HC Deb 22 July 1902 vol 111 cc972-88

As amended, considered.

(9.0.) MR. PLUMMER (Newcastle)

moved to add a clause requiring the Company to provide proper accommodation for conveyance of bicycles by all trains, but not more than six in one train. He was aware of the general feeling among Members who were averse from having matters of comparative unimportance, which had been decided by a Committee, brought up again before the House of Commons; but, in this case, there had been no consideration of the question, the Chairman having ruled that the cyclists had no locus standi. The Bill was one for the construction of an electric tube under the River Tyne, and the Company asked to be relieved from any obligation to carry bicycles at all. The population of Tyneside exceeded a million, and last year 44,000 cycles were carried by the old ferry steamer, so that it was a matter of some importance to all concerned. Cycling was no longer merely a pastime, but a real necessity, and not of professional men alone. He could testify to the increasing use of cycles by working men of late years, and it did not a little in certain districts to solve the housing question. He regarded the cycle as the working man's motor car. It might be argued that cyclists could still use the old out-of-date ferry service; but there was no guarantee, as far as he could find, that the present rate of service would be continued He was not aware of anything but the pressure of local opinion to prevent those responsible for the service from dropping it to half an hours service or even less. Apart from that, on one side of the river at any rate there was a hill approaching the ferry which was certainly awkward, and very often dangerous to cyclists. He claimed for cyclists in common with other sections of the community, the right to participate in the improved facilities which science was placing at our disposal. Parliament always recognised the salutary rule that the powers it conferred on public companies carried with them obligations, and zealously guarded against the companies picking and choosing the convenient and profitable traffic and leaving the rest. He believed it was alleged by the promoters that the adoption of the clause would hamper them in the working of their scheme; but that was guarded against by the limit placed on the number of machines carried. It appeared that it was proposed that the train should stop only thirty seconds at each end of the tube; but he did not believe the folks of Shields wished this scurrying, neck-breaking, heart-disease producing mode of progress. It was further pointed out by the promoters that other electric tube railways had not had similar obligations imposed upon them; but this was not an electric tube railway in the ordinary sense of the word, but a short tunnel. Then the promoters stated they were advised that it was mechanically impossible, and that the additional expenditure would seriously interfere with the financial prospects of the company. He could not, however, believe that in these days of engineering skill and mechanical progress, especially in the North of England, it was impossible to devise some means whereby cycles could be carried.

A Clause (Company to carry bicycles) —(Mr. Plummer)—brought up, and read the first and second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."


said he was not interested financially or personally in this scheme. He would like to point out it could scarcely be called a railway. It was more of the nature of a tram line which was intended to afford a cheap and rapid transit from one side of the river to the other. The great object of these railways was to carry, passengers, and there was no provision made in these cases for luggage of any kind, because it was realised that if luggage were allowed it would involve delay and some danger to the public. The suggestion now made that the company should be compelled to provide for the carriage of six bicycles by each train would necessitate invidious selection and obviously cause not a little disorder when there happened to be more than six waiting to cross. Cyclists already had an excellent means of crossing by the ferry boats. He quite recognised the spirit in which the Cyclists' Touring Club had approached this matter but he rather deprecated the pressure put upon M. Ps. to take a step which was not in the interest of the public generally.

CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

opposed the Clause. He was greatly interested in the question of rapid communication when it was closely connected with the housing difficulty. The object of tubular railways was to secure rapid means of transit in order that —


Order, order! The general question cannot be discussed on this Bill. The point is whether cycles shall be carried through this particular tunnel under the River Tyne.


said he had no intention of discussing the general question. This tubular railway was to serve a population of a quarter of a million, and it was strongly supported by the Tyneside Council as well as the Corporations of the large towns concerned and he did not think it fair to attempt to force this duty on the Company. They ought to have some direction from the Board of Trade on this matter; some hint as to whether that Department approved this proposal. He was well aware that cyclists were worse provided for in tins country than in any other, but he doubted the wisdom of imposing a special obligation in this case.

MR. ROBSON (South Shields)

said he would certainly do nothing to imperil or impede the progress of this Bill; but he was bound to admit that the cyclists of the two towns did not receive fair and adequate treatment under the Bill. The hon. Member who had last spoken said the cyclist had been refused a locus standi before the Committee. That was quite true, and that was the reason that they were called upon to discuss the Amendment now. His hon. friend had stated that there were sufficient means of transit for cyclists across the river. The question, however, was whether that means of traffic would last in anything like its present sufficiency when this Bill had passed. When his hon. friend talked of placing an obligation upon this Company which was not imposed on any other railway, he forgot that one of the matters into which a Committee had to inquire was whether any section of the community found its facilities diminished by granting facilities to any company. At South Shields there was at present a ferry which ran every fifteen minutes; but if their Bill were passed, that ferry service would be very likely diminished, because, when they had electric trams running under the river every six minutes, traffic would be diverted to that new means of communication. The ferry, if it was maintained, would not in all probability run with its present frequency: and, while the general public would be advantaged by the new means of transit, the cyclists would find their facilities lessened. Those who supported this Amendment had endeavoured to impose as little inconvenience as possible on the Company, and, with that desire, had consented to the absurd restriction that not more than six cycles should be carried at a time, and the price charged to be three times as much as that charged for the conveyance of cycles over the ferry.

(9.30.) MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

said he agreed that the floor of this House was a most inconvenient place to discuss whether bicycles should be carried by this railway or not, but it was in consequence of the locus of the petitioners having been disallowed before the Committee that this discussion was now taking place. He thought the Standing Orders ought to be altered. He was Chairman of the Court of Referees, which disallowed the locus of the petitioners in this case. That Court was not concerned with the merits of the case, but decided against the right of bicyclists to petition upon technical grounds. He had, however, subsequently looked into the question and had satisfied himself that on the merits he should have gone against the bicyclists, because the scheme was intended purely for passengers, and the obligation sought to be imposed would be a serious hindrance. At the same time, he thought the Standing Orders ought to be extended, so as to allow bodies like the Cyclists' Touring Club to have an opportunity in the same way as Chambers of Commerce or Agriculture of being heard before the Committee.


The hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the desirability of amending the Standing Orders.


said he would vote against the Clause being inserted in the Bill.


said he knew the localities to be served by this railway. Hitherto the means of getting across the river Tyne had been steam ferries, which worked very efficiently; but if this Bill passed the effect would be to direct a large proportion of the passenger traffic from the boats to the railway, and the boats would in all probability be largely withdrawn. It was the duty of the House to give the greatest possible facilities to all members of the public, even including cyclists. He was therefore of opinion that the justice of the case could best be met by admitting cyclists to have the facilities they desired.


said that the promoters of a private Bill, who came to the House asking, privileges of any kind, must obey the rules set down in the Standing Orders, and, therefore they had a right to expect that no new condition should be imposed on them while their Bill was before the House. What was now proposed was to impose on this company a new condition which had not been laid on any other electric tube railway company. That new condition had been laid on them while the Bill was passing through the House. The hon. Member for Newcastle said this was not a tube railway at all, but practically a tunnel. He was not an engineer, but he could not see the difference between the Central London Railway and that now proposed, except that the one was eight or nine miles long with thirteen stations and the other three-quarters of a mile long with two stations. The whole object of the railway was to give quicker means of communication between North and South Shields, the intention being to run trains every six minutes. It was necessary to the scheme that there should be speed in conducting the traffic. If bicycles were allowed to be carried, the difficulties of quick working would be increased. He hoped the House would not impose this new condition on the company.


said it appeared to him that the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle was a very strong one, because what was proposed to be done by the promoters of the Bill was actually to diminish the facilities at present enjoyed by cyclists. Cycling had become all over the country a means of rapid communication for business purposes. His own experience, as a traveller who sometimes had his cycle conveyed by the underground railway, convinced him that there would be no difficulty in carrying bicycles on this line. He regretted that the Standing Orders did not permit of the petitioners bringing their case before a Committee of the House.

(9.53.) MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said this House was bound to take cognisance of the change in the times, and to see that tube railway companies, to which they gave very valuable rights, provided the public with accommodation to the utmost possible extent. It seemed to him that the refusal to carry bicycles was quite behind the times, seeing the great commercial uses to which those machines wore now put, and that Parliament was giving this company great powers, including that of going under the river.

MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)

said that the hon. Member for Rugby had spoken about millionaires on the south side of the river. He did not know that millionaires were plentiful, but he knew that there were a large number of working men who lived on both sides of the river, and had to pass over the river to and from their work. Supposing, on account of the competition of the tube railway; the ferry should fall out of use, if the tube railway refused to carry their bicycles, what were the working men to do? He did not know as much about railway law as, perhaps, he should; but it was clear to him that this House, in considering railway Bills, should have some regard to the feelings and wants of the people. There was no use drawing a comparison between this proposed tube and the tubes in London. In no part of the country was the population so congested as in this particular district, and Workmen ought to have every possible means of access to their work. The company was not providing these tubes for the convenience of Work-people; their first consideration was to make profit. But if Parliament had the power to do so, they should make some provision for the cheap transit of cyclists and their machines.

MR. ALFRED THOMAS (Glamorganshire, E.)

said that this railway company was trying to get a great privilege from Parliament for the purpose of making, profit. They were justly entitled, therefore, to ask the railway company to do something in return in the way of carrying men to and from their work.

MR. CRAWFORD SMITH (Northumberland, Tyneside)

said that if cyclists were allowed to carry their bicycles in the proposed tube they would come in shoals every Wednesday and Saturday afternoon. There was a ferry every half mile on the Tyne, and cyclists had ample facilities for crossing the river by that means, and they would not lose more than four minutes anywhere by using the ferry boats as Compared with the tube.

MR. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)

said that no serious argument had been offered against the concession which would be made by the adoption of the proposed Clause. There were no engineering difficulties, and he thought he might take it that the promoters did not feel that the concession asked for would seriously interfere with the working of the railway.

MR. SHAW (Stafford)

said that, as an old member of a cyclists' club, he knew that a large number of workmen had their homes on one side of the river and their business on the other, and that involved the constant use of their

cycles. He was glad to hear that there were no serious engineering difficulties in making the concession, and he marvelled at the modesty of the request, and that the railway company should refuse such a small matter.


said he had hoped the House would have heard something on this question from the President of the Board of Trade.

(10.13.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 312.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E. Delany, William Langley, Batty
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Devlin, Joseph Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Allen, Charles P. (Gloue., Stroud Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.) Layland-Barratt, Francis
Ambrose, Robert Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Leamy, Edmund
Anson, Sir William Reynell Dillon, John Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Donelan, Capt. A. Leigh, Sir Joseph
Arkwright. John Stanhope Doogan, P. C. Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Arrol, Sir William Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark) Levy, Maurice
Ashton, Thomas Gair Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lewis, John Herbert
Bain, Col. James Robert Duke, Henry Edward Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (BristolS.
Baird, John George Alexander Duncan, J. Hastings Lowther, Rt Hn JW (Cum. Penr.
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Edwards, Frank Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch Farrell, James Patrick Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Bartley, George, C. T. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Lundon, W.
Bignold, Arthur Fenwick, Charles Macdona, John Cumming
Bill, Charles Ffrench, Peter MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Boland, John Fisher, William Hayes Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Flannery, Sir Fortescue MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Bousfield, William Robert Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Artlmr, Charles (Liverpool)
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW. M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W
Brigg, John Fuller, J. M. F. M'Kean, John
Broadhurst, Henry Gardner, Ernest M-'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Goddard, Daniel Ford Middlemore, John Throgmort'n
Bryee, Rt. Hon. James Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Bull, William James Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Burke, E. Haviland Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Butcher, John George Grenfell, William Henry Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)
Caidwell, James Gretton, John Mooney, John J.
Cameron, Robert Hammond, John More, Robert Jasper (Shropsh're
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil Morley, Charles (Breconshire
Cawley, Frederick Harwood, George Morrell, George Herbert
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hayden, John Patrick Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Murphy, John
Channing, Francis Allston Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Charrington, Spencer Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Nanneiti, Joseph P.
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hobhouae, Henry (Somerset, E. Nichol, Donal Ninian
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Holland, Sir William Henry Nolan, Col. John P(Galway, N
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Horniman, Frederick John Norman, Henry
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Howard, J. Midd., Tottenham Nussey, Thomas Willams
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) O'Brien, Kendal Tipperary Mid
Corbett, P. L. (Down, N.) Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Craig, Robert Hunter Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W
Cullinan, J. Jordan, Jeremiah O'Connor, T. P (Liverpool)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Joyce, Michael O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.)
Davenport, William Bromley- Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. O'Shaughnepsy, P. J.
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Kenyon, Hn George T. (D'nbigh Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Partington, Oswald Roche, John Tomkinson, James
Paulton, James Mellor Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Tritton, Charles Ernest
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n Ropner, Colonel Robert Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Pemberton. John S. G. Russell, T. W. Tully, Jasper
Philipps, John Wynford Scott, Chas. (Prestwich, Leigh Valentia, Viscount
Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard Seton-Karr, Henry Warde, Colonel C. E.
Power, Patrick Joseph Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Pretyman, Ernest George Shipman, Dr. John G. Webb, Colonel William George
Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton
Purvis, Robert Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Randles, John S. Skewes-Cox, Thomas White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rankin, Sir. James Soaros, Erne-t.I. Whiteley, H.(Asht'n und. Lyne
Rasch, Major Frederick Carne Spear, John Ward Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rea, Russell Strachey, Sir Edward Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Reckitt, Harold James Stroyan, John Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Roddy, M. Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.
Redmond, William (Clare) Sullivan, Donal Wilson, Henry. J. (York. W. R.
Reid, James (Greenock) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Remnant, James Farquharson Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Renwick, George Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E Wylie, Alexander
Richards, Henry Charles Thomas, Sir Alf. (Glam'rg'n, E.
Rickett, J. Compton Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R. Mr. Plummer and Mr.
Robertson. Edmund (Dundee) Thornton, Percy, M. John Wilson (Durham).
Robson, William (Snowdon) Tollemache, Henry James
Acland-Hood Capt. Sir Alex. F. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Round, Rt. Hn. James
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gunter, Sir Robert Royds, Clement Molyneux
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ndnderry Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Anstrnther, H. T. Hare, Thomas Leigh Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Atherley-Jones, L. Henderson, Sir Alexander Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Banbury, Frederick George Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Tomlinson, Sir Wm. EdW. M.
Bond, Edward Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareh'm Warr, Angustus Frederick
Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire Llewellyn, Evan Henry Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Chapman Edward Maclver, David (Liverpool) Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Realy M'Killop, James (Stirling shire Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Cremer. William Randal Newnes, Sir George
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Carfit, William Piatt-Higgms, Fredirick TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Mr. Crawford Smith and
Goulding, Edward Alfred Renshaw, Charles Bine Mr. Corrie Grant.
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm nds Robinson Brooke

The next Amendment is, to insert after "parcels" the words "and bicycles." The word "parcels" is referred to in several Clauses of the Bill; to which is the Amendment to apply?


said it was in Clause 63, page 48, line 10.


There is no word "parcels" n that line.


said that the word appeared in that line in the copy of the Bill he had.


The hon. Member is reading from a different copy of the Bill to that which I have.


said he would move the Amendment in Clause 59.

Amendment made— In Clause 59, page 40, line 5, after 'parcels' to insert 'and bicycles.'

Amendment proposed— In Clause 59, pige 40, line 5, to leave out '6d' in order to insert '3d.' "— (Mr. Plummer.)


asked whether the copy of the Bill which Mr. Speaker had was the latest copy, because before the Committee of the House oi Commons the line containing the word "6d" was struck out of the Bill altogether.


The copy I have is the copy which was furnished to me. I presumed it was the proper copy; though what the hon. Member has just said makes it doubtful, certainly.


asked if, in the circumstances, the proper course would not be to adjourn the debate in order that Mr. Speaker and the House might be furnished with proper copies of the Bill. Although they were only dealing with one particular Bill, they were laying down precedents of great importance. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.


What I understand is, that in the copy of the Bill I have the Commons' Amendments have not been entered up; and, therefore, the last Amendment was perfectly in order, and in its right place. In the copy I have the word "sixpence" stands in Clause 59, page 46, line 5, but I understand that the Committee of the House of Commons struck it out altogether.


said that the whole line was struck out.


There has been a mistake, obviously, in this Bill; and I must call the attention of the House to it. The copy of the Bill placed on the Table corresponds with my copy, which therefore I assumed to be the correct Bill. It seems, however, that the Bill upon the Table is not the Bill as amended by the Committee. The Bill as amended by the Committee shows that the lines and figures of the hon. Members' Amendments are correct, and, therefore, Clause 63 is the Clause in which the previous Amendment stands. That need not affect the decision of the House as effecting the insertion of the words "and bicycles" after "parcels," if the House will allow the words to be

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Davenport, William Bromley-
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bull, William James Dickson, Charles Scott
Anstruther, H. T. Cameron, Robert Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire Finch, George H.
Arrol, Sir William Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Ashton, Thomas Gair Chapman, Edward Fisher, William Hayes
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Charrington, Spencer Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Atherley-Jones, L. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cohen, Benjamin Louis Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christeh. Colomb Sir John Charles Ready Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Banbury, Frederick George Colston, Chas. Edw. H, Athole Fuller, J. M. F.
Bartley, George C. T. Compton, Lord Alwyne Gardner, Ernest
Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks Cremer, William Randal Garfit, William
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Cross. Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Bond., Edward Crossley, Sir Savile Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)
Brigg, John Cubitt, Hon. Henry Gorst, Rt. hon. Sir John Eldon
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Dalrymple, Sir Charles Goschen, Hon. Gyorge Joachim

inserted in Section 63 instead of in Section 59. It appears to mo that if this matter had been properly dealt with in the offices of the House, this difficulty would not have arisen. I will put the question now as it stands on the Paper, as that turns cut to be correct,

Amendment made—. In Clause 63, page 48, after line 26, to insert 'for every bicycle 3d.'

MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

said he begged to move the omission of "6d." in line 27, and the insertion of "1d." A passenger was to be carried for 1d, whereas 6d. was to be charged for a dog. It was a distinct insult to the man that a dog should be considered six times more valuable than he. They were all agreed that it was desirable to cultivate affection for domestic animals, and no animal was more companionable than a dog; but if 6d. was to be charged, the dog would very probably be left at home.

Amendment proposed— In page 48, line 27, to leave out the word 'sixpence,' and insert the words ' one penny '— (Mr. Keir Hardie)—instead thereof.

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


said he hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment.

(10.43.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 10.4; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 313.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred MacIver, David (Liverpool) Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Cray, Ernest (West Ham) M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm'nds M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Seton-Karr, Henry
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Middilemore, Jno. Throgmorton Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Grenfell, William Henry Molesworth, Sir Lewis Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Gretton, Jhon Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside
Greville, Hon. Ronald More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Gunter, Sir Robert Morgan, David J (W'lthamstow Spear, John Ward
Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nd'rry Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Stroyan, John
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Mount, William Arthur Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grah'm (Bute Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Henderson, Sir Alexander Newdigate, Francis Alexander Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Nicol, Donald Ninian Tollemache, Henry James
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Paulton, James Mellor Trevelyan, Charles Philps
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Pemberton, John S. G. Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.) Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard Warr, Augustus Frederick
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Purvis, Robert Webb, Colonel William George
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Randles, John S. Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Rankin, Sir James Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Rea, Russell Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Reid, James (Greenock) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Remnant, James Farquharson Willox, Sir John Archibald
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Renshaw, Charles Bine Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Richards, Henry Charles Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Long. Col. Charles W. (Evesham Rigg, Richard Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Lowe, Francis William Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Wylie, Alexander
Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr. Ropner, Colonel Robert
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Round, Rt. Hon. James TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Russell, T. W. Mr. Plummer and Mr.
Macdona, John Cumming Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Robson.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Edwards, Frank Lundon,. W.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Faber, George Denison (York) MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Allen, Charles P. (Glone. Stroud Farrell, James Patrick Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden Fenwick, Charles MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Ambrose, Robert Ffrench, Peter MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Arkwright, John Stanhope Field, William M'Kean, John
Bignold, Arthur Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Kenna, Reginald
Bill, Charles Flower, Ernest M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Boland, John Goddard, Daniel Ford Mooney, John J.
Broadhurst, Henry Grant Corrie Morrell, George Herbert
Burke, E. Haviland- Hall, Edward Marshall Murphy, John
Caine, William Sproston Hammond, John Nannetti, Joseph P.
Caldwell, James Harwood, George Newnes, Sir George
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hayden, John Patrick Norman, Henry
Causton, Richard Knight Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cawley, Frederick Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H, Nussey, Thomas Willans
Channing, Francis Allston Holland, Sir William Henry O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'raryMid
Clancy, John Joseph Horniman, Frederick John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Jones William (Carnarv'nshire O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W
Craig, Robert Hunter Jordan, Jeremiah O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Cullinan, J. Joyce, Michael O'Donnell, T. (Kerrv, W.)
Davies, M. Vauglan-(Cardigan Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Delany, William Langley, Batty Parker, Sir Gilbert
Devlin, Joseph Layland-Barratt, Francis Partington, Oswald
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Leamy, Edmund Philipps, John Wynford
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Power, Patrick Joseph
Dillon, John Leigh, Sir Joseph Price, Robert John
Donelan, Captain A. Levy, Maurice Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Doogan, P. C. Lewis, John Herbert Reckitt, Harold James
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lloyd-George, David Reddy, M.
Duncan, J. Hasting Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth) Redmond, William (Clare)
Renwick, (George Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Rickett, J. Compton Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk. Mid
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Thomson, F.W. (York, W. R.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Robinson, Brooke Thornton, Percy M. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Roche, John Tomkinson, James Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Tully, Jasper
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Valentia, Viscount
Shipman, Dr. John G. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Soares, Ernest J. White, George (Norfolk) Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr.
Strachey, Sir Edward White, Luke (York, E. R.) Lough.
Sullivan, Donal Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

said he wished to move the omission of the concluding words of Clause 63. As at present drafted, it would appear that a person bringing home a parcel from market containing eight or ten separate articles might be called upon to pay 3d. for each separate package. The words he proposed to leave out were: "Provided always that articles sent in large aggregate quantities and so made up in separate articles, such as bags of sugar, coffee, meal, and the like, shall not be deemed small parcels, but that the term shall apply only to single packages in separate parcels." He did not understand the meaning of the words, and for that reason he would refuse to vote for the Bill until he had an explanation. If it meant that a woman returning from market was to be charged 3d. for each packet she had in her basket, such a provision ought not to be allowed to pass without a protest. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 48. line 28, to leave out from the word 'provided,' to the word 'packages ' in line 31, both inclusive."— (Mr. Keir Hardie.)

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

*MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)

said that the Amendment was more suited to the Committee stage. If the hon. Member would read again the proviso to which He objected, He would find that it actually carried out what he wished. For instance, if a grocer wished to send half a dozen parcels from North Shields to South Shields, instead of having to pay a certain sum for each parcel, he was entitled to have them weighed together and to pay one sum.


asked what rate would be charged on a small parcel. They wore told—


Order, order ! The hon. Member cannot address the House twice.


said that after the explanation which had been given he would withdraw the Amendment, but he hoped that in future the Chairman of Committees would see that Bills were properly drafted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the third time.