§ Order for the Third Reading read.1458
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
said the object of the Bill was to acquire certain lands in the counties of Flint, Denbigh, Carnarvon, and Anglesey for the purpose of widening the line and making necessary alterations in stations. He was sure that no one would wish to place any obstacle in the way of the company making such improvements, which were called for by the greatly increased traffic on the North Wales coast. His only object in intervening in the debate was to draw attention to the fact that, although the traffic was so heavy that the line, already a double line, had to be converted into a quadruple line, providing two sots of rails for slow and two for express traffic, no reduction whatever was made in the maximum rates for carrying goods traffic, which were much higher on the Chester and Holyhead section than on other portions of the main line. The line from Chester to Holyhead was originally constructed by the Chester and Holyhead Railway Company. One of the pleas that had been put forward for higher rates was that the original cost of construction was high. Whether that was so or not, it was hardly for the London and North Western Railway Company to put forward that plea, seeing that they bought the line at one half the cost of its construction, and they therefore got it very cheaply. Moreover, at the time the line was made the cost of land was very much loss than at present. They complained, too, that traffic could only be drawn from one side of the railway, and that the coast was rugged; but it was the sea which had caused those difficulties, that induced tourists by the tens of thousands to visit the North Wales coast. It had caused large and populous watering places, and a number of smaller but rapidly growing towns, to spring up all along the coast-line; indeed, it looked as if the North Wales coast-line would in time become one continuous line of houses. These towns had enormously increased the goods and passenger traffic of the company—increased it, indeed, to such an extent that it was necessary for the company to come to Parliament for fresh powers to enable them to deal with the great and constantly growing volume of 1459 traffic, not only along the North Wales coast, but also the through traffic between England and Ireland. The rates charged on this line were discussed in Parliament in the year 1891, when the House of Commons reduced the rate levied on goods under Table A. to 95d., under a penny per ton per mile, the same rate as that charged on other sections of the main line. The House of Lords, however, raised the rate to 1½d. per ton per mile. Finally, the rate was fixed at l¼d. per ton per mile. It still remained at that figure; to-day it was 25 per cent. higher than the rates on other sections of the main line up to distances not exceeding twenty miles; it was 32 per cent. up to distances of fifty miles—60 per cent. higher for distances above fifty miles. The traders' contention was that there was nothing to justify the maximum rate being placed at a higher figure than 95d. per ton per mile, the amount charged on other sections of the main line, and he had never heard any argument which could not be easily refuted to show that any higher rate should be charged. If ever there was any reason for charging higher rates, it had long ago ceased to exist. The London and North Western Railway Company, by reason of the very configuration of the coast, occupied such a favourable position that no rival company could hope to compete with it for a share of the enormous traffic with which it was now prepared to deal. It had, in fact, an absolute monopoly. Any other company attempting to run a parallel line would find that the North Western Company had taken possession of every point of vantage that the coast could afford. The company was therefore in possession of a great monopoly, and it was the duty of Parliament to guard with the most scrupulous care the interests of traders and consumers, and to see that they were fully protected under any statute that conferred additional powers on a groat monopoly. The North Western Railway Company had not only secured a monopoly of the coast, it had acquired as many inland branch lines as possible, so that the greater part of North Wales was entirely in its hands. In conjunction with the Great Western Railway Company the London and North Western Railway Company had even gone to the length of constructing lines for purely obstructive purposes. He would give a case in point. About thirty years ago it was 1460 intended to bring a competing line of railway into North Wales. The Great Western and the London and North Western were determined to prevent competition, and accordingly constructed a line from Wrexham to Mold with the object of keeping out the new railway. The "obstructive" line was not opened for passenger traffic for twenty years, and had only been opened within the last few years under pressure from the county councils and other authorities. He had given this instance to show how determined those great railway companies were to preserve their monopolies. That spirit on their part must be met by a corresponding spirit on the part of the representatives of the public, that at the very least companies which obtain such monopolies should not be allowed to charge exceptional rates in those portions of the country where the monopoly existed. He might be asked, why not fight this question upstairs? Unfortunately, the public in North Wales had no large and comprehensive organisation to protect their interests in matters of this kind. The railway company, a wealthy and powerful corporation, could fight in detail local bodies which were naturally and properly averse to spending the ratepayers' money in litigation with a great railway company, which could afford to pay the ablest counsel and get the best expert evidence. They even went the length of approaching the witnesses brought to London to give evidence against them, finding out their individual grievances and settling with them, thereby cutting the ground from under the feet of the opposition. The interests involved were so great that no effort or expense was spared to make the case of the company as complete as possible. Ordinary opponents had no chance whatever against a highly perfected organisation of this kind. The contest was so unequal that it was not surprising to find the councils of small counties, municipalities, and urban districts shrinking from the task of protecting the interests of traders and the public in their fear of incurring undue expense. But the representatives of constituencies in North Wales had the right to protest against the charging of these exceptional rates. He hoped that opposition to them would be continued until full justice was done to the manufacturers, traders, and general public of North Wales. He 1461 wished the company well, having met nothing but kindness and courtesy at the hands of its officials in the country, and he hoped that they would soon see the justice of reducing their maximum charges to the manufacturers and traders of Flintshire and other counties in North Wales to those charged on other portions of their main line.
§ MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
I think the time has arrived when something should be done with regard to the charges on this particular branch of the London and North Western Railway Company's system. The matter has been before the House repeatedly during the last eight or nine years, and, as has been pointed out, exceptional treatment is meted out to the residents along the Chester and Holyhead line, for reasons which are absolutely insufficient. I recollect that when this question was raised in the House many years ago, the rates on this part of the line were reduced to exactly the same level as those obtaining on other parts of the main line, which was surely logical and proper treatment, the only difference between the sections of the railway being, so far as I know, that the Welsh part is far more remunerative than any other section. My hon. and gallant friend who represents the London and North Western Railway Company in this House, and deals with these matters in so genial a manner as to make it difficult for anyone to oppose him, will not deny not only that this part of the line was not constructed by his company, but that they bought it at less than one-half the original cost. Whatever the initial cost of this particular part of the line, the North Western Company got it cheap. No one else could have bought it, and now, with the ruthlessness which pertains to all monopolies, they take advantage of the position and charge exorbitant rates. The maximum rate charged on the company's main line is .95 of a penny. The difference in rate between .95d. on the main line and l.25d. on the Chester and Holyhead section is duo to the fact that up to Chester there is competition to be met from the Midland, the Great Western, and the Great Central lines; but on this piece of coast-line the North Western Company are autocrats of the situation except so far as traffic can be carried by 1462 sea. When there is a possibility of sea competition the company reduce their rates, but inland towns are forced to pay the increased rate, and thus smaller industries that might be carried on in the rural districts are crushed out of existence. I do not see why these places should pay higher rates in order that Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Nottingham, which are specially favoured in the matter of railway competition, should enjoy cheap rates. The maximum ought to he carefully scrutinised and reduced to the lowest possible point in towns where there is no competition. The House of Commons gives a monopoly to railway companies. In some cases it is not detrimental, because other companies serve the same district, but it is where there is only one line in the district; and I believe that sooner or later Parliament will have to see that rates in such districts are not piled up in order to cover losses created by competition in other places. We know that one of the greatest problems requiring to be solved is caused by the crowding of masses of the people into big towns. One of the reasons for that is that it is impossible for any trade or industry to be carried on successfully in the rural districts because of the excessive charges of monopolist railways. In 1891, when the question of railway rates was before the House, I moved an Amendment which the Government and the House accepted, by which the rates on the Chester and Holyhead section were reduced to the level of the general rate, but in the House of Lords Lord Stalybridge—who, in addition to being a Peer of the realm, is a director of the London and North Western Company—moved a return to the old figure, and, mustering his railway director friends, carried his proposal against the opposition of the Government. When the Bill returned to the House of Commons at the end of the session the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade, appealed to the House to accept the compromise of l.25d We did so, and for nine years these little industries have been starved and pinched simply because the railway directors gathered together in the House of Lords and out-voted the Government. It is a most monstrous system by which a ring of railway directors are enabled to prove themselves more powerful than the 1463 Government of the day, and to render it absolutely impotent in the face of the great railroad monopoly.
§ MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)
There seems to be a conspiracy of silence on the part of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in regard to these grave charges against this railway company. We do not object to granting the increased facilities demanded by reason of the increasing traffic on the North Wales line, but we do object to this strong company declining to remedy the grievances and burdens under which the people in this district have so long suffered. I know they say that they can only draw traffic from one side of the line; but as against that we can point to the fact that on this coast are to be found some of the most beautiful and most important watering resorts, which have been created not by the company, but by the sea. Although the coast owes a good deal to the London and North Western Railway Company, I maintain that the company owes a great deal more to the coast. Besides that, the Chester and Holyhead branch of the system is the main artery along which the great Irish traffic runs, and I should gather from what I have heard even from the directors that that traffic alone would be sufficient to make the line remunerative, even if they did not carry a single passenger or a single ton of goods for any part of North Wales. A great principle is involved in this. The local rates are so excessive that commercial men are receiving goods from London through the Midland to Liverpool, shipping them to Carnarvon, and carting them thence to inland towns, and, as was shown at a conference held at Bangor in 1896, the charge for the carriage of a horse from an inland town in Anglesey to Liverpool is £2, while the animal can be sent from Dublin along the Holyhead line to Liverpool for 25s., including the return fare of the groom, the charge being twice as much from the inland town for half the distance. Again, tradesmen at Bettws-y-Coed can by carting from Conway get their goods at a cheaper rate than is charged by the London and North Western Company. I do contend that the company should be compelled to readjust its tariff and make it the same as obtains on the rest of the system. What we want is to get an assurance or understanding that this 1464 question will be settled on broad and liberal lines. It has been said that the London and North Western Railway Company is conscienceless; but I must say that they have shown conscience in the highest degree with respect to the war. They have kept the places of Reservists in their service who have had to go out to South Africa, open; and they helped the Reservists' wives and children. I only ask them to show conscience in the same way to the poor agriculturists of North Wales, and solve the problem of this long-standing grievance.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)
It happens that I represent the county of Denbigh, which is affected by this Bill, but I only desire to draw the special attention of the Committee to the real grievance from which the farmers suffer by the excessive rates demanded by the London and North Western Railway Company. I wish to endorse all that has been said in regard to the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade in reference to these rates. We appreciate entirely the difficulties he has had to contend with in this matter, and I hope it is not too late for him to show again his personal sympathy, and give his personal support to the case we are laying before the House. It seems to me that the fact that this company holds the practical monopoly of North Wales between Chester and Holyhead should induce the House of Commons to carefully consider the question of the rates charged. I know, for a fact, that these high rates are a material detriment to the trade and agriculture of the whole of North Wales; and in these times when we are forced by distressful circumstances to give special attention to the farming classes of the country, I think it is only right that the House of Commons should carefully examine the points the Welsh Members have laid before it. It seems to mo that a number of now considerations have been advanced in the debate, and I do not think it unnatural that the Government should have some time to reconsider this question. Further than that, I think it would be only right that the question at issue should be again considered upstairs. With that object, I beg to move that the Bill be recommitted in respect of Clause 6, which is the clause we wish to bring before the arbitrament of the House. There are many grounds 1465 on which we can advocate that. It may be urged that evidence has not been forthcoming in regard to the attitude of the people of North Wales in reference to Clause 6; but I am assured that if this further opportunity is provided for expressing the views of North Wales, that opportunity will be taken advantage of. I hope therefore that the Government, or, at all events, the promoters of the Bill, will agree to the suggestion I have made, and not oppose my motion.
To leave out the words ' now read the third time,' and add the words ' re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clause 6.' "—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words ' now read the third time ' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)
I rise to support my hon. friends the Welsh Members, inasmuch as they have supported the Irish Members again and again in their disputations with the London and North Western Railway Company. I hope the Government, or the promoters of the Bill, will give us the opportunity of enabling us to confer with the ten or twelve railway directors who were on the Committee as to whether those rates, where there is no competition, should be charged by this monopolist company. As I listened today to the speeches of the Welsh Members, and to the silence with which they were received from the Treasury Bench, I thought I recollected a speech made by the Secretary to the Treasury a year or two ago in reference to another monopolist vote. The Secretary to the Treasury, who is one of the very few members of the Ministry who is not a company director, then said—The indirect influence which a big company like this—he was referring to the National Telephone Company, and I apply it to the London and North Western Railway Company—can bring, and is bringing, to bear is enormous; and it is difficult to see where public policy begins and private interest ends.Possibly the Government and the railway directors will not answer that question. They will rally their big battalions, 1466 against the strongest argument that can be brought to bear on a question of this kind. I saw a moment ago an hon. Gentleman enter the House—a Minister of the Crown who is a paid director of the London and North Western Railway Company, and received his directorship after he was appointed a Minister, in order that he should use his Ministerial position for the purposes of this monopolist company.
§ HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
§ * MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The hon. Member must withdraw that expression. The hon. Member said that a Minister of the Crown has received some appointment with a view to its wrongful influence upon his conduct as a Member of this House.
§ HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
§ HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
I shall not withdraw until I have explained. I made no personal imputation against the hon. Gentleman himself; but I do say that his position, sitting on the Treasury Bench, would lead—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] that is my opinion—might lead to the inference that he is there as a director and not as a Minister.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
Of course, I do withdraw. I make no personal implication against the hon. Gentleman; but what I can say is that, although a position of this kind was not accepted by the hon. Gentleman as a bribe, it may have been given to him as a bribe by this monopolist company. I think I am fully in order in saying that; and I am very glad that you, Mr. Speaker, have called me to order, because by doing so it will expose this system.
§ * MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The hon. Member is now departing from the 1467 question before the House; the question is that the Bill be recommitted to reconsider Clause 6.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
I think the Bill should be recommitted to give the Government an opportunity of consulting with their friends, both in the railway interest and outside of it, as to whether this Bill should be passed or not. It is a scandalous thing that a great public company like the London and North Western Railway company, with their great influence, can use that influence in the House of Commons as they do. If I have spoken with heat on this question, I hope the House will forgive me, for I recollect a great contest in regard to an Irish question in which I was engaged with this company. Wherever they can, they have oppressed the poor, and they have endeavoured to raise their dividends by a system which enables them, where there is no competition, to impose excessive rates detrimental to the interests of the country. On all these grounds I hope the Bill will be recommitted; and if, without disorder, I may say this: that I wish to enter my protest in a case of this kind against the appearance on the Treasury Bench of a director of a railway company.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)
The feelings of the hon. Member for South Donegal are apt to run away with him at times, but we speedily pardon him.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD
Well, I would only ask the hon. Gentleman to follow the moderate language of his Welsh colleagues who sit in front of him. They represent the interests of their Welsh industrial and agricultural constituents, and it is only natural that they should have an opportunity of reproducing the arguments that can be brought forward in favour of the general question of reduction of rates. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs complained that the London and North Western Railway Company did their best to crush the small business men—I suppose he means the small shopkeepers—by maximum rates, but he must know that the small shopkeepers get their goods carried fairly well, 1468 and that there is a good mail service. I will not dispute with the hon. Member the probability that there is some little excuse for complaint on a point here and there; but it would be a very singular company which was never found fault with. The London and North Western Company, however, have endeavoured to do their duty to the country throughout which they run their lines. They have reduced the rates considerably, and their great object is to provide a good service to the country, and make it as cheap and efficient as possible. The object of the Bill is to widen about six miles of the Chester and Holyhead Railway in order to increase the attraction of the public to the towns and watering-places in North Wales. Hon. Members who oppose the Third Reading of the Bill must remember that, if it should be rejected by the House, it will impose a very great disability on the company, and be fraught with very serious consequences to their traffic. We all wish to increase the attractions of North Wales, but we have also to consider the mercantile aspect of affairs in regard to that traffic, and likewise the commercial interest of the shareholders we represent. With regard to the toll-powers, they will be the same as the maximum rates applicable to any part of the London and North Western system. But it must be mentioned that the maximum rates are not invariably charged, except, perhaps, in Class A., where oven the maximum rate of 1½d. per ton has been reduced to 1 ¼d. per ton for all distances. It should also be borne in mind that these maximum rates are not always invariably charged. There has never been any complaint at all inside or outside the House as to the actual rates charged. I inquired before I came into the House, and I was informed that there had not been any complaints by the county councils or the traders. It is perfectly true, and I acknowledge fully, that hon. Members from Wales desire the best facilities obtainable for the public, but all the same they will do well to recognise that if there had been universal dissatisfaction some complaints, at all events, would have come to the ears of the London and North Western Railway Company, and surely some of the county councils would have approached the company and endeavoured to make out a case. Something has been said of the rates for horses and cattle, but the 1469 maximum charges, except in the middle class, are the same as on the Holyhead and Chester Railway and other parts of the system. The matters alluded to by the hon. Member for Carnarvon have nothing to do really with this case. The question of rates stated by hon. Members from Wales has been argued and settled with the authority of the House of Lords. I am sure I have myself been a sufferer from the way the House of Lords regards Bills, but I should be sorry to accuse them of having an ulterior motive in doing what they do. That would be a very serious matter indeed. I look upon them as men of business, performing their duties in the way they believe to be for the public interest. I would appeal to hon. Members from Wales whether at this particular stage, and in view of the fact that the subject has not been brought forward on this Bill, it would not be desirable to allow the Third Reading to be taken without opposition. I perfectly recognise their right to bring forward the whole question. It is one that is most interesting to the Members from North Wales. I hope they will not delay the passing of the Bill, which is really of very great importance to passengers in North Wales. It will have the effect of opening up a beautiful country. I can assure hon. Members from Wales that, as far as my small interest in the company goes, I have always acted in the public interest, and I shall always endeavour to bring before the board of directors any question affecting , the interests of Wales. I hope that at the present stage of the Bill they will see their way to withdraw the motion.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
The hon. Gentleman has spoken as if we desired to reject the Bill altogether. We only wish to recommit it in connection with Clause 6 with reference to exceptional rates. As far as the other parts of the Bill are concerned, it is welcome to pass through the House without the slightest opposition. We do not desire to place the slightest opposition in the way of the railway company, but this question ought to be considered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken made no allusion whatever to the fact that the circumstances have completely changed now that the company has doubled its line. I said before that it is the best portion of the main line, 1470 and there is no reason why the rates should not be reduced to the same amounts as are charged on other portions of the main line. The hon. Gentleman did not give us any reason why this difference should continue to exist. The one exception refers to the minerals carried under Class A. Flintshire, Denbighshire, and Carnarvon are deeply interested in this question, because their exports are coal and stone, and owing to the low price of minerals they find it extremely difficult to compete with other counties if these exceptional rates are allowed to be charged. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been no complaint from the county councils. As a matter of fact, my own county council is considering whether it shall not appeal to the Lords Committee on this question, but what we see before us is a great and powerful corporation, and a small, weak county council could only fight by spending a disproportionate amount of the ratepayers' money. Under these circumstances, I think the House would only do justice to this portion of North Wales by recommitting the Bill to the former Committee in respect to Clause 6. I wish to propose this in no unfriendly spirit whatever to the railway company or the officials. I put it to the House as a matter of simple justice. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not given any reason against the course we wish the House to take.
§ COLONEL PRYCE - JONES (Montgomery Boroughs)
I am bound to say that what the hon. Gentleman opposite has stated is perfectly true. We are in the hands of this great railway company in my part of Wales. I attended a meeting the other day—
§ * MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question of rates charged under this Bill on this particular part of the London and North Western Railway.
§ COLONEL PRYCE-JONES
All right, Mr. Speaker. At that particular meeting, when I complained of the rates they referred me to the London and North Western Railway Company. I can assure hon. Members that the House will be doing a real good turn to the Principality of Wales by objecting to the maximum rates that are being charged 1471 in certain parts of Wales. These railways in many parts have an absolute monopoly of the traffic.
§ COLONEL PRYCE-JONES
Well, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will have some regard to the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member with regard to the want of facilities, and the high rates charged by this great railway company.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
I can very well remember, in regard to this particular portion of the line, that there was considerable opposition on the part of the Irish Members. We at first got no concessions in regard to rates or passenger fares. After considerable pressure and opposition we got some concessions, though not nearly as many as we were entitled to. I think the Welsh Members would be very well advised to take a leaf out of our book, and press for the reconsideration of this clause, so as to delay the matter until after Whitsuntide, or until a satisfactory assurance is given. I think it is a regrettable tone to the debate which the hon. Gentleman opposite has introduced. I do not think he should call the railway company "my company." That is rather a large order. I do not think that is a dignified way of conducting public business in this House, and I think the Welsh Members should press their opposition. There is one very important point which I think they have not sufficiently emphasised. Everyone acquainted with North Wales knows that the mineral industry is probably the most important in that part. I think this is their opportunity. Bargains behind the Chair, and not across the floor of the House, are very much to be deprecated.
* THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,) Cumberland, Penrith
This discussion has travelled over rather a wide area since the motion was proposed by the Member for West Denbighshire. He suggests that the Bill should be recommitted in respect of Clause 6. That clause enacts that there shall be a widening of seven or eight miles of the system. Supposing this Bill were to be recommitted in respect of the rates, the 1472 only question the Committee would have to consider would be whether along this distance of eight miles a differential rate is to be charged, not in respect of all goods, but only in respect of minerals. I think hon. Members will see that when the question as to rates has so narrow a limit as that, it really would be futile to send the Bill back to the Committee, for supposing that hon. Members get their way, and supposing that the Committee were to insert a proviso that along the new lines which are to be added to the main line—along the distance of eight miles—a loss rate is to be charged for minerals, the result would be that the London and North Western Railway Company would run all other traffic on the new line, and all mineral traffic on the old line, so that hon. Members would not gain by it. What hon. Members object to is not so much what is in the Bill as what is not in the Bill. They do not object, I understand, to any of the clauses in the Bill. They approve of the widening, but what they want is a general revision of rates along that part of the system. I do not see how that can be obtained. It does not seem to me to be possible to insert in this Bill those provisions, and that being so, I feel myself compelled, without expressing any opinion whatever as to the contention about rates, if they press the matter to a division, to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill and against the re-committal.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that once the Committee of the House of Commons adjudicated upon this question, that was an expression of opinion which was tantamount to a decision of the House that upon the whole of that portion of the line the rates would be reduced. Brushed of its technicalities, the whole question was whether the company should discriminate between the Chester and Holyhead branch and the other part of the line. They asked why the company should charge l¼d. upon the Chester and Holyhead line and ..95d. on the other part of the line. The hon. and gallant Member opposite had not attempted to give an answer to that question. What possible reason was there for charging l¼d. and discriminating between the case of coal and the case of slates? If the House of Commons authorised this company to make exceptions and special charges on this line, why should it not 1473 also be done in regard to other traffic? He thought their appeal was a perfectly fair one. Unfortunately this was the only way they could raise the question in the House, and he appealed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman at any rate to agree to the adjournment of the debate until after the Whitsuntide recess. Then there might be an opportunity of conferring upon the subject, and there was really no need to hurry in the matter. There was no serious opposition to any other part of the Bill, if there was a friendly conference between the parties during the Whitsuntide recess, he believed it would be attended with excellent results. There was no claim made on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company in respect to these exceptional charges, and they did not contend that there ought to be preferential rates, if the conference he suggested took place during the recess he thought they would be able to got the measure through afterwards as an unopposed Bill. He did not know whether he should be in order in moving the adjournment, but he would do so if it was in order, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member opposite would assent to the course he had suggested.
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)|
|Allison, Robert Andrew||Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Cruddas, William Donaldson||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Heath, fames|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh||Helder, Augustus|
|Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith-(Hunts)||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hermon-Hodge, Robt, Trotter|
|Hartley, George C. T.||Denny. Colonel||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Beach, Rt. Hon Sir M. H.(Bristol)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.)|
|Bethell, Commander||Doxford, Sir William T.||Hornby, Sir William Henry|
|Bill, Charles||Drage, Geoffrey||Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart||Halson, George Bickersteth|
|Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Fardell, Sir T. George||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)||Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r)||Johnstone, Hevwood (Sussex)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Fisher, William Hayes||Knowles, Lees|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Lafone, Alfred|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)||Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Leighton, Stanley|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)|
|'Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Flower, Ernest||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)||Fry, Lewis||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Garfit, William||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Charrington, Spencer||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Lowe, Francis William|
|Coddington, Sir William||Gilliat, John Saunders||Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Goldsworthy, Major-General||Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Cumb'l'nd)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Lucas-Shadwell, William|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Graham, Henry Robert||Maclure, Sir John William|
|Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)||Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||M'Calmont, Col. J.(Antrim, E.)|
§ * MR. SPEAKER
I cannot accept a motion for adjournment at this stage. The hon. Member has already heard the views of the railway company, and also the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee.
§ MR. WILLIAM JONES
supported the appeal made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon to adjourn the debate until after the Whitsuntide recess, in order to discuss the point which had been raised. If this were done he thought an arrangement could be come to which would satisfy all parties.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 1G3; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 139.)1475
|M'Ewan, William||Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)||Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)|
|M'Killop, James||Penn, John||Spencer, Ernest|
|Malcolm, Ian||Percy, Earl||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.|
|Maple, Sir John B'undell||Pilkington, Sir G A(Lancs S. W.)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Marks, Henry Hananel||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Win. H.|
|Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Purvis, Robert||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Mellor, Rt. Hon. J.W.(Yorks.)||Pym, C. Guy||Welby, Lt-Col A.C. E.(Tauntn)|
|Milward, Colonel Victor||Rankin, Sir James||Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)|
|Monckton, Edward Philip||Rasch. Major Frederic Carne||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.|
|Monk, Charles James||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)||Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)|
|Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Mount, William George||Robinson, Brooke||Wyndham, George|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Myers, William Henry||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Nicholson. William Graham||Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES —|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Simeon, Sir Barrington||Mr. Banbury and Mr. Gal-|
|O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||loway.|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Gurdon, Sir William Brampton||O'Malley, William|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Hayden. John Patrick||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Holland, William Henry||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Baker, Sir John||Horniman, Frederick John||Power. Patrick Joseph|
|Balcarres, Lord||Howell, William Tudor||Price, Robert John|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Blake, Edward||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur||Jacoby, James Alfred||Reid, Sir Robert Threshie|
|Brigg, John||Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Caldwell, James||Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U||Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh)|
|Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)||Kilbride, Denis||Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Labouchere, Henry||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Lambert, George||Souttar, Robinson|
|Carew, James Laurence||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)||Steadman, William Charles|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Leng, Sir John||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Colville, John||Lewis, John Herbert||Strachey, Edward|
|Crombie, John William||Lloyd-George, David||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)||Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Lyell, Sir Leonard||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
|Dewar, Arthur||Macdona, John Cumming||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Maclean, James Mackenzie||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Donelan, Captain A.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Ure, Alexander|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Kenna, Reginald||Wason, Eugene|
|Duckworth, James||Maddison, Fred.||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Engledew, Charles John||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Evans, Sir F.H.(Southampton)||Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)|
|Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Gold, Charles||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)||Mr. Herbert Roberts and|
|Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Lieut.-Col. Pryce-Jones.|
§ Main Question again proposed.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)
I beg to move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give the directors of the London and North Western Railway Company an opportunity of making an arrangement more satisfactory to North Wales than at 1476 present exists. I do this in view of the strong feeling indicated by the vote we have just taken.