HC Deb 16 July 1902 vol 111 cc444-57

Order for Second Reading read.

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

(10.15.) MR. BANBURY,

in moving that the Bill be read a second time this day three months, said that he did so, not on account of any detail that could be conveniently considered in. Committee, or out of any disrespect for the decision of the House of Lords, but because he believed the Bill to be wrong in principle. The Bill was practically the same in principle as the Piccadilly, City, and North-East London Bill, and he would suggest that if the House took the discussion on these two Bills together it would save time, and then if the present Bill was approved, he would not move his Motion on the other. These two Bills were practically one undertaking, extending over about twenty miles. Fifteen miles of the scheme were in competition with existing railways or with railways which had been sanctioned by the House. About four miles, from Clapham Junction to the Marble Arch, were not open to that objection; but the main object of the line was to run in competition with the Brompton and Piccadilly, the District, the North London, and the Great Eastern systems. The Brompton and Piccadilly line was a tube railway; this Bill proposed to put underneath this tube railway another tube railway, so that they would have four tubes together, two above the other. Tube railways had caused great annoyance to the frontagers on the line of route. The vibration had been great, and damage to property had been caused; but if the House sanctioned the placing of four tube lines in close proximity, it was evident that the dangers from vibration would be increased. Thus two tube lines were to compete against each other, and the system was to be. parallel with the District Railway. For the last twenty years the District Railway had paid no dividend to the ordinary or preference shareholders, and with great difficulty it had raised the money to electrify its system. It stood to reason that when this railway was electrified, it would be better for the travelling public than to descend a considerable distance: underground and proceed by tube. (Cries of "No, no."] It was evident that that would be so. He did not think that it was fair to the shareholders of the District Company to allow a competing scheme, unless it could be shown that they had infringed the powers granted to them, or did not meet the demands of the public. At present the company was doing its best to meet the demands of the public, and there was no hurry for this scheme. It would be better to wait until they saw the electrification of the system carried out before they sanctioned this competing scheme. The same argument applied to the case of the other railways, He denied that competition of this kind really meant a benefit to the public; it meant rather ruin to the competing companies. Who in the end combined, and any advantage gained by the public during the quarrel was lost. In the case of companies struggling for an existence, it was impossible for them to give those facilities which they would be in a position to provide if they had sufficient capital at their disposal. Large sums of money had been lost in this way. He agreed that the more they encouraged money to be invested in this country instead of going abroad the better it was for all classes. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] Under the scheme it was proposed to raise £10,000,000, and he pointed out that the Central London Company paid only a dividend of 4 per cent, and the South London Company 2¾ per cent. How could it be expected that a railway which was to be constructed at this cost, open to competition over fifteen miles of its system, could pay a dividend when the Central London system, tapping the traffic on the finest route, and open to little competition, could only pay 4 per cent.? In the ordinary course of events he did not believe the necessary capital would be found but in the present case there was no doubt that it would be found, because the undertaking was being financed by Messrs. Morgan. He did not suppose that they were going to find all the capital themselves. They would, no doubt, come to the English public to assist them in finding the money. Messrs. Morgan had been an extremely successful firm, and people were apt to say that because they had been successful in the past they would be successful in the future. He remembered that there was what was called a railway mania in 1847. George Hudson, a very great man in his time, projected an enormous number of railways, but he was before his time, and he believed that Messrs. Morgan were a little before their time now. He contended that the necessity for these railways had not been shown, that this system of competition was wrong, and that if these lines were constructed the only result would be a great loss of money to the people of this country, without any benefit to the public.

Amendment Proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three mouths."—(Mr. Banbury.)

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


said that he had listened with the utmost care to the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Peckham, and he had been unable to discover from the speech any proof that this Bill violated any fragmentary or microscopic principle of legislation, unless, indeed, his hon. friend was prepared to ask the House to declare as a principle that there must not be two competing modes of locomotion on the same route. That was a principle the House never had affirmed, and it seemed to him that it would be a disastrous thing for the travelling public if such a principle were affirmed now. All the matters that his hon. friend had referred to were matters of detail, and he hoped the House would not waste its time in the discussion of details, but would send the Bill to the Committee upstairs.

MR. BULL (Hammersmith)

Said he was deeply interested in this Bill. He sincerely trusted that this measure would be given a fair chance, and that the project of a railway which would run from Hammersmith to Piccadilly would pass. He complained that the District Company had not done anything to meet the wants of the public. They had, indeed, recently proposed to reduce their fares on certain routes, but where there was no competition they did not do so. When the promoters. of this scheme came forward and offered to make an efficient railway from Hammersmith to Piccadilly, he, as one interested in Hammersmith, welcomed the proposal gladly. The Company would court any re-examination of this scheme, but they protested against the interests of a company, which had been blocking the way for the last forty years being allowed to stand in the way. A suggestion had been made that this new line was being run entirely by American capita, but that suggestion came with very bad grace from those who were interested in the District Railway. The London United Tramway Company had shown that they could serve the public well, and it had been said by a very high authority indeed that this company had shown the way by which the housing problem could be solved. The Great Eastern Railway had largely reduced their fares, with the result that the East End of London had considerably benefited. If a cheap service of fares, such as that the London United Electric Railways Company guaranteed in their Bill could be secured, it seemed to him that it would be a great benefit to the West End of London. He trusted the House would deal out to this company the treatment which they had dealt out to others, and allow the Bill to be read a second time.

*(10.40.) MR. JOHN BURNS

said the hon. Member for York had asked whether this particular Bill violated any Parliamentary principle. Judging this Bill by the view which Parliament had hitherto taken of railway schemes, it did violate a sound Parliamentary principle. On what lines had Parliament hitherto proceeded whether with tramways, underground railways, or the great trunk lines? Parliament had definitely laid down that certain areas of territory should be handed over to certain companies for exploitation by themselves, and in too many cases to the inconvenience of the general public. He was sorry that railway companies had too frequently abused this rule and Privilege, and, except in instance where they had been threatened with rival companies and substantial competition, they had not shown that facility to put their house in order which he should have liked to have seen. This, however, would happen, so long as private enterprise was allowed in transit schemes. But they could have within a limited area, and particularly in a large city, too much competition of the same kind. He would illustrate by another argument. The law provided that a municipality had no right to promote a tramway within the same area as a company, and speaking broadly and generally, that rule operated to the advantage of the pioneer company which was compelled to sell out to the municipality in the event of the company not serving that particular area as prescribed by Parliament, and interpreted by locality. In this case they were not dealing with the competition of a rival company against the South Eastern or North Western or the London and Brighton Railways, in which the areas were so vast as to permit of effective competition. They were dealing with an entirely different state of things, namely, needless competition in a congested and limited area. The Metropolitan and District Railway had not served London as it should have done. This, however, was mainly due to the fact that Parliament had been influenced too much by the railway interests, particularly in London. He was not anxious to add to the number of British railway directors, whether they happened to be Yerkes or Morgans, from Canada or America, but he was anxious to be fair to existing companies. In this case there was in existence a company to which this right had been accorded, and though the right had not been so well used as it might have been, an improvement had been insisted on and the company had been given the power of electrification. He thought that Parliament ought to wait until this work was completed. Competition was proposed which could only be detrimental both to the Metropolitan and the Pierpont Morgan railways, and ultimately to the public. Parliament would, if it were wise, impose on the District and Metropolitan and Central London Railways the necessity of unifying their schemes, electrifying the whole, and giving London a co-ordinated system, using existing railways as a nucleus, and not introducing a third competitor, which would not give the public that advantage which the existing railway could and should by Parliament be made to do. Of the twenty-six electric and tube Bills introduced this session the House of Lords Committees and the House of Commons Committees had only allowed eleven to get through. The others had been abandoned or rejected because, like this bill, they duplicated existing routes, were financially unsound, or, generally speaking, subjected London to physical disturbance and vibration to which it ought not to be subjected. He believed that in rejecting many of the schemes the Committees had on the whole acted wisely, but why they should reject the Central London Railway Scheme, and at the same time admit the new schemes under Bills 6 and 8 he could not for the life of him understand. He objected to Bills 6 and 8 because there was a duplication where it was not needed. He believed the American line engineered by Mr. Pierpont Morgan was unnecessary, for this reason: that it gave competition where it was not needed. The other day Parliament had before it a mono-rail scheme from London to Brighton. The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company successfully opposed that scheme because it would have created needless competition, and Parliament endorsed that view. The American scheme was for a line to run from Hammersmith to the City and on to Palmer's Green. There were already two lines from Hammersmith to the City, and the only reason for the third was that it was promoted by a wealthy syndicate which intended to dominate London transit. They had no guarantee that the American line would be carried on to Palmer's Green, but they had pledges from the Metropolitan and the District Companies that they would improve the service as a whole, apart from profitable sections. He did not attach too much importance to the concessions made by the Pierpont Morgan syndicate with respect to East-End districts, workmen's trains, and so forth. The ease with which they had yielded was suspicious, and covered other intentions not yet disclosed. He agreed with the hon. Member for Peckham that this railway would cause needless competition, flu believed also the scheme was financially unsound, that the American financiers, with the facility for which they were distinguished, would eventually unload, and that the British, investor would have to stand the loss. He wanted to put this to the House— What if these three American syndicates made up their differences and amalgamated and took all these lines into their hands? The travelling public would be completely at their mercy. He objected altogether to Parliament's giving power to these syndicates to dominate a great part of the traffic of London. He had a further objection, and that was that through this system they would have introduced a condition of log-rolling and lobbying greater than existed now. He regarded the scheme from every point of view as likely to lead to a competition which would be wasteful, dangerous and extravagant. For these and other reasons he trusted the House of Commons would allow the existing companies to develop their systems, and not add to the difficulties of locomotion by giving an American syndicate power to do inefficiently what he believed the existing companies were capable of doing if Parliament would only grant them facilities.

MR. PEEL (Manchester, S.)

hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading. The speech to which they had listened seemed to be based on an objection, or rather a prejudice, to American capitalists. Considering what British capitalists had done in other countries, he thought that they ought to be the last to hold that idea. He was very much astonished that the hon. Member for Battersea, who was interested in housing matters, should want to reject this railway, which would be of enormous benefit towards solving the problem of the housing of the working classes. A portion of the proposed railway went from the City out northward, and by its means great districts which were at present undeveloped would be opened up and made accessible to the people in the congested districts of London. He did not propose to enter into the questions of finance and competition. They were not matters for discussion in the House of Commons. They could only be dealt with by a Committee upstairs, and he sincerely hoped the House would consent to give the Bill a Second Reading,

MR. ASHTON (Bedfordshire, Luton),

speaking as a Member of the Joint Committee on Underground Railways, which sat last year, said that no scheme that was laid before them was considered better than the line running the whole way from Hammersmith to the City and from the City to the North-East of London. He hoped the House would think twice before refusing to give a Committee upstairs the opportunity of judging of the value of the scheme. He had heard no arguments, from the hon. Gentleman who had moved the rejection of the Bill, or from the hon. Member for Battersea, which were not arguments that ought to be addressed to a Committee and not to that House, though he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Battersea supporting the vested interests of the District Railway. The Joint-Committee considered this to be an excellent route, and he hoped the House would allow a Committee to settle the details of the matter.

(11.8.) LORD ALWYNE COMPTON (Bedfordshire, Biggleswade)

desired to associate himself with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Battersea. He should like to state what the competition, to which reference had been made, amounted to. It would be a competition from Albert Gate, the whole way up Piccadilly, to Piccadilly Circus. That meant that for that mile and a half there would be two tube railways with stations opening out at the same places, competing for the 'same traffic. From Piccadilly Circus the proposed line moved down through the Metropolitan District Railway, and crossed it several times until it got to Bishopsgate Street, which was a matter of another two and a half miles. The question before the House was not one of detail; it was the broad question whether two railways were to be permitted by Parliament to compete unfairly with each other. If this line was required let it go through another part, and not through the part where Parliament had already sanctioned a line. He was not financially interested in any tube or railway whatever. He maintained that it had not been shown that this Morgan railway was required, and even if it were required, he still maintained that it was wrong to depart from the principle established for years that Parliament did not sanction, under any circumstances whatever, unfair competition with railways which had been already sanctioned, and on which public money had been already expended.

*SIR LEWIS MACIVER (Edinburgh, W.)

said he did not wish to express any opinion on the merits of the Bill before the House, but to point out the danger the House was in of being led away from its legitimate functions, sitting as a House, into trespassing on the ground of its own Committees. He had always understood that the question of unfair competition" was one which the Committees were bound to consider; as indeed was nearly every other aspect of the Bill that had been discussed that evening. The hon. Member for Peckham commenced by saying that he would deal with the matter on broad principle, but the hon. Gentleman had never touched any broad principle at all. He dealt exclusively with points of detail. The noble Lord who had just sat down had professed a similar devotion to principle but his speech was never within a day's march of a second-reading principle, The only Member who had thrown down on the floor of the House a real question of principle was the hon. Member for Battersea, and that question resolved itself into the suggestion that the House should refuse to sanction any undertaking which was known, or suspected, to be of foreign origin. He would remind the House that no Committee upstairs would venture or be competent to decide so grave and novel a proposition, and although he expressed no opinion on the merits of the suggestion, he would remind the House that its adoption would very promptly assume an international aspect. For considering the vast amount of British capital invested in America and other foreign countries, retaliation in kind would be very simple, and would be inevitable.

MR. DAVID MORGAN (Essex, Walthamstow)

said as the representative of a very large East End constituency he wished to say a word or two about this Bill. Although of the same name as the gentleman who had boon mentioned as connected with the financial arrangements of the railway, he regretted to say they were not related. He had no interest whatever, directly or indirectly, in the scheme. He thought that the House had been led away to a certain extent on a false issue. The firm connected with the Bill was that of Peabody, and at the head of that firm was Sir Clinton Hawkins, whose

financial ability was well known to the House, and who would not put his name to any proposal unless he was prepared to uphold the undertaking. He sincerely trusted the House would send the Bill to the Committee upstairs, so that the whole merits or demerits should be considered. The scheme would for the first time provide an electric railway and trams which would enable Londoners to obtain cheap and rapid transit to the country, and thus promote the health of the working classes and their children.

(11.18.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 69.(Division List No.301.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Harrington, Timothy
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Cremer, William Randal Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Allhusen, Augustus H'nryEden Dalziel, James Henry Hay, Hon. Claude George
Ambrose, Robert Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Hayden, John Patrick
Arkwright, John Stanhope Delany, William Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Arrol, Sir William Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Holland, Sir William Henry
Atherley-Jones, L. Doogan, P. C. Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Bain, Colonel James Robert Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)
Baird, John George Alexander Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hudson, George Bickersteth
Balcarres, Lord Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Duke, Henry Edward Jacoby, James Alfred
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Duncan, J. Hastings Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhonse
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.) Duraing-Lawfence, Sir Edwin Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Bartley, George C. T. Dyke, Rt. Hn Sir William Hart Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Jordan, Jeremiah
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir. Michael Hicks Esmonde, Sir Thomas Joyce, Michael
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Kearley, Hudson E.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Kennedy, Patrick James
Bignold, Arthur Faber, George Denison (York) Keswick, William
Bigwood, James Farquharson, Dr. Robert Kitson, Sir James
Bill, Charles Fenwick, Charles Lambert. George
Blundell, Colonel Henry Fergusson. Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Boland, John Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.
Bond, Edward Fison, Frederick William Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Moum'th
Bousfield, William Robert Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Layland-Barratt, Francis
Brassey, Albert Flower, Ernest Leamy, Edmund
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Flynn, James Christopher Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham
Brotherton, Edward Allen Forster, Henry William Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Fuller, J. M. F. Leigh, Sir Joseph
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Goddard, Daniel Ford Leng, Sir John
Butcher, John George Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin & Nairn Lloyd-George, David
Caine, William Sproston Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
caldwell, James Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.) Long. Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Lough, Thomas
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Goulding, Edward Alfred Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr,
Causton, Richard Knight Grant, Corrie Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lundon, W.
Cawley, Frederick Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'ry Macdona, John Cumming
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Charrington, Spencer Grenfell, William Henry Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Griffith, Ellis J. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Coghill, Douglas Harry Groves, James Grimble MacVeagh, Jeremiah
M'Arthur,-Charles (Liverpool) Pearson, Sir Weetman D. Soares, Ernest J.
M'Cann, James Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Spear, John Ward
M'Crae, George Peel. Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk
M'Govern, T. Pirie, Duncan V. Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW Plummer, Walter R. Stevenson, Francis S.
M'Kean, John Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Power, Patrick Joseph Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
M'Killop W. (Sligo North) Pretyman, Ernest George Strachey, Sir Edward
Mansfield, Horace Rendall Price, Robert John Stroyan John
Markham, Arthur Basil Purvis, Robert Sullivan, Donal
Martin, Richard Biddulph Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Melville, Beresford Valentine Randles, John S. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Milvain, Thomas Ratcliff, R. F. Thornton, Percy M.
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Reddy, M. Tollemache, Henry James
Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Tomilinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Mooney, John J. Redmond, William (Clare) Toulmin, George
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Remnant, James Farquharson Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow Renshaw, Charles Blue Wanklyn, James Leslie
Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh. Renwick, George Warr, Augustus Frederick
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Ridley. Hon. M. W. (Stalybdge) Webb, Colonel William George
Mount, William Arthur Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E (Taunt'n
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) White, George (Norfolk)
Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne
Nannetti, Joseph P. Ropner, Colonel Robert Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. Runciman, Walter Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Russell, T. W. Willox, Sir John Archibald
Norman, Henry Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wilson, HenryJ. (York, W. R)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Schwann, Charles E. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Woodhouse, R t. Hn. E. R. (Bath
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Wylie, Alexander
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Seton-Karr, Henry Young, Samuel
O'Malley, William Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Yoxall, James Henry
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Palmer, George Wm. (Reading) Skewes-Cox, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE AYES℄
Partington, Oswald Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.) Mr. Bull and Mr. Warner,
Paulton, James Mellor Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gretton, John Robson, William Snowdon
Anstruther, H. T. Greville, Hon. Ronald Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Round, Rt. Hon. James
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry Royds, Clement Molyneux
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Harmsworth, R. Leicester Rutherford, John
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Channing, Francis Allston Henderson, Sir Alexander Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chapman, Edward Hogg, Lindsay Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Oxf'd Univ.
Churchiil, Winston Spencer Jameson, Major J. Eustace Tennant, Harold John
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Labouchere, Henry Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastinge
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lawson, John Grant Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Valentia, Viscount
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Llewellyn, Evan Henry Vincent, ColSir C. E. H (Sheffield
Crossley, Sir Savile Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Doughty, George Moulton, John Fletcher Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Edwards, Frank Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Nicol, Donald Ninian
Finch, George H. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Fisher, William Hayes Parkes, Ebenezer TELLERS FOB THE NOES℄
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Pierpoint, Robert Mr. Banbury and Mr.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Pilkngton, Lieut.-Col. Richard John Burns.
Galloway, William Johnson Richards, Henry Charles

Bill read a second time, and committed or Tuesday next.


in moving the Instruction standing in his name, said that the reason why he moved it was that this was the one portion of the line from Hammersmith to the City which was most valuable. The portion of the line from the City to the North; of London was less valuable. What he was afraid of was that the Committee might strike out the most valuable portion of the line and leave the least valuable portion in the lurch. If they read the evidence in the Report of the Lords' Committee it would be seen that one of the great inducements for sanctioning the Bill was to get a line from the City to the North of London. His object was to secure that the whole line should be built, but the method by which this should be secured he would leave to the Committee upstairs.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London United Electric Railways Bill [Lords] to take security from the undertakers for the completion of the whole scheme of railways comprised in the Bill, either by making the rights of the undertakers under the Bills conditional upon the due performance of their whole undertaking or otherwise, as the Committee may think fit.—(Mr. Peel.)