§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
§ * MR MORTON (Sutherland)on behalf of the Corporation of the City moved that the Bill be considered that day six months. He said that in 1902 the company obtained powers to extend their line from Finsbury Place to Lothbury. The Corporation opposed the Bill because the company proposed to build a station 1425 in the public way, in the improvement of which the Corporation had spent about £40,000. They hold that the company should purchase land for their station. The power under the Act of 1902 to take land expired eighteen months ago, and the rest of the Act would expire in two or three months. He contended that the company ought to come to the House with a new Bill instead of asking for a renewal of the old Act. In 1902 a great point was made in Committee that the company were going to extend their line 400 yards into the City, but did not propose to charge any extra fare for that distance. [An HON. MEMBER: That statement was made in Committee and denied and disproved].It appeared from the evidence that statement was made. Sir Charles Scotter stated that "his own idea was that the company would make it a two penny tube for any distance "and they were not adding this piece of line in order to get an increased fare. The engineer, Sir Douglas Fox, also, asked whether "it would not be possible to charge extra fares on account of the railway going 400 yards further into the City," said he "should think not, but that did not mean that the line would not be a revenue producer." Again, asked whether they would charge any additional fares for this little bit of additional extension, the witness replied, "No, I should think not." It was therefore understood by the Corporation and the Committee that the company were not to charge any additional fares; but now they came and said that they proposed to increase the fare by one halfpenny for this 400 yards, or an increase of 25 per cent. The opinion of the City Corporation was that this company could not possibly complete these works, as they would want further capital to do so, and were not likely to get it, and because, as everybody knew, these tube railways were not paying very well. This line was what was called a contractor's line, the contractors building it and taking all the risk up to a certain time. The problem which the City had to deal with in managing the immense traffic was a very difficult one, and they always had to see that certain restrictions were placed on companies. They did not, however, oppose companies unnecessarily. In fact, they had been accused of too lightly allowing railway companies to come into the City. 1426 Railway lines in the City could not be worked without restriction. The main point, however, that he wanted to make on this occasion was that the company ought not to take this piece of roadway for which the City had paid about £40,000 to improve it for the benefit of the public. They certainly should not be allowed to take it without paying for it, but the Corporation did not want them to take it even if they did pay, because the Corporation did not want it taken away from the public. When the Bill was before the House a short time ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade urged that it ought to be considered upstairs, and the promoters endeavoured to make use of that speech. They had no right to do that, because the Board of Trade had their own way of communicating with Committees. The City objected to speculative companies promoting Bills for taking over property upon which the Corporation had spent large sums of money for public purposes. They insisted that such concessions should be properly discussed. The company had had these concessions in their pockets since 1902 to make use of on the Stock Exchange, and they wanted to get them into their pockets again; but Parliament had hold over and over again that such concessions ought not to be granted to companies unless they intended to carry them out. They wanted to get the Board of Trade clause as to commencing the works within a given time into the Bill, but did not succeed, and, up to the present, though he did not know what would happen elsewhere, they had obtained nothing, and were to lose ground for which they paid about £40,000.
§ * MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty),in seconding the Amendment, said he was not at all surprised at the objection raised to this Bill by his hon. friend who had for many years devoted himself to obtaining the best possible facilities for the travelling public. He objected to this everlasting asking for extension of time and concessions to railway companies in the interest very often of Stock Exchange speculators. They came to the House to get a Bill passed with no intention of carrying out the concessions obtained. The matter thon stood over for five or ten years until the company could raise sufficient money from the public to carry 1427 out the project, at a cost, in this particular case, of an additional 25 per cent. on the fares as arranged in the original Bill—and that in the face of the evidence of Sir Charles Scotter and Sir Douglas Fox, the celebrated engineer, who distinctly stated that there would be no additional fare charged for this extra distance of 400 yards. It was a bad system to allow Bills to stand over for a number of years, and then to allow the companies to come forward and ask for extra benefits for themselves whilst giving loss advantages to the public. He had not the slightest hesitation in supporting his friend. This was a system which must, in the interest of the public, be stopped, and the sooner it was stopped the better. It was a system that ought not to be encouraged, and if the Motion went to a division he should vote with his hon. friend. He hoped the Secretary to the Board of Trade would see that the public interest was protected.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'this day six month.' "—(Mr. Morton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
* THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. KEARLEV,) Devonportsaid that if they considered what had taken place within the last three months the House would agree with him that the hon. Member who moved the Motion might have apologised for taking up the time of the House in this way. On the 7th March, the hon. Gentleman, as the official spokesman of the Corporation of London, made a speech setting forth all his objections to the Second Reading of the Bill. Those were the precise objections he put forward before the Committee which considered the Bill in 1902 when these powers were originally granted. On that occasion the hon. Gentleman said the railway was of no use; that it would never be made, and would never be used if it was made. He on that occasion answered all the points of the hon. Gentleman and did I not propose to go into them now. They were fully discussed by the House, which came to the conclusion that there was no ground for rejecting the Bill. The 1428 Bill then went upstairs and the hon. Gentleman, again as the official spokesman of the Corporation of London, submitted his evidence, and the Committee came to the same conclusions as were arrived at in 1902, namely, that the Corporation of London had not made out a case for the rejection of the Bill. Now, after the Committee had heard his evidence, the hon. Gentleman again came to the House and moved the rejection of the Bill and told the House that if he was not successful he would try again elsewhere. In a case like this, he thought a great corporation like that of the City of London, in doing what they had, were not treating the House with proper respect. He was afraid they had fallen into the hands of bad advisers. The junior Member for the City of London, the other day, when speaking on the Worthing Gas Bill, gave the House some good advice. The hon. Gentleman said that when a case had been heard and witnesses examined and cross-examined by counsel, he took the very strongest objection to the Bill being opposed in the House. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire, with a pertinacity worthy of a better cause, asked the House to reject the Bill. For his part, and he said so plainly, he thought that was an abuse of the procedure of the House, and he hoped the House would show its sense of the action of the hon. Gentleman by rejecting the Motion.
§ MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)hoped his hon. friend would take the same course as he took on the occasion of the Second Reading. The Committee, of which he was a Member, which considered this Bill carefully, considered it for two days, and the only opposition to it was that of the hon. Member. They gave every attention to his evidence, recognising not only his position in the House, but also that he represented the Corporation of the City of London, and had also paid special attention to London traffic. After giving weight to his evidence, the Committee, unanimously and without hesitation, passed the preamble of the Bill. They were fortified in their action by the fact that the Board of Trade approved the Bill and that it was merely an extension of the Bill of 1902. They recognised that the Bill represented a bona fide intention on the part of responsible men to 1429 make this railway as soon as they could find the money, and beyond that they also felt that nobody would be prejudiced by a delay of three years. Under all these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, or, if it went to a division, the House would vote against it and support the Committee.
§ * MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)said that if it was competent for the Member for Ross-shire to support the Member for Sutherland, it was competent for anyone who laboured for his daily bread in the City of London to give his views upon this Bill. He submitted that this was a case in which a few words might be said with advantage upon the raid of the Picts and Scots upon the Bill before the House. The opposition to the scheme had been a vain opposition, and had failed both on the Second Reading and in the Committee upstairs. He wished to take exception to what had been said with regard to those engaged in the promotion of the Bill. If anybody had the curiosity to look up the names of the directors of the company, they would be found to be men at the least not less respected in the City of London than the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire himself. As one who knew the City well, he desired to say that this extension of 400 yards would be extremely useful, and people who were in haste would gladly pay the halfpenny it was proposed to charge. These attacks, which occurred with surprising regularity whenever any railway Bill came before the House, were extremely detrimental, not only to the companies concerned, but also to the commerce and trade of the country. So amazed was he when the hon. Member made his first opposition to this Bill, that he asked an old Parliamentary hand what was the cause of it, and the old Parliamentary hand said it was probably due to the absence of third-class sleepers on the railway. He pointed out that the line was only 300 or 400 yards long, but his friend said "Oh ! that would not stand in the way of the said Member," and then asked what the name of the company was He said the Great Northern and City, whereupon his friend replied, "Why did you not tell me that before. There is a Member of this House 1430 who opposes every railway Bill that has the word 'Northern' in it. "He did not wish to take up the time of the House, but he observed that whenever railway Bills came before them they were always treated as if railway proprietors were rich people with interests altogether different from those of the taxpayer or of poorer people. The fact was that in most of the big railway companies 60 per cent. of the holders of stock held sums under £500, which could scarcely be regarded as a venial accumulation of capital. As regarded the perpetual reiteration of the alleged "monopoly" granted, the whole of the country was now mapped out like a gridiron; they could not drive in any direction without crossing a railway line, and underground, in London, there would soon be almost as much pressure and competition as above ground. What was the position? On the sum of £1,282,000,000 invested in railways the total return was 3.27 in 1905, during which time fifteen of the companies paid £21,000,000 in wages. He asked whether there was not really some point in that remark, because the figures showed whether or not it was wise to maintain or support this perpetual opposition to railway companies whose capital returned, on the whole, only 3½ per cent. Out of thirty-nine companies moreover which he had looked up, the stock of only nine stood above par. The hon. Member below him had spoken with indignation of the charge of one halfpenny for going 400 yards, though many of them paid a penny for going as far in their lives.
§ * MR. MORTONsaid he did not speak with indignation; what he said was that they had promised not to make any further charge.
§ * MR. REESsaid the amount was not a very excessive charge for going 400 yards. Were railway stockholders mere altruists? They got little enough as it was for their money. He asked whether it was fair that the Great Eastern, which did the most local traffic in London, should run its trains from Walthamstow to Liverpool Street at a cost of 3.7 per mile, and should get 3.2? The District Railway Company's average receipts from workmen's tickets was 0.65, while it cost the company 1.22 to carry the workmen, and that was 1431 about 30 per cent. of their traffic. It reminded him of the time when he was in California, and when he took a ticket to go across America. He was told that if he had only come a little earlier he could have gone across for nothing and got a bunch of bananas at the end of the journey. But that was the result of competition and not of ignorant and wanton depreciation. He did not know why people who put capital in railway companies should not receive some return. He submitted that it was an altogether wanton opposition to this Bill. These Bills were brought forward at a great deal of cost, and the works for which they provided were frequently thrust upon the companies owing to competition, and it was by no means certain that in such a case as this and in many such cases that they were going to reap much profit. In France the other day the Minister of Finance described the prosperity of the country as such that almost every person in it had some interest in the railway companies. He feared that was not a criterion of prosperity here. He maintained that this was entirely germane to the present discussion, and instead of regarding the railway companies as enemies it was far better to treat them as friends, as helping communication, and as spending vast sums on wages. The hon. Member below him had described himself as a representative of the City in this matter, but he was informed that the hon. Member carried everything he wanted through the City Council by mere pertinacity. When he brought anything in he stuck to it, and, others going away because they had other work or were tired out, he carried through a wearied and attenuated council his resolution, and then came there and said he represented the City. He was in the City the greater part of every day himself, and he did not hesitate to express his doubt as to the hon. Member representing the City in any shape or form whatsoever. But whether the hon. Gentleman represented the City or not, he did say that this 400 yards of railway was very much needed, and that the factious and oft-repeated opposition to it deserved to be described in stronger terms than those used by the hon. Member on the Front Bench.
§ MR. E. H. LAMB (Rochester)said he begged to take exception to the course 1432 adopted by the hon. Member for Sutherland. Without going into the merits or demerits of the Bill, he asked the hon. Gentlemen to withdraw his Motion, in the interests both of the Corporation and of the House. For his part he did not think that the hon. Member for Sutherland accurately represented the views of the City Corporation at this stage. Whatever was the action he might have desired to take in another place, he wished to say that the action of the hon. Member was most unfortunate, and, as another Member of the Corporation, he dissociated himself from him.
§ * MR. EDMUND LAMB (Herefordshire, Leominster)said that, as a Member of the Committee, he had examined this Bill very carefully, and he had come to the conclusion that this extension was very much required and would be of benefit to the public. The railway carried 16,000,000 passengers every year. This distance of 400 yards would make a great difference to people going to business, and the position of the Corporation was very difficult to understand. There was no alternative proposal to this, which he thought would be in the interests of the public.
§ * MR. MORTONsaid he did not wish to detain the House, and he asked leave to withdraw the Motion, but not at all because of anything that had been said behind him. He wished that people who spoke about the Corporation would be correct and read the Minutes in which it was recorded that the Corporation authorised the opposition.
§ Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.