§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY {Camberwell, Peckham) moved an instruction to the Committee on this Bill to omit Clauses 63 and 64. He 1546 thought it would save the time of the House if he read the Clauses to which he referred.
§
Clause 63 was as follows—
It shall be lawful for the Council of any Metropolitan Borough being authorised to supply and supplying electrical energy to expend money upon the wiring and fitting and supplying with wires fittings and apparatus the premises of their consumers or prospective consumers and to enter into and carry into effect Agreements and arrangements with respect thereto and to make such charges there for whether directly or otherwise as they may think fit.
§
Clause 64 was in these terms—
Any such Council of a Metropolitan Borough may borrow in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if such expenditure were for the purposes of the Electric Lighting Acts 1882 and 1888 such sums of money as may be required by such Council for the purposes hereinbefore mentioned.
§ These Clauses raised a very important question as to the extent to which municipalities should be empowered to enter into competition with retail traders. It might be held that it was advantageous to everyone that municipalities should be allowed to own gasworks, electric light works, tramways, and waterworks, but he thought it could not be admitted that it was advisable for municipalities to enter into retail trading, and to compete directly with the various manufacturers and shopkeepers of this country. If a man wanted his house fitted with wires, or desired to buy an electric lamp, the Council wanted to supply him instead of a retail trader doing so. He was sure every business man in the House would agree with him when he said that if one entered into a business of this description it must be managed by a man who understood the business. He wanted to know how it was possible that the London County Council or a borough council could enter into a business of this kind with the slightest hope that it would be remunerative. In the last few years there had been an alarming increase in the indebtedness of municipalities. Only to-day 1547 he saw in the papers that the Finance Committee of the London County Council proposed to borrow £18,000,000 in the next eighteen months. In the face of that it was absolute rashness to allow them to enter into retail trade of this description. If trading of this description wore authorised, he did not know where it was possible to draw the line. They might have municipal bakeries and shops of every description. He thought there were few Members of the House who desired that such a state of things should be brought about.
§ *SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)seconded the Motion. He pointed out the unfair competition to which private traders would be subjected by reason of borough the business of Every private trader had to find the capital for carrying on his business, and he had to carry it on with the expectation of being paid by his customers in a reasonable time. Under the proposal now made he would have to compete with a body having unlimited capital raised from rates to which ho contributed, and not requiring early repayment of the cost of the fittings. The London County Council had issued a statement in support of the retention of these clauses in the Bill, in which it was stated that the cost of equipping promises for the use of electricity would be recovered by a little increased charge for a certain period for the electric current supply. The repayment would thus be effected by instalments spread over a period of years. That statement was alone sufficient to condemn the two clauses. The County Council carried on their business by capital borrowed on the security of the rates, and it was unjust to expose small private traders to the competition of a great public corporation financed in this manner.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (General Powers) Bill to omit Clauses 63 and 64."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)said this was not a County Council Bill at all in the sense in which the hon. Member for Peckham had represented, and it was as well that the House should remember the facts. He thought they had a right to be 1548 informed what the proposals were. The two Clauses were not initiated by the London County Council, although they found a place in the General Powers Bill. The borough councils of London who were empowered to supply electric light desired also to supply fittings, just as a company did; and, to save expense and Parliamentary time, they agreed with the County Council for the insertion of the clauses in the General Powers Bill instead of bringing in twenty-seven separate Bills. Of the whole number of councils eighteen were in favour of the clauses and only two opposed to them. The two which were against the clauses, represented districts which were served by electric light companies which, as compared with municipal electric works, overcharged the ratepayers and served them very badly indeed. It was curious to remember that in Westminster the electric supply agents lived more by the sale of German than British fittings. Let the hon. Member move an instruction that all fittings should be made in Britain; he did not object to Ireland, and would say the United Kingdom. Eighteen borough councils were in favour of the clauses, four were neutral, and only two against them, and the latter two boroughs were supplied with electric light by companies. He came now to another argument. Did any other Town Council enjoy these powers? He was sorry to tell the hon. Member for Peckham that his brief had been badly prepared, because many provincial towns enjoyed these and even wider powers.
§ SIR F. BANBURYI am sorry to hear it.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSThe hon. Member ought to have lived in the time of Noah's Ark. No fewer than twenty-six provincial Town Councils had had conferred upon them by Parliament, without opposition, what the London Borough Councils, by decided majorities, demanded. What was the reason of that? Because it enabled the councils to supply electric light at a cheaper rate. In Battersea, where the Borough Council had installed the electric light only two years ago, the charge was only 4d. per unit, whereas in the next parish, 1549 Wandsworth, where the electric light had been established by a company for ten years, the charge was 10d. per unit. The fact was that, wherever in London they had a company supplying electric light, there the price was higher than where it was done by municipal enterprise.
§ SIR FEEDERICK BANBURY said his argument did not bear upon the supply of electric light, but upon the setting up of retail shops to supply fittings.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS said it stood to reason that if the Borough Councils could supply the major requirement, viz., electric light, 50 per cent, cheaper, they could do the same with the minor, viz., fittings. At present, where the electric light was supplied by companies, its consumption was practically restricted to the well-to-do or rich people, because the would-be poor consumer was unable to put down a lump sum for fittings and installation: but the Borough Councils were able to make an installation and cover the expense over a long period. There were in this city something like 2,000 churches and chapels, the bulk of which were living from hand to mouth, from the point of view of financial resources, and it was impossible for the average church or chapel to install the electric light. This they would do if the Borough Councils had the power of extending the period for repayment of the installation. They all knew that in these days it was advisable to keep the ecclesiastical atmosphere cool, and in this respect the electric light had an advantage over gas. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich should welcome this advantage in the coolness of the atmosphere for religious discussions. In his own district a parson of the noble Lord's persuasion had asked him why it was that the companies could not install electric light in their churches cheaper than was now the rule; and his answer was, simply because the private companies would not wait six, nine, or twelve months for their money, as Borough Councils could do. The result was that electric lighting was a luxury for the rich and not for the poor. He now came to the commercial argument. The hon. Member for Peckham was under the impression that the Borough Councils asked the 1550 power to manufacture the fittings. That was not the case; they only wished to supply the fittings in the houses where the light was installed by them. Some hon. Members said that that would diminish the sale of fittings. On the contrary, the cheaper the electric light was made, the more fittings would be required and installed. if the House were to adopt the reactionary views of the hon. Member the manufacture and supply of fittings would be retarded. His last argument was how much longer was this House to have its time wasted with the discussion of these Instructions to Committees upstairs. This General Powers Bill of the London County Council had passed its Second Beading sub silentio, but these Instructions to the Committee were afterwards put down on the Paper.
§ SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON said that he had put down his Instructions before the Second Reading came on.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY said that his also wore put down before the Second Reading.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS said that these contradictions only went half-way. The Bill had been before the House for six weeks, and the Instructions were not put down until the Second Reading of the Bill was fixed. Why should there be these discussions by the House of Commons on these Instructions, which fettered the discretion of the Committees on small petty details. Why not leave to the Committees a free selection of alternative proposals? These Instructions were becoming so frequent that the House of Commons, instead of being what it ought to be, a National Assembly, an Imperial Parliament, was becoming a glorified Municipal Council dealing with gas pipes and electric fittings, which was not its proper function. He believed that the proposal of the hon. Member for Peckham would damage trade, while the clauses in the Bill would tend to extend trade and increase the supply of electric light, which would make our poorer homes much healthier than when gas was employed for lighting purposes. At the present moment the Borough Council in his constituency were building 400 artisans' cottages, in which the electric light would be installed with 1d. and 2d. in the slot meters. The 1551 Borough Council which supplied the electric light ought not to be compelled to force the owners of these cottages to use gas or to go to foreign agents who employed foreign workmen for their electric light fittings. He asked the House to rise superior to the hon. Member for Peckham's patronage of foreign industry.
§ SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)said he wished to take the House back from the high-flown remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea to the really business side' of this question. The supply of electric wiring and fittings to all the houses in the Metropolis would amount in cost to many millions of money. It meant an enormous number of showrooms with electric fittings, an enormous number of electrical engineers and electrical inspectors, all to be paid by the Borough Councils. This was a different question; from the supply of gas fittings, which were generally put in by the landlord. Speaking as a large ratepayer in the city, he maintained that it would be most unsafe to allow twenty-nine Borough Councils to go into this trading business with many million pounds worth of stock owed for by the different tenants to the municipalities. Speaking not as a director of a company, but as a shopkeeper, of which he was not ashamed, he insisted that if they wanted to do: good business each Borough Council would require to get a good man at the head of the electrical department with a salary of, perhaps, £1,000 a year, and three or four inspectors with salaries of £300 or £400 a year. Then who was to prove that the wiring and the fittings had only cost the money which they were estimated at? He was sure that I the ratepayers would be called upon to make good very large sums of money lost through the tenants. He thought the House would be wise in accepting his hon. friend's Motion.
§ *MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said he apologised for interfering in the discussion, because he was not a London Member. The Town Council in the largest town in his constituency, Barnstaple, had set up electric lighting works, but when these 1552 were completed they found themselves in this difficulty, that the majority of the would-be consumers could not pay at once for the fittings. The Members of the Town Council were business men, and they came to the conclusion that as the state had given them the power, they should furnish the fittings provided that there would be no charge on the rates. Accordingly they devised a method by which the customers got their fittings, which were paid for by instalments. It was at once seen that not only would the electric light be beneficial to the town, but it would contribute to a small reduction in the rates. The position was satisfactory both to the ratepayers and the consumers; but, unfortunately, two months ago a director of the local gas company had issued a writ against the Town Council.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! This Bill does not relate to Barnstaple. The question before the House is whether it is desirable to give this Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council Bill.
§ *MR. SOARESI merely wished to prove to the President of the Board of Trade that the principle contained in the clauses now under discussion is sub judice, and that the action might be affected by the debate.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I don't think so. It would not affect the action.
§ MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)said that although a great part of such Bills was non-controversial, they might contain clauses embodying principles which hon. Members thought dangerous, and the only course open to them was to move an Instruction to the Committee. He deplored the necessity for putting down these Instructions, but he maintained that they were forced to move them because of the unfortunate habit into which the County Council had fallen of merging all sorts of matters into its private Bills. The hon. Member for Battersea seemed to think that hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House would accept any legislation, however bad, if it were promoted by the 1553 Borough Councils, but that they objected to anything put forward by the County Council. That was a most illogical argument, and he would reply that he objected to these particular clauses because he thought they were an undue, unfair, and uneconomical interference on the part of municipal bodies with the freedom and proper exercise of their rights by private traders.
§ *MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)agreed, on the other hand, that the clauses were most reasonable because they were permissive in their character. They were inserted at the request of the Borough Councils, and the powers sought were the necessary complement of the powers which that House had already conferred on the Borough Councils. It would not be wise to leave it to private enterprise to supply all these fittings. A public authority was far more likely to introduce all the newest inventions, and a proof of that was afforded by the result of the "penny in-the-slot" system of supplying gas. He appealed to Metropolitan Members opposite not to support this Instruction.
§ THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)open the House would bring the discussion to an end in view of the fact
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Cranborne, Lord | Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Crossley, Sir Savile | Hare, Thomas Leigh |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley) |
| Anstmther, H. T. | Dalkrith, Earl of | Heath, James Staffords, N. W. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Denny, Colonel | Henderson, Sir Alexander |
| Arrol, Sir William | Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. O. | Hogg, Lindsay |
| Atkinson, Right Hon. John | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Duke, Henry Edward | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm. |
| Bignold, Arthur | Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart | Lawson, John Grant |
| Bigwood, James | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. |
| Bosoawen, Arthur Griffith- | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Bull, William James | FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose- | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Forster Henry William | Macdona, John Cimming |
| Butcher, John George | Foster, P. S. (Warwirk, S. W. | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H | Galloway, William Johnson | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool.) |
| Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond | M'Calmont, Colonel James |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nrn | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Charrington, Spencer | Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc | Maple, Sir John Blundell |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Gouldins, Edward Alfred | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir HE (Wigt'n |
| Cor. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge | Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G.(Midx | Milvain, Thomas |
§ that some important financial business had yet to be transacted that night.
§ *MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)said the hon. Member for Battersea had made an impassioned appeal against the time of the House being wasted on these instructions, and had asked if Parliament was to be put on the same footing as Borough Councils by being asked to deal with electric fittings and such small things. But the question at issue was far larger than that, and he would ask how long was the time of the House to be wasted by these attempts to municipalise the industries of the country, a practice which he ventured to Bay was inconsistent with the past history, and threatening to the future commercial prosperity of the nation? This was only one part of a great scheme of such municipalisation, and he ventured to assert that the County Council were only proposing to confer these powers on the Borough Councils in order that they might shield their general policy behind the local bodies and secure their support for further steps in the same direction.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 126; Not* 109. (Division List No. 39.)
1555| Mitchell, William | Remnant, Jas. Farquharson | Valentia, Viscount |
| Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. | Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. |
| Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge | Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd |
| Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Rose, Charles Day | Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.) |
| Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter | Wilson John (Glasgow) |
| Mount, William Arthur | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute | Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. [Bath |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Myers, William Henry | Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Younger, William |
| Percy, Earl | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M. | |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Stone, Sir Benjamin | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | ! Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Sir Frederick Banbury |
| Purvis, Robert | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | and Sir Wm. Tomlinson. |
| Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ) | |
| Reid, James (Greenock) | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts | Peel, Hn. Win. R. Wellesley |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Gorst, Rt, Hon. Sir J. Eldon | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Black, Alexander William | Hall, Edward Marshall | Rea, Russell |
| Boushfield, William Robert | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Roddy, M. |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middx.) | Hayden, John Patrick | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Brigg, John | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | Rigg, Richard |
| Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh) | Healy, Timothy Michael | Roberts John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Bryce, Right Hon. James | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Holland, Sir William Henry | Robertson, H. (Hackney) |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Burt, Thomas | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Russell, T. W. |
| Caldwell, James | Jones, Win. (Carnarvonshire) | Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland) |
| Cameron, Robert | Joyce, Michael | Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Kennedy, Patrick James | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Labouchere, Henry | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Lawrence, Sir Jos. [Monm'th) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.) | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Leng, Sir John | Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. ((Northants |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark | Lundonm W. | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Crean, Eugene | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Sullivan, Donal |
| Cremer, William Randal | McDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Crooks, William | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | M'Fadden, Edward | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Dalziel, James Henry | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Wason, E. (Clackmannan) |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj. | Wason J. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign | Markham, Ariliur Basil | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen | White, Luke (York. E. R.) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Moss, Samuel | Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.) |
| Duffy, William J. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Edwards, Frank | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.) |
| Flannery, Sir Forteseue | O'Dowd, John | |
| Flower, Ernest | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Mr. Lough and Mr. John |
| Gardner, Ernest | Partington, Oswald | Burns. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. | Paulton, James Mellor |