entire confidence of his own supporters; but it might be that others might succeed him, and that some day there might be a Board of Trade which would have for a President a man who, perhaps, on one side or the other, might be concerned with gas rather than with electric lighting, or with electric lighting rather than with gas. That was not the present position, but it might at any day occur. It would make no possible difference in the meaning of the Bill, but it would make it much clearer to the public, who did not know that the Board of Trade was the right hon. Gentleman himself, if it should be clearly stated that, for the purposes of this Bill, the individual who for the time being should be President of the Board of Trade was himself alone the authority who had to deal with the whole of these regulations under the measure.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 36, insert before "Board of Trade" the words "President of the."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I have some difficulty in believing that the hon. Member is serious in introducing an Amendment by which he proposes to make a great Constitutional change in the form of an Amendment to the Electric Lighting Bill. I am aware that, on a previous occasion, the Prime Minister promised that the question of making some alteration in the functions of the Board of Trade should have careful consideration; but, until any change is made in the composition and working of the Board, it would be most inconvenient to substitute the President for the Board itself, and would raise all sorts of difficulties.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

COLONEL MAKINS

wished to say a word or two before the clause passed from the Committee, because he had had no opportunity of replying to some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the object of this licensing system was to facilitate the exponents of electric lighting in serving the public. He (Colonel Makins) was not aware that any sufficient difficulty had been felt in obtaining Parliamentary powers to deter any enterprizing bodies from going forward with public works of utility, and the long discussion which had taken place on the details of this licensing scheme showed how difficult and complicated was the system which the Government were trying to introduce into the legislation of the country. If this Bill, with its new system, became a precedent, we should hereafter have local authorities obtaining licences from the Board of Trade for the construction of docks or railways, and almost every enterprise. No apology, therefore, was necessary for again entering a protest against this new system before it became part of the Bill. He did not represent the interests of any Party, and certainly here he was not the representative of the gas interests—it was in the interests of all commercial undertakings that he objected to this new power being given. However, after the discussion which had taken place, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division; but he was afraid that, when the scheme came to be worked out, it would encounter many obstacles.

MR. FIRTH

said, he wished to make one suggestion. The object to be attained by the publication of notices, &c, was publicity; but that would not be attained in that way in London. He would leave the City Corporation to take care of itself; but as to the Vestries and Local Boards he could say that nothing would be known. There were some Vestries in which the people elected were more in number than the people electing. He would suggest that the Board of Trade should carefully consider whether there should not be different provisions for London from those which were laid down for Provincial towns.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Granting of provisional orders authorising the supply of electricity) agreed to.

Clause 4 (Making of rules as to application, &c, under Act) agreed to.

Clause 5 (Expenses of local authority).

MR. BOLTON

proposed to omit the words from and including "by a local authority," in line 12, down to and including "incurred," in line 14. The object of this Amendment was to make it perfectly clear that only those who availed themselves of the option under the Bill to use the electric light should be rendered liable to pay for it. That object might, perhaps, be attained by some better means, and probably the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, if he took that view, would propose some alteration himself in that direction. It was quite evident that, under the clause as it stood now, the local authority might enter into a speculation to provide electric lighting for any locality, and might charge a low price to the general public for the use of it, and then they might avail themselves of this clause to assess people who were not using the light at all—who might, in fact, have provided themselves with some other electric light, or with gas.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 12, leave out "by a local authority in respect of any undertaking under this Act, and not otherwise provided for including any expenses incurred."—(Mr. Bolton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I am sorry that this Amendment was not down on the Paper, because it is extremely difficult to see exactly what the effect of it would be. I do not think that the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman proposes would at all carry out the object I understand him to have. As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment is simply this—that the only power given to the local authority in this respect is to defray out of the rates the expenses incurred in obtaining the licence, and other expenses would be thrown on the persons obtaining the licence. No local authority would undertake the responsibility under such conditions. What I understand the hon. Gentleman wishes to guard against is the possibility of the local authority supplying the electric light to certain constituents at a loss, and doing it at the expense of certain other constituents. Well, but some sort of confidence in the common justice and honesty of our local authorities is the foundation of all our local government. Any local authority found assenting to such a course as the hon. Gentleman imagines would certainly be turned out by its constituents—it could not remain in office after a transaction of that sort.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. W. HOLMS

moved to insert after "Act," page 5, line 16, "or the rents, charges, or other revenues provided by any local Act." Under clause 5, a local authority had power to incur certain expenses upon security of the local rate, which local rate was defined on page 19 to be "the police or burgh assessment, or rate of the nature of a burgh assessment." The object of his Amendment was to provide that a local authority might, for the purposes of this Act, use the rents, charges, and other revenues provided by any other Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 16, after "Act," insert "or the rents, charges, and other revenues provided by any Local Act."—(Mr. W. Holms.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he did not know whether his hon. Friend had in view the case of any particular authority; but, speaking generally, the effect of the Amendment would be that a local authority, having any other source of income than the rates, might charge the expenses of an electric light undertaking to that source of revenue. As far as he was aware, wherever a local authority had such other source of income, such source of income was specifically applied by a local Act to particular purposes, and it would be a monstrous thing, in a Bill of this kind, to suddenly do away with the obligation, and enable local authorities to devote to a new and totally different purpose the income which had been specifically applied by Act of Parliament to certain purposes. Under the circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

MR. MAC IVER

moved that Progress be reported. The Bill contained 20 clauses, and they had now passed four. This Amendment was sprung upon the Committee unexpectedly, and as the passage of four clauses of the Bill was a good afternoon's work, and remembering that there was upon the Paper Business in which many hon. Members were interested, he thought the time had arrived when the Chairman might reasonably report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he would appeal to his hon. Friend not to persist in his Motion. They had all come down to the House with the object of making progress with this Bill, and he (Mr. E. Stanhope) personally hoped the Government would go on for some considerable time yet, and, if possible, finish the Bill. There was a good deal to be said against taking a Sitting on Saturday; but now they had come down, lot them do business.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) would withdraw his Motion and allow the Government fair play. Hon. Members had their fight as to a Saturday Sitting on Thursday night, and, having come down, pray let them go on with the work before them.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he would not put it on the ground of fairness to the Government, but of fairness to the Committee. Many hon. Members had come down here at considerable sacrifice in order to do some business, and to proceed in a business-like way to do it. Certainly it would be a most unfortunate thing to report Progress at this early hour.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. W. HOLMS

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PUGH

said, he desired to propose an Amendment in line 18 of this clause, for the purpose of raising a question which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to twice in the course of the day. That was, whether any local authority ought to be empowered to go to any expense they might think proper with reference to any scheme for electric lighting without some definite sanction from the ratepayers of the district. Whether this sanction was given by a meeting of the ratepayers, or by some local inquiry, was immaterial, as he (Mr. Pugh) thought that either of those methods of ascertaining the feelings of a district might be sufficient. He certainly did not think that any local authority—aud if the Committee would refer to the Schedule of the Borough Funds Act, they would find that a local authority meant a Corporation, or urban authority, or rural sanitary authority, or any vestry; in fact, any local body whatever—should have the power to engage in a large undertaking contrary, J as it might often be, to the wishes of the people they represented. He was surprised to hear the Borough Funds Act denounced by the right hon. Gentleman, and it occurred to him at once to consider that the Borough Funds Act was passed in 1872. And on the back of that Bill was the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), and he believed the Vice President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) was Chairman of the Select Committee who inquired into the Bill. He ventured to say that there wore many Members of the Committee who would agree with him that it was an exceedingly salutary thing that some check should be put by Parliament upon Corporations spending their money in the manner proposed by the Borough Funds Bill—namely, in promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that local authorities ought not to be allowed to engage in litigation of that sort, unless there was some check upon them.

THE CHAIRMAN

asked if the hon. Gentleman intended to move an Amendment?

MR. PUGH

said, he would move, after the words "provided," in line 18, to insert the words "any such expenses shall have been sanctioned as required by 35th and 36th Vic. chap. 91, and that," He had taken those words from the Borough Funds Act, and he would only say a few further words with regard to that Act. It was well known that a great number of Corporations were opposed to that Act, because it did fetter them in going before Parliament to promote or oppose Bills. He was quite willing to admit that Birmingham and other modern Corporations did the best they could for the ratepayers; but in regard to other local bodies, and particularly the smaller ones, he would say without hesitation that the question whether a Bill was promoted or opposed at the expense of the ratepayers, depended chiefly upon the Town Clerk and the Solicitor to the Corporation, and both those gentlemen wore vitally interested in promoting or opposing Bills which came before Parliament; in fact, in many of the cases a considerable portion of the income of those officials depended upon the promotion or opposition of Bills. It was extremely desirable that the ratepayers should, have the power of veto, and if they had, he could not see how it would in any way be destructive of representative government. Section 4 provided in the fullest manner for the incurring of all expenses. The Committee would agree that electric lighting was in a very experimental stage, and lie ventured to say that, under the circumstances, a Corporation or local authority of any other kind, ought not to be allowed to go to a largo expense in promoting an electric lighting scheme without first of all receiving the sanction of the ratepayers.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 18, after "provided," to insert "any such expenses shall hare been sanctioned as required by 35th and 36th Vic. chap. 91. and that,"—(Mr. Pugh.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

COLONEL MAKINS

said, he was very glad the hon. Member had moved this Amendment, though he was not quite sure that the form in which it had been moved would be the most convenient for the carrying out of what the hon. Member wished. In a later part of the Bill it was provided that local inquiries might be held, and that was one of the ways in which the hon. Member suggested the sanction of the ratepayers might be obtained; but that was not compulsory. If the Government would undertake to make that compulsory, then there would be no necessity for inserting the words which the hon. Member had suggested. The principle involved in the Amendment he did hope the Committee would take into serious consideration. It was, no doubt, very necessary that the power of veto, which was vested in ratepayers by the Borough Funds Act, should be extended to them in the present case. The local authority in the town near which he (Colonel Makins) resided, in the country, a few years ago, took upon themselves to propose to erect waterworks for the supply of the town, using the money of the ratepayers to do the work. The ratepayers had no power to prevent this, but they had power to prevent them going for a Provisional Order. A meeting was called, and it having been pointed out that many of the ratepayers, having their private supply, would be damnified, the local authority were prevailed upon to abandon their scheme and make arrangements with a private Company. If the local authority, in that matter, had been unchecked, and the undertaking had proved unsuccessful, the ratepayers would have found themselves saddled with a very heavy burden. He (Colonel Makins) wanted to have the power of veto extended to the licences and Provisional Orders granted under this Act. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would secure that, either by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pugh), or by making the local inquiry, which it was provided might be held, compulsory, he (Colonel Makins) would have nothing further to say in the matter. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman declined to do either the one or the other, he (Colonel Makins) hoped the Committee would take a division upon this most vital principle.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he did not see that the Amendment, as proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Pugh), would raise the point which it was desired to raise. The effect of the Amendment would be this, that when expenses were incurred by local authorities from time to time—as such expenses would be incurred in connection with an electric lighting undertaking—the local authority would have to go for the consent of the ratepayers; they would have to go to the ratepayers whenever any fresh expenses whatever were incurred in connection with the scheme. That was not what his hon. Friend meant; but he desired that a local authority should be obliged to go to the ratepayers for their consent when they were initiating the undertaking, just as under the Borough Funds Act a Corporation, seeking to obtain power for the manufacture of gas, had to go to the ratepayers. That was the principle which the hon. Gentleman raised, and it might be convenient to take the discussion now. He (Mr. Chamberlain) need not repeat to the Committee what he said before with regard to the general principles which, he thought, ought to govern their conclusions; but he thought his hon. Friend would agree with him that the kind of shackles on local government proposed was not necessary in the case of greater Corporations. The hon. Member suggested that in the case of local authorities in country districts, there was not that security which public opinion gave in great towns. He (Mr. Cham- Colonel Makins berlain) admitted there was a great deal in that argument; but there were one or two points which he would put before his hon. Friend for consideration. The first point was that a real security for the honesty of local government was to be found in making the representatives thoroughly responsible. If local bodies were put in leading strings, by constant interference from outside, they would have no heart whatever in their work. Let it be distinctly understood by the ratepayers that if they did not appoint the best men to look after their business, their own pockets would suffer; the probability was, they would be quite capable of looking after their own interests. Under the existing law, which this Bill did not touch at all, whenever a local authority wanted to borrow money, a local inquiry was to be held, either by order of the Secretary of State or by the Local Government Board. Those local inquiries offered an opportunity for objection on the part of any ratepayers, and they gave also such an amount of control to the central authority as would prevent anything like an absolute abuse of power intrusted to municipal representatives. He hoped these considerations would induce his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment. He understood his hon. Friend to say he would be satisfied, as an alternative, with an understanding that in the majority of cases, at all events, wherever desired, there would be a local inquiry. He (Mr. Chamberlain) had not thought it necessary to put that in the Bill, because it was conceivable that there might be cases in which a local inquiry would involve considerable expense, and in which it would be more convenient that the application should be made to the Board of Trade.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he approached this question from a totally different point of view from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain). When he entered the Select Committee be was somewhat of opinion that the application under the Bill ought to be made subject to the conditions of the Borough Funds Act. The matter was very carefully considered by the Select Committee, and it was found that in all cases of borrowing money by Provisional Orders the consent of the ratepayers was not required, and that if they were to require that the consent of the ratepayers should be given to the Provisional Orders under this Act, the Borough Funds Act would be extended very much farther than it had ever been extended before. It seemed to him that a proposal of this kind ought more properly to be entertained whenever the Borough Funds Act came under consideration. But, in the present case, any of the ratepayers might apply to the Board of Trade, and then their objection would be fully heard before a licence was granted. He hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pugh) would not press his Amendment.

MR. PUGH

said, he did think that when a local authority was going to embark on an undertaking of this kind there ought to be some check upon them incurring expense. He should be willing to limit his proposition to the expenses incurred in obtaining the licence under the Act, and if he did that he should come distinctly within the principle of the Borough Funds Act. If he (Mr. Pugh) was to understand from the President of the Board of Trade that a local inquiry would be granted, wherever required, before expenses were incurred by a local authority under this Act, he should not think it necessary to persevere with his Amendment. What he wished was that the ratepayers should have the opportunity of making their voice heard, and of having fair weight given to it before a local authority should go into that expense. Under the circumstances, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

COLONEL MAKINS

asked if it was to be perfectly understood that wherever local inquiries were required they should be held?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he had said so three or four times.

COLONEL MAKINS

begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say it was to be the practice; but he did not understand him to say that it would become a universal practice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power of local authority to borrow money) agreed to.

Clause 7 (General powers of undertakers under license or provisional order) agreed to.

Clause 8 (Incorporation of certain provisions of Clauses Consolidation Acts).

COLONEL MAKINS

proposed to insert, after "sections," in line 13, page 7, "thirty-five and." The section would then run—"Sections thirty-five and thirty-eight to forty-two inclusive, and sections forty-five and forty-six of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871."Section 35 of the Gasworks Act was one that dealt with the question of accounts; and he thought it a very important question, where local authorities were dealing with public money, that the accounts of the undertaking should be published. It was with the object of procuring the publication of the accounts in relation to electric lighting that he now moved the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 13, insert after "sections," the words "thirty-five and."—(Colonel Makins.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that the proposal was quite unnecessary. If the hon. Gentleman would refer to Clause "C" on page 6, he would find it there provided that— The undertakers shall, on or before the twenty-fifth day of March in every year, fill up an annnal statement of accounts of the undertaking made up to the thirty-first day of De-comber then next preceding; and such statement shall be in such form, and shall contain such particulars, and shall be published in such manner as may from time to time be prescribed in that behalf by the Board of Trade.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, that the right hon. Gentleman's reply was quite satisfactory. He (Colonel Makins) had only thought that so long as they were incorporating clauses from the Gasworks Clauses Act, it would be as well, also, to incorporate the one he had suggested. He would, however, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Power of undertakers to alter position of pipes and wires) agreed to.

Clause 10 (Compensation for damage) agreed to.

Clause 11 (Charges for electricity) agreed to.

Clause 12 (Injuring works with intent to cut off supply of electricity) agreed to.

Clause 13 (Heating electricity) agreed to.

Clause 14 (Provision for protection of the Postmaster General).

MR. W. N. NICHOLSON

proposed to substitute for the word "fifteen," in page 12, line 3'2, the words "twenty-one." He considered that when a Company had obtained powers, either by Provisional Order or special Act, to supply electricity, it was most unfair that the local authority within whose district the supply was made should have power within six months after the expiration of the period of 15 years from the date of the Act or Provisional Order, to require the Company to sell their undertaking at merely the value of the materials, which must have the effect of very materially checking enterprize, and of preventing the development of the benefits that might result to the public by the introduction of electric lighting. He would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that the objection might be met by the introduction of a clause giving the Companies power to appeal to the Privy Council for a prolongation of the term for an additional seven or fourteen years if the undertaking had not proved remunerative, as was frequently done in patent cases. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to introduce such a clause, he would withdraw the Amendment which he now begged to propose.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, leave out "fifteen," and insert "twenty-one."—(Mr. W. N. Nicholson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, this Amendment might be considered as raising the same question as that of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K.Cross), and was an Amendment really in the interest of the Electric Lighting Companies. It was suggested that the term in the Bill was not a sufficient temptation to induce the Companies to enter into these speculations. He should say, in the first place, that the clause in the Bill was the result of a compromise arrived at by the Select Committee. Originally it was proposed that the power of purchase should be exercised at the end of seven years; and it was suggested on behalf of the Companies, by their coun- sel, that a longer term was necessary, and they argued in favour of 21 years. But the Committee took a medium course between these two periods, and decided upon 15 years. The Committee were guided in their conclusions by this line of reasoning—that it was their bounden duty to accept the shortest term which, at the same time, would leave room for the development of these experiments, and to go beyond that they considered would be to prejudice the rights of the public for the benefit of private speculators. The objects of the Bill were two-fold—first, that no obstacle should be placed in the way of the development of the electric light; but, in the second place, that the interest of the public, as a whole, should be protected, and that a new monopoly should not be sot up, as in the case of Gas Companies, Water Companies, and Telegraph Companies, only to be purchased at a ruinous price. The question was, whether the figure adopted was the right one, and, as to that, every Member could form his own judgment; but he had it on the authority of the Companies concerned that they were perfectly satisfied with the arrangement come to by the Committee; the only Company that was dissatisfied was the Edison Light Company, in which, he thought his hon. Friend was interested. But the other Companies declared that, in their opinion, the term was sufficient to justify the experiment they desired to make; and, seeing what had been done without any Parliamentary powers at all, the Committee must agree it was sufficient. So far as experiments were concerned, the Companies could do without any Act of Parliament; but what they asked was the power to enter upon streets and to break up roads to lay their rods, and certainly a monopoly right of that kind should be under strict limitations, and be confined to as short a period as would amply provide for the due development of the experiment.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was surprised at a remark which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He had always understood that Members interested in any particular Company or interest which would be affected by a measure under discussion should not take part in the proceedings of a Committee even in the Lobby. Now, here was a Bill which would impose a tax upon the ratepayers of Great Britain and Ireland, and he found—he did not know far it was right or not—that the President of the Board of Trade addressed an argument to an hon. Member as a person interested in the Edison-Light Company, which was the only Company dissatisfied with the decision of the Select Committee. Now, every Member of a Committee signed a declaration that he was not personally interested in any Company or undertaking which formed the subject of the Committee's deliberations; at least, he signed such a declaration himself when he served on a Tramway Committee some years ago; he remembered the Committee Clerk sent such a document for him to sign; but it was an important question whether any Member of Parliament, who was disqualified from serving on a Select Committee, could come into a Committee in the House on the same Bill and move an Amendment giving an advantage to the Edison Light Company—an Amendment that, if carried, would make the Company a financial success instead of a financial failure. Was it in conformity with the dignity of the House to do this? He made these observations in consequence of the kind of sanction that the words of the President of the Board of Trade seemed to convey; and he was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should give such an implied sanction to the interference of a Member of the House in a matter where he was pecuniarily interested. He thought it right to draw attention to such a lamentable want of discretion on the part of those interested in the Edison Light Company, that they should come into the Committee and endeavour to get better terms for that Company.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

asked the Chairman, just as a matter of Order, where the Committee were?

THE CHAIRMAN

There is a new way of lettering a Bill which has never happened in Committee before; but we are obliged to treat this letter as part of the previous clause; therefore, we are upon Clause 14 now, including Clause "N."

MR. CARBUTT

asked, could the Committee discuss the other Amendment of which Notice had been given?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question now is simply whether the word "fifteen" stand part of the clause.

MR. CARBUTT

said, but those who had the same views with the hon. Mem- ber for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) would talk upon this Amendment, and would have to talk again on the same point.

THE CHAIRMAN

The only Question now is whether "fifteen" shall stand part of the clause.

COLONEL MAKINS

desired to remind the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) that this was a general Bill, and his remarks only applied to the proceedings of a Select Committee.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, as these things went forth to the public, they might create an impression as to the practice of the House that Members taking part in a Committee signed a declaration, as in the case of a Private Bill Committee. But the two things were totally distinct. Of course, a great number of Members were interested in Railway and other Companies; but to say that no Members thus interested should take part in Public Business in which Railway Companies were concerned was an unreasonable and startling proposition.

MR. CALLAN

said, in the case of Railway Companies, no director or shareholder could take part in the proceedings of a Private Bill Committee. That was a well-known Rule laid down by the Standing Orders of the House, and here was a Committee——

MR. STORY-MASKELYNE

rose to Order, and asked, had this anything to do with the discussion?

THE CHAIRMAN

It has nothing to do with the Question; we are now discussing an Amendment to the clause, and the Question is whether "fifteen" shall stand part.

MR. CALLAN

said, he rose to Order.

MR. CARBUTT

said, having spoken before the House went into Committee, he did not wish to reiterate his arguments; but he was replied to by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who said he had used the word confiscation. He did not think he had really used the word, but if he had he would withdraw it. Then the hon. Member for Manchester(Mr. Slagg) said he was going very much against the Corporations; but that was not his wish. Corporations did very good work; but the hon. Member quoted the work of the Manchester Corporation——

THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the hon. Member that the Question is simply whether "twenty-one" shall be substituted for "fifteen;" the general question will arise afterwards.

MR. CARBUTT

said, surely he could give his reasons why he should vote for 21 instead of 15. The hon. Member for Manchester said one reason why Parliament should be careful not to grant too great powers to Electric Light Companies was that Corporations might buy up the Companies; and he said what a large amount was required by the Manchester Corporation to buy up the Gas Company. Now, the Corporation, though it gave a high price to the Company, not only made a large profit, but did not reduce the price of the gas, as the Corporation did at Leeds, where the price was reduced to the consumer. But his reason for supporting 21 against 15 was that nobody would put money in the undertaking on such terms; there would be no inducement to do so; and he would suggest that the terms of purchase should be settled by arrangement or arbitration in the same way in which the Metropolitan Board bought up the bridges in the Metropolis. Certainly he should support 21 against 15 years.

MR. SLAGG

said, he thought the hon. Member had made a mistake in attributing to him a statement that the Manchester Corporation did not reduce the price of gas. Practically, they had done so in a very large degree, but he would not trouble the Committee with details. The gas works had been bought at a great advantage to the inhabitants, they had reduced the cost of the water and of the gas, but without arguing the matter again, the inhabitants were very well contented, and he wanted to continue the advantage which the partnership in the lighting operations of the Corporation had begun. It was desirable that this should be done. He did not see why outsiders should be let in to make happy hunting grounds of the Corporation area. Fifteen years he thought quite sufficient, the Companies were satisfied with that term, and he should certainly vote for keeping that term.

MR. STORY-MASKELYNE

said, he had had an opportunity of talking with the representatives of, and gentlemen connected with, the Electric Light Companies, and from every one he had a confirmation of the conclusion the Committee came to, that 15 years was a sufficient period. He had been told that The Chairman day, on behalf of the Edison Light Company, that rather than lose the Bill they would be very well satisfied with 15 years. He hoped the Committee would accept that view as one with which, as the Secretary of the Board of Trade had said, the Companies were satisfied.

SIR JOHN JENKINS

said, he hoped the Committee would not give way to the Amendment, and would not give to these new Companies a monopoly similar to that granted to Gas Companies. The House should consider very carefully that the electric light had not by any means arrived at such a degree of perfection that in a few seasons there was every reason to suppose it would attain, when it would probably be produced at much less cost than at present. That being so, he did not think it would be wise to extend the period beyond 15 years. At present there was no provision as to the charge to be made, and no definite means of measuring the quantity of electricity used in public, or in workshops, or in private houses. Fifteen years was an ample period to give the Companies.

MR. W. N. NICHOLSON,

in reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), begged to state that his Amendment, had not anything to do with any Electric Lighting Company, in none of which had he any personal interest. He had brought it forward entirely for public reasons; but after the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade, that the Electric Light Companies were satisfied with the term of 15 years, nothing remained but for him to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. K. CROSS

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth in his remarks had started an extraordinary idea, that the House should proceed on the principle that no shareholder in a Railway, Gas, or Water Company should have the slightest chance of speaking on a Bill the Government might bring on, touching the interests of any such Companies, He did not think anyone would be able to speak on behalf of the mercantile classes, and the House would lose the benefit of commercial experience if the principle of the hon. Member found acceptance. The reason that induced him to ask the Committee to consider the Amendment he was about to propose was simply that he wanted to facilitate the supply of the electric light; and the only way to do that was, using the words in the beginning of the Bill, to give these Companies some security against undue disturbance. That was a principle well established and well understood, and it was also well understood that the local authorities must have the right to purchase the undertaking at a valuation. This system of electric lighting was totally and entirely a new thing, and hundreds of thousands of pounds might be spent upon experimental trials. If you were to try to light one square mile of any town you would have to pay £200,000, at the very least, and you might probably, during the first four or five years, use a considerable sum, and, after working four or five years, begin to get a little profit, and you might, at the end of 15 years, the term proposed in the Bill, recoup yourselves for perhaps half the expenditure. Meanwhile, new inventions would come into vogue, and the cost of the electric light might be very much lower than it was to-day. A Company, then, that had worked for seven or eight years without advantage, when it began to make a small profit, would, under such circumstances, be in the unfortunate position of being bought out at half of the capital cost, and be mulcted in considerable loss. Well, he had no objection to that, if it would not tell against the extension of electric lighting, but that would be the effect; and therefore he wished to give the Corporations power, if they liked to exercise it, to give a sum equal to 25 per cent on the cost that would be incurred in establishing a similar undertaking at the time being. This provision would be entirely inoperative unless the Corporation saw that considerable profit would accrue from the possession. He did not for a moment wish to put Electric Light Companies in the same position as Gas and Water Companies, and he thought the premiums paid by Corporations on Gas and Water Companies were very exorbitant. He did not for a moment wish to put these new Companies on the same footing; but he was very anxious that Parliament should not do anything that would prevent or tend to prevent the establishment of these Companies, and hence the Amendment he now moved.

Amendment proposed, In page 13, line 4, leave out after "undertaking" to "considerations," in line 8, and insert, "with such addition for goodwill as may be agreed upon, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by arbitration, but without any addition for compulsory purchase: And, provided always, That the total sum paid shall not exceed by more than twenty-five per centum the value ascertained as aforesaid. When a part only of the undertaking is purchased, payment shall be made on the same terms, but with such addition as may be requisite to compensate for loss occasioned by severance."—(Mr. J. K. Cross.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RATHBONE

said, he confessed he was rather surprised at the Amendment, so inconsistent, as it seemed to him, with his experience of the line the hon. Member usually took on the side of the public. When these questions came before the House and were debated he could not help feeling sometimes that the possession of wealth was very injurious, not only to chances of Heaven, but to a man's action as a good Liberal on earth. His hon. Friend had doubts as to the want of capital; but that was altogether contrary to his commercial experience. These Companies were going to be allowed very great privileges—he was going to say at the expense of the public—but for which the public would pay in the breaking up of roads and such things, and they ought to pay a certain amount for this. When the House was told that all the Companies but one were satisfied with the Bill, then they might be certain that the public would be served by one Company or another. Could his hon. Friend point to any occasion in which private interest had to meet public interests, and to fight their way before a public body; could he find a single instance in which vested interests had not got a good deal more than their share, and the public a good deal less? He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment to a division, and that if he did the House would support the finding of its Committee, a Committee which had taken such immense care on the subject, and produced a result which, as had been said repeatedly, the great bulk of the Companies accepted as perfectly sufficient.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) had made a mistake in the point of his allusion when he said how difficult it was for a man of wealth to be a good Liberal. He always understood his hon. Friend fulfilled both conditions. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) did not bring forward his Amendment in the interest of the Companies. As he had pointed out, the Company would certainly have to lay out a very large sum, and if they were not successful the Corporation or other local authority would have nothing to do with the undertaking; but if it was successful, then the authorities would come in and purchase. But, as he understood the clause, they would simply purchase at the cost price. He meant to say that having taken into consideration that the Company might be making a good dividend, yet the Corporation would only propose to give it the mere value of the wires and other material. The President of the Board of Trade had spoken several times of these Amendments being introduced in the interest of the Electric Lighting Companies; but this was a general Bill dealing entirely with the future; it was a question on what terms the Companies were to act in future—if they had a largo sum in works now there would be some force in the remarks—but it was entirely a question for the future. His right hon. Friend, who very appropriately presided over the Committee, as being the descendant of one of the first pioneers of electrical science, said that in spite of there being no such clause as this there was considerable activity going on among Electric Lighting Companies, and that was so; but without this Bill the Companies could only carry out small instalments in single buildings or in a block of buildings; they were unable to carry on their operations on a large scale, or for the general benefit of all classes of the community. No doubt there was considerable activity, and no doubt there always would be a preference for this system of lighting in separate houses. But it would assist the discussion of the clause if the President of the Board of Trade would explain it a little. He had said the Companies were satisfied with the clause; but he (Sir John Lubbock) was not altogether satisfied with it, and that not in the interest of the Companies, but of the public. Of course, it was quite clear that the electric light could be dispensed much more to the advantage of the pub- lic in large than in separate individual instalments, and with more safety. One of the Metropolitan theatres was lighted with the electric light, and a very great improvement it was. It was more beautiful; it was a light that did not vitiate the atmosphere and did not raise the temperature—a great gain in buildings or workshops where a number of people were gathered together. The action of gas, as was well known, was to consume oxygen in the air and to raise the temperature, having the effect of making the air unwholesome. Owing to the absence of provisions such as were in the Bill, to use the light it was necessary to have a dynamo machine on the premises to be lighted, and this constituted a source of danger. On the other hand, if the steam-engines and dynamo machines were apart from the houses, there could be no hesitation in saying that the electric light would come into general use, as being more beautiful, more economic, and more safe than any other light. He did not know whether his hon. Friend intended to divide the Committee; but perhaps the President of the Board of Trade might be able to make some explanation that would be satisfactory. If the meaning of the clause was that even if the Company were successful the local authority could claim the right of purchase at the cost of the works and machinery, such a provision would certainly have the effect of depriving the community, especially the poorer classes, of the advantages of the light for a considerable period. It must be remembered that even if the words of his hon. Friend were accepted the interest of the public would not suffer, for there was no compulsory purchase; only, if the authority chose it, they could purchase. If the words of the clause meant that they should purchase at the price of the undertaking as a going concern, probably his hon. Friend would be satisfied; and even then he doubted whether the Company would get much more than the nominal value of their capital, for the authority would have the right to take the plant, machinery, and wires at their value for the time being, not at cost price.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

My hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) has appealed to mo to explain the clause, and I will endeavour to do so. This clause, I may say, has been the subject of the most careful consideration by the Committee, which even took advice upon it; and, as I understand it, its meaning is perfectly clear. It has been so drawn that purchasers will have to pay a fair market value as if they bought in open market—that is, of course, having regard to the suitability of the plant for electric lighting purposes. "When the plant is valueless for such purposes its value should be proportionately reduced. When my hon. Friend says that a Company will have to submit to a loss by depreciation, that is perfectly true; but Companies would be expected to have made arrangements providing for that, as every manufacturing trade has to make allowances for depreciation of plant by working. The object of the Electric Lighting Companies should be to conduct their operations with the consent of, and, if possible, by agreement with, the local authorities. If the local authorities are deprived of the power of purchasing the undertakings at the end of a reasonable time, for a reasonable price, they would be left no alternative but to go into the business themselves. With regard to the analogy which has been drawn between this Act and the Gas Acts, it must be recollected that, although there is no Purchase Clause inserted in the Gas Acts, there is a clause in every Act to limit the dividend, and there is nothing of the kind in this Act. I think, therefore, that it will be to the advantage of the Companies themselves that the Amendment should not be adopted, and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) will withdraw it.

MR. J. K. CROSS

said, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade he was not left much to say. He would only ask the permission of the Committee to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), who seemed to have a very false idea of the Amendment. According to his (Mr. J. K. Cross's) idea, under the present Amendment nothing like the same exorbitant premiums could be paid as had been paid under the Gas Acts. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 43, after the word "value," to insert the words "as a going concern."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he was afraid it would be unwise on the part of the Committee to accept the Amendment. An Amendment very similar in character to the Amendment proposed had been carefully considered by the Select Committee, and it was only after full discussion that they decided they could not insert it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 20 (Application of Act to Ireland).

MR. ION TRANT HAMILTON

moved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 15, line 33, after the word "modifications," the words— 1. This Act shall be read and take effect so far as Ireland is concerned as if the Local Government Board for Ireland was in all instances substituted for the Board of Trade. And also, in the same clause, in line 38, after the word "the," leave out "Board of Trade," and insert "Local Government Board for Ireland." He had no wish to delay the Committee by speaking on the Amendment; but as it did not affect the principle of the Bill, and would avoid great delay, he hoped the Committee would accept it. The Board of Trade was not so easy of access as the Local Government Board, and communication could more readily be had with the latter.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 33, after "modifications," to insert—"1. This Act shall be read and take effect so far as Ireland is concerned as if the Local Government Board for Ireland was in all instances substituted for the Board of Trade."—(Mr. Ion Trant Hamilton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, there was no question of principle involved in the Amendment, and he had a very strong desire to consult the feelings of the Irish Members on the pi int. The matter was one on which he had no strong personal opinion; but he thought that community of management would he an advantage. If the hon. Member for Dublin County (Mr. I. T. Hamilton) would look at the preceding clause in the Bill, he would see it there laid down that it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to give full opportunities for local inquiries, and many matters of that kind; and he (Mr. Chamberlain) thought that provisions found desirable in England and Scotland should apply also to Ireland. He quite agreed that if they were to have inquiries in Ireland, they should be conducted with the least possible expenditure of labour and expense; and he would see that provision was made for a local inquiry, wherever it was desirable, before parties who had experience in the matter. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be more convenient, and would save expense, if the matter was left as it stood at present.

MR. E. STANHOPE

thought it would be desirable to leave the matter in the hands of the Board of Trade, who ought to have the control of these questions in the Three Kingdoms. The object of his hon. Friend's (Mr. I. T. Hamilton's) Amendment would be gained if provision was made for local inquiries; and he, therefore, recommended him to leave the matter to the Board of Trade.

MR. CALLAN

said, if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would make a statement to the effect that he was willing to introduce into the Act a clause to the effect that the inquiry would be carried out as the Local Government Board inquiries were it would give satisfaction. Although the Local Government Board was unpopular in Ireland, they carried out their local inquiries well, and on the spot, a course which had generally given satisfaction. He thought it would be desirable for the President of the Local Government Board to give an undertaking to that effect.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he would cause inquiries to be made into the matter.

MR. ION TRANT HAMILTON

said, the object of his Amendment was to introduce a local inquiry.

MR. FINDLATER

thought if any means was provided for holding a local inquiry that would meet the object in view.

MR. PUGH

was of opinion that the matter should be left in the hands of the Local Government Board.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, he would desire that in Ireland the inquiries should be under the control of an Irish Board. Having regard to the course of previous legislation, he was surprised the Government sought to confer those powers on the Board of Trade, and not leave the conduct of the investigation with the Local Government Board. Persons who desired to obtain information as to the course to be followed for obtaining those licences could then have applied in Dublin. There would not be the necessity of journeys to London, loss of time, and the cost of sending over officials from London, if an Irish Board was named as the licensing authority for Ireland. But as the Committee appeared to think that the matter should be left to the Board of Trade, he trusted, in addition to the promise that had been made that all inquiries should be local, the President should consider the propriety of opening an office, and having some resident official to act in Ireland as the representative of the Board of Trade. In point of fact, Ireland should be placed on the same level in these matters as England and Scotland, and should have the same facilities.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.

MR. BARRAN

moved the following new Clause:—

(Application for Provisional Orders.) No application for a Provisional Older on the part of any Company or person shall be made in respect of all or any part of the district of a municipal or other local authority without six months' notice in writing (which shall define the area intended to he comprised therein) to such authority, who shall, within that period, he entitled to make application for a Provisional Order in respect of all or any part (including the area defined in such notice) of such district; and, until such application has been disposed of, no other application shall be entertained. He said the clause which he had just proposed should be added to the Bill was one which asked the support of representatives of all the municipal bodies of England, and he might say that the clause was drawn up at a meeting of the representatives of a very large number of municipal bodies of England, and was forwarded to the Board of Trade. A deputation also waited on his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), who asked Mr. Farrar whether he had received any communications from any Corporations, and Mr. Farrar replied that one of these communications was the clause just moved. In reply to another question, Mr. Farrar replied that, as far as he was aware, there was no objection to the clause. He felt that in advocating the claims of the Corporations of England, he was only advocating the claims of the inhabitants of these boroughs. The position of a Corporation was very different to the position occupied by a private and speculative Company. Whatever loss there was in the one cage, the whole municipality had to bear it, and whatever profit was made would accrue to the whole of the ratepayers. He felt that in the case of the borough he had the honour to represent he had a very strong experience in relation to the way in which the Corporations did and ought to discharge their duties as lighting authorities. The Corporation of Leeds bought up the Gas Companies of the town at a cost of £900,000, at a time when the cost of gas to the inhabitants was 4s. 6d. to 5s.6d. per 1,000 feet, and from that period the Corporation had been able to gradually reduce the price of gas, so that, at the present time, they wore supplying the consumers with gas at a price of 1s. 10d. per 1,000 cubic feet; and not only the borough of Leeds, but also some outlying districts, were supplied at the same terms. While they did not claim a monopoly, they claimed to be first heard before the Local Government Board before any power was given to others to light the borough. He thought the same principle applied to other boroughs, where the borough was the lighting authority. There, he thought, they should have an opportunity of going before the Local Government Board, and have also a right to be first heard before any Order was made. The clause he had given Notice of had the advantage, to his mind, that if Companies were applying to the Local Government Board for power to light any part of a town, before they made a final application, they should have to give six months' notice to the lighting authority. Between the time when the notice was given and its expiration the lighting authority would be able to bring into operation all kinds of systems, and would thus have an opportunity of discovering what would be the best mode of lighting the town or borough. He did not think this would cause any loss either to the Company or to the lighting authority by the six months' period of time. He thought the borough should have this time for another reason, which was that the Corporation of a town had better means of encouraging inventors of new systems, which private Companies might not have the means to do. He would venture to say that, if the Corporation of Leeds had had the lighting of the town in their own hands 30 years ago, it would have been an enormous saving to the borough and to the rates. If the Corporation was now to be subjected to the control of the Board of Trade, it was just possible that they might have two or three different systems competing for the lighting of the town on various systems, because the Board of Trade would not be justified in confining the lighting of a large borough to one Company; but a Corporation would be different, and he ventured to say the lighting of a town or borough would be much more rapid under the Corporation than under the direction of any Company. He therefore asked the President of the Board of Trade to fulfil the declarations he made at an earlier sitting of the Committee, when he said that the Corporations were entitled to, and must be, trusted implicitly. If these were the views of the right hon. Gentleman he would allow the clause to pass.

New Clause (Notice of application for Provisional Order,)—(Mr. Barran,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he thought he would be able to answer his hon. Friend (Mr. Barran) in a few words. He might say that, speaking generally, he agreed with the principle of the Amendment. He agreed that the local authorities were entitled to confidence, and should have a preferential consideration when they found themselves in competition with private Companies seeking to light the streets of a town. But he also wanted to point out that the Amendment would not carry the matter much further than the Bill provided; for the provision in the Bill was for three months' notice, whereas the new clause provided that it should be six months' notice. The clause then went on to define the area, and, lastly, contained the provision that until such application was disposed of no other application should be entertained. The Bill already-provided for that. Suppose a Lighting Company went down to a town to light it, three months' notice of this application must be given to the Board of Trade, which would then hear the objections of the local lighting authority or anybody else who objected. The objections of the Corporation, if it was the lighting authority, must be heard before the Board of Trade could decide the application of a private Company; and he had no hesitation in saying that, under any ordinary circumstances, where the local lighting authority applied at the same time as a private Company, the local authority or Corporation would have the preference.

MR. RAMSAY,

in rising to move to report Progress, said, this Bill, which had never been heard of before in Parliament, had been placed in the Orders of the Day before the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill, which had been mentioned three several times in the Queen's Speech, and in which the people of Scotland were greatly interested. The measure now before the House had already occupied double the time the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had promised; but it was impossible to say how long the discussion would be continued, as every clause was being discussed at length. He begged to move that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Ramsay.)

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

hoped that, as the Bill had gone so far, the Committee would not consent to report Progress. He hoped some arrangement would be come to, so that the Committee would not divide upon it.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion. Hon. Members had come down for a Saturday Sitting; this was an important Bill; and he did not think an unreasonable amount of time had been taken up, and he was quite prepared to finish this Bill and go on with the Scotch Bill until midnight, or even into Sunday.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought the Scotch Members had reason to complain of great injustice in not having their Bill put down first for to-day.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, before Progress was reported, he should like to have an assurance that the third Bill put down—the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill—would not be taken. Many of his hon. Friends had come down to discuss that Bill, and it was monstrous to say that they should wait six or seven hours while the Scotch Bill was being discussed.

SIR DONALD CURRIE

said, he hoped the Motion would be withdrawn.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he had made this Motion because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) was decidedly to blame for having placed the Scotch Bill second on the Paper. That arrangement had insured the attendance of Scottish Members to make a House for the consideration of the present Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman had no right to do that, having regard to the honour and respect due to Her Majesty, seeing that the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill had been announced in the Speech from the Throne on three several occasions.

MR. E. STANHOPE

asked for some explanation.

MR. FAWCETT

said, that the greater part of the third Bill on the list, the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill, was unanimously approved of by the House, and the only point to which objection was raised was the proposal to increase the maximum of insurance and annuity. He felt that those hon. Gentlemen who objected to that would be placed at a great disadvantage if a division was taken on the second reading, because that would prevent a great many hon. Gentlemen who wished to support them in other respects voting with them upon that. Therefore, he would suggest that, as the points objected to were purely matters of detail, the second reading should be taken to day formally; and then he would pledge himself that the Committee stage should be taken at a reasonable hour on a subsequent day. He was the more anxious to adopt that course, because a circular had been issued by the banks objecting to one point in the Bill, and be was willing to meet their objection in Committee by an Amendment which he intended to propose. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would consent to the second reading.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, it was very hard that hon. Members who wished to discuss this Bill should be kept there during the discussion of a Scotch Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it was unreasonable, after the Scotch Members had sat through the discussion of an English Bill, that English Members should object to sit through the discussion of a Scotch Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, some hon. Members had a strong opinion as to the Insurance Bill, and he hoped the Government, having put down three Bills when one or two would have been enough, would give way upon this point. Of course, the Scotch Members ought to have time to discuss their Bill, and he hoped they would have it.

MR. REPTON

asked up to what hour the House would continue to sit?

MR. FAWCETT

said, he had consulted several hon. Members, among them the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), and he believed it to be the general wish that the second reading should be taken formally as he had suggested, with an undertaking that the Committee stage should be taken at a reasonable hour, when the points objected to could be dealt with.

MR. REPTON

said, he was afraid that would not meet the views of hon. Members who objected to the Bill.

MR. TORRENS

said, there were many Members who had a serious objection to this Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), for instance, had a strong objection to the Bill, but he was obliged to be absent to-day, and the Postmaster General could not have spoken to him.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. BARRAN

said, he should be satisfied if the President of the Board of Trade would accept six months' limit instead of three months.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I hope my hon. Friend will not put us to the trouble of a division. It is absurd to suppose that any Corporation in the world would not find three months ample time to make up their minds, and it is not fair that the time should be kept open three months longer. The effect of the Amendment would be that a Corporation who had not any intention of going on with the scheme would be able to keep the ratepayers from the advantages of new experiments for six months.

MR. SLAGG

said, he did not see the importance of this extension of time; but he did object to giving Corporations a preference, and it did not seem to him that that preference was sufficiently distinct. The President of the Board of Trade had written to the Town Clerk of Manchester saying that it was true in this case no express preference was given to the municipal authorities; and there could be no doubt that in the event of competing schemes being introduced by the Corporation of Manchester and by private Companies, both Parliament and the Board of Trade would be disposed to give preference to the Corporation. That was a point he wished to have made clear. It was not fair that Corporations should stand in precisely the same position as a Company outside; and if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that it should be made clear in the Bill that no preference should be secured to the Corporations he should be content with the time proposed in the Bill.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he thought the arguments had been well and properly urged; but he was anxious that the President of the Board of Trade should know what the feeling was upon this matter. This Amendment, he had reason to believe, expressed the general opinion of the Corporations of England, as did the other two which he had placed on the Paper. The borough he represented included two municipal boroughs, which had expended something like £500,000 upon gas works. In order to make the works pay, the operations had been extended beyond the municipal limits; otherwise the rate would have been very heavy to the two towns. Those towns thought they ought to have a preference as to the establishing of the electric light. They were in favour of electric lighting, and were not opposed to the Bill; all they asked was that they should have preference over any strange Company coming in and competing with the gas works, and thereby throwing the rates more heavily on the ratepayers. It seemed to him that in fairness there should be some express provision in the Bill giving Corporations the option of first coming in. As the Bill now stood, half-a- dozen Companies might come in and get Provisional Orders, and yet not give a good light; whereas, if a Corporation had the right to introduce electric lighting, they would be able to select the best light that could be found.

MR. W. HOLMS

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran), believing that it would be very unreasonable that the Corporations should have a preferential claim in the matter of electric lighting, more especially in a case where a municipality had the management of the supply. He also thought it reasonable that the six months' limit should be adopted.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, that this question was most carefully considered by the Select Committee upstairs. They examined witnesses and heard speeches by counsel, and the upshot was that they put in this Proviso requiring three months' notice. He had listened very carefully to the arguments now advanced; but he saw no reason to alter the decision of the Committee.

MR. C. H. WILSON

urged the President of the Board of Trade to give way upon this point, as he believed nearly every large town supported the proposal. He know that a great number of Members representing large constituencies were in favour of it. He spoke for a large constituency himself, and hoped it would not be necessary to go to a division.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 88: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 267.)

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, that in consequence of the result of the division he would not move his Amendment.

Schedule agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be reported to the House."

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, in his opinion, there was no instance of any Government having acted so unfairly as the present Government had acted to- day. English Members had been brought down at 12 o'clock to discuss an English Bill—the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill. Five hours had been already occupied in discussing another Bill, and perhaps five more hours would be occupied in discussing a Scotch Bill before the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill could be reached. He hoped, under these circumstances, the Government would not think of going on with the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill that day.

MR. RYLANDS

supported the appeal of the hon. Gentleman. The question was one in which great interest was taken, and it would be most unsatisfactory to take that Bill after a long discussion on the Scotch Bill.

MR. FAWCETT

said, he should be extremely sorry to put the House to any inconvenience. He had hoard a rumour that some people were going to object to the Scotch Bill being taken. He hoped they would not; but if the Scotch Bill was discussed that afternoon fully, he would not bring on the third Order on the Paper.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he trusted the Government would really reconsider their intention of bringing forward the Scotch Bill that afternoon. That Bill was a very important one. It was one brought forward in the Queen's Speech, and he thought it was altogether—[Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot discuss a Bill which is not before the Committee.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he simply appealed to the Government not to bring forward this Bill, on the ground that the discussion could not fail to occupy five or six hours. To bring it on at that Sitting would be most unfair to Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.