LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER.)

HC Deb 14 December 1908 vol 198 cc1361-412

As amended, considered.

A Clause (For the protection of the Admiralty and the Royal Observatory, brought up, and read the first and second time, amended, and added to the Bill.

* MR. MORTON (Sutherland)

said the object of the Amendment in his name on the Paper was to preserve to the Corporation the full control over the streets of the City given to them by Section 133 of the City of London Sewers Act of 1848 which is in the following terms— And be it enacted, That no company or person shall take up the pavement or otherwise disturb the surface of any street, for the purpose of laying down, altering, or moving any pipe, or for any other purpose whatsoever, without the previous consent in writing of the Commissioners under the hand of the clerk, every such consent to state the name of the street in which the pavement is permitted to be taken up, and the number of square feet of pavement which may be removed or disturbed; and if any company or person shall take up or disturb the pavement or surface of any street without previous consent as aforesaid or shall take up or disturb a greater number of square feet of pavement or surface than shall be permitted by such consent, every company or person so offending shall forfeit and pay the sum of 40s. for every square foot of Pavement which shall be taken up or disturbed. It was true that for various purposes, such as water and gas supply, telegraphs and telephones, and electric lighting, special powers of opening streets had been given by Parliament to various bodies, but all those had been for services required by the City itself. In the present case, however, the chief idea was to enable the companies by linking up to deal with or assist each other in dealing with the supply of electricity for power purposes. It was admittedly the case that the City contained but very few considerable users of electricity for power purposes, and the Bill was not needed for supplying them. "Linking up" work would therefore be done for the benefit of other districts, and it was to prevent the City streets being broken up that the Amendment was asked for. The City was like the hub of a wheel, towards which all the services involving the breaking of streets converged, and consequently the streets there were packed with ducts, mains, pipes, wires and other works, the demands upon which were of a very onerous and concentrated character, necessitating openings more frequently than in any other area of a similar size. According to the evidence given before the Royal Commission on London Traffic in 1903—that was five years ago—the number of openings of the streets of the City by the Post Office and companies were over 9,000 in number, over 6,000 of which were in main streets. It was, therefore, imperative to prevent unnecessary openings, such as the Corporation believed would be made under the powers of this Bill. The withholding of the Corporation's consent would at the worst mean only that the linking up mains would have to be taken a little further round instead of going across the City. Of course, if the companies could show that linking up was needed for the benefit of City users of electricity there need be no fear that the Corporation would place the least obstacle in the way of such work. The inconvenience, delay and loss to the public caused by opening the streets of the City were so serious and aggravated in the case of the City that the Corporation felt amply justified in asking for the special protective clause, of which notice had been given, and was now moved. Over 100,000 vehicles and 1,250,000 people went in and out of the City every day. It was a question of the management of the trade and business, not only of London, but a large part of the world, and he hoped they would have the assistance of the Board of Trade in this matter. The constant problem before the City was the management of the traffic. He moved.

MR. REMNANT

formally seconded.

New clause— In page 14, after Clause 15, to insert the following clause: Nothing in this Act shall authorise an authorised undertaker to break up or open any street or lay any electric main or other work for the purposes of this Act in or along any street, or part of a street, within the City of London, except with the consent in writing of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London in Common Council assembled.'"—(Mr. Morton.)—

Brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,) Dundee

said the Amendment would give the Corporation an absolute veto. The Amendment was placed before the Committee and was rejected without the promoters being called upon. He could not ask the House to give the Corporation an absolute veto against laying mains which might be necessary; but if it would satisfy the hon. Gentleman he would accept the Amendment with the words added at the end: "Or failing that consent, with the consent of the Board of Trade."

MR. MORTON

I accept that.

SIR EDWIN CORNWALL (Bethnal Green, N. E.)

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had so readily conceded this proposal. If it was conceded to the City then it ought to be conceded to all the other authorities outside. It was a very serious thing for the House to concede such a privilege to the City without giving the same privilege to the other authorities. He hoped the House would resist the proposal. It was true that the traffic was very heavy in the City, but it was quite as heavy in Piccadilly and at Hyde Park Corner, and therefore it was not desirable that this concession should be given to the City alone.

* SIR LUKE WHITE (Yorkshire, E. R., Buckrose)

said it was quite true that this clause was placed before the Committee and that the Committee ultimately, after hearing all the arguments, came to the conclusion that the City in this matter did not stand alone, and that if such a clause was accepted it should be extended to the many borough authorities around London. The Committee was unanimous in its decision, and he therefore hoped the House would not agree to this proposal. He hoped the House would protect the interests of the whole of London and not grant a privilege to any particular portion without extending it to the whole of the county.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

asked what view the right hon. Gentleman took of the effect of his acceptance of this clause and what was the general attitude that he intended to take up with regard to the other districts generally affected. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had thought it right to make a difference between every local body and the Corporation of the City of London. He thought it rather strange that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the clause, as he rather gathered that he did, because it gave a very considerable and palpable preference to the City Corporation over all the other local bodies of London. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would give them some explanation of his views on the point. Were all the local bodies being equally affected?

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

said it seemed to him that the addition which the right hon. Gentleman made to the clause made it exactly the same as subsection (4) of the first clause. He was intensely anxious to agree with his hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green, who he knew was a sturdy guardian in all matters of electricity which interested Metropolitan bodies. But he had studied the clause, and he could not see the difference in principle, except a sort of recognition of the ancient rights of the City, by naming its authority in Common Council assembled and all that sort of thing. He could not see any difference in principle between the two clauses, and he should like to hear some information as to these words, in order that they might see whether there was any difference between the position in which the City stood and the position of any other local authority.

MR. CHURCHILL

said there was a very great difference between the two clauses as his right hon. friend would see. In the first place all disputes would be settled by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade, and there were other minor matters. In the second place, if the City withheld its consent it would be open to the Board of Trade to give its consent. He was not prepared to say for a moment that the City of London was on all fours with every other borough in or out of London, and he thought that in regard to the traffic problem, great as it was in many parts of London, it was unquestionably greatest an the City area. He was only anxious as far as possible to give attention to all the views which were put forward, and which could be reasonably sustained in that House. All he said on behalf of the Board of Trade was that he did mot resist the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman if he pressed it.

MR. DICKINSON (St. Pancras, N.)

trusted that his hon. friend would not insist upon this Amendment, which came upon him as an absolute surprise as a proposal which was to be accepted by the Government. There were two or three important points raised by it. Surely the right hon. Gentleman had embarked upon a very difficult and controversial subject. First of all there was the question as to who was to have authority as to the laying of the mains in the streets. There was no reason why an authority should be exercised by the City of London which was not exercised by any other borough in London. Under the Amendment which was now moved together with the words which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, if there was any dispute, it would be open to the Board of Trade to give its authority. He ventured to say that this was the first occasion that the Board of Trade was brought in to exercise its authority in these matters. The right to break up the streets was subject to the approval of the local authorities, and notice was to be given to the London County Council. He did not know that the London County Council had been consulted with regard to this question, and he could hardly believe that the members of that body would give their assent to this proposal, namely, that where it was a question between a private company and the local authority of breaking up the streets, it should be left to the Board of Trade. It would be very much wiser to keep the Department out of the government of London as much as possible, and this innovation was very unwise. He should not have spoken, but he had not the slightest idea that this Amendment was going to be approved. It was rejected in Committee, and he thought that it would have been rejected in any Committee.

MR. CHURCHILL

said it was rejected on its merits. There was a very great difference between giving the City of London an absolute veto in regard to any construction in their area, and giving them a veto which, whenever they exercised it, might be reversed by an appeal to the Board of Trade.

MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthenshire, E.)

said he might state as Chairman of the Committee that they were unanimous that no exception of this sort should be given to the City of London, because in existing circumstances many other local authorities ought to have the same.

MR. DICKINSON

said that was the point which he was making. It was rejected on that broad ground. He had heard it over and over again in Committees of that House, that whenever they dealt with one particular part of London they ought to deal out the same treatment to other parts. But this was a precedent which they were setting up in regard to breaking up the streets of London. It they were going to say that there was to be an appeal from the local authorities to the Board of Trade then-he respectfully submitted that they were introducing into legislation with regard to London a totally new principle, and one which he believed the local authorities and the London County Council would strongly resent. The Board of Trade was not the authority, if there was to be any authority, to decide this question. The right hon. Gentleman

had a very generous character, but he earnestly hoped that instead of being persuaded by his hon. friend below the gangway, he would leave this matter alone.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 28; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 453.)

Parker, James (Halifax)	Sears, J. E.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Paul, Herbert	Seaverns, J. H.	Walsh, Stephen
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Seddon, J.	Walton, Joseph
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Seely, Colonel	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Pease, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Saffron Walden	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pollard, Dr.	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Waterlow, D. S.
Power, Patrick Joseph	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Pretyman, Ernest George	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Radford, G. H.	Spicer, Sir Albert	Whitehead, Rowland
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Stanier, Beville	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Renwick, George	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)	Wiles, Thomas
Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)	Steadman, W. C.	Wilkie, Alexander
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ridsdale, T. A.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Summerbell, T.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)	Winfrey, R.
Robinson, S.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Rowlands, J.	Tomkinson, James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dickinson and Sir Edwin Cornwall.
Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Toulmin, George
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Salter, Arthur Clavell	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne	Vivian, Henry

MR. CHURCHILL

The object of this new clause is to prevent the Company endeavouring to increase its revenue for the remainder of its term by raising the prices charged to consumers after a notice has been served on it by the London County Council that it is liable to purchase. The Amendment is desired by the London County Council in the interests of the public, and it is, I understand, agreed to by the promoters.

New clause— From and after the date when the council gives notice to purchase the undertaking of a supply company, it shall not be lawful for that company, except with the consent of the Board of Trade, to increase its charges for a general supply, as defined in the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899. If at any time after the aforesaid date the Company makes any higher charge for electricity supplied to any consumer under agreement than had been charged for a similar supply under similar conditions during the period of twelve months immediately preceding that date, the consumer affected may appeal to the Board of Trade who, if they consider that the increase is unreasonable, may make an order requiring the Company to reduce the charge accordingly, and any such order shall be binding on the Company."—(Mr. Churchill.)

Brought up and read the first time and added to the Bill.

MR. CHURCHILL

The object of this Amendment, together with the consequential Amendments to be proposed on Clauses 3 and 4 is to enable the promoters of the Bill and the promoters of the London, Westminster and Kensington Electric Supply Companies to link up their systems of supply. This Bill gives the power to one group of companies to link up their supply between themselves and another Bill which is later to be brought forward and considered this evening gives power to another company to link up among themselves. This Amendment gives power to the two groups to link up reciprocally between each other and to unite. The Amendment is desirable in the public interest and in the general interest of an efficient and economical system of electric supply in London, and I recommend its acceptance to the House, although I understand some hon. Gentlemen have some observations to make upon it to which, perhaps, a reply may be made later.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 30, at end, to insert the words 'The expression "specified companies," means "the Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Company, Limited, the Notting Hill Electric Lighting Company, Limited, the St. James and Pall Mall Electric Light Company, Limited, the Westminster Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, and the Central Electric Supply Company, Limited;" and each of such specified companies is in this Act referred to as a specified company.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. DICKINSON

said this was an Amendment which had a much more important bearing than would appear on the face of it. The Bill, as it stood, dealt with eight companies out of fourteen in London, and as it was introduced in the House of Lords it proposed to bring into its provisions all the fourteen companies of London, and there by proposed to give them all powers to link up and the advantages which they would possess by such linking up, and it also placed upon them the obligation of becoming liable to purchase by the London County Council, or some other public authority, in consideration for the advantages which were conferred upon them by enabling them to be linked up In the Committee of the House of Lords, the six companies were cut out of the Bill, and it went before a Committee of this House as a Bill dealing only with the eight companies. The Committee enlarged the scope of the Bill by giving the power to link up, not only to the eight companies, but also to the local authorities, and as such it had come down to the House. But as it passed the Committee, it did not provide for the linking up of the six companies which had been left out in the cold, so to speak, by the House of Lords. The Board of Trade, he admitted, with considerable reason, thought some course should be taken now, where by all the fourteen companies should be linked-up, so that the public would have the advantage of all the undertakings being connected, and being able to help each other. But in doing so a result was brought about which was certainly not contemplated at an earlier period of the Bill, and that was that these six companies would have all the advantages of the linking up of the system, and nevertheless were not subjected to the obligation of purchase by the County Council imposed upon the other companies, and therefore, whereas they got the advantages they had asked for, they still remained with the possibility, a very real possibility, of being able to escape purchase altogether owing to the fact that they were only left purchasable by the local authorities. He had put down Amendments at a later stage of the Bill, which would have applied the purchase clause to the six companies as it was applied to the eight companies, and if that were possible to be done it would bring about what he admitted would be a satisfactory solution, namely, that all the fourteen companies should be linked together and fall into the possession of the London County Council in 1931. But, unfortunately, he understood that although it would be in order to move those Amendments, it would necessitate the recommittal of the Bill, and under those circumtances it could hardly go forward, and the only choice he had was to object to the inclusion of these six companies in the Bill as proposed by the Amendment. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make any suggestion which would obviate the difficulty. If not, he felt certain the House would be making a mistake in admitting the six companies. They should rather leave them to the provisions of their own Bill in a position in which they could link themselves together, and would be subjected to a more or less efficient clause, by which they promised not to oppose any proposal made by the County Council in future years, than admit them to this very valuable privilege, and allow them to escape the liability to purchase.

MR. CHURCHILL

said the position had been correctly stated by the hon. Member and it arose from a difficulty for which he was certainly not responsible. When the Bill was before the House before it went to Committee, he moved an instruction on the London Electric Supply Bill collecting all the powers of purchase possessed by borough councils, and authorising the Committee to vest them in the London County Council. He would have moved a similar instruction in regard to the London and Westminster Company, but he could not do that, because Mr. Speaker, whom he consulted, ruled that it would not be in order on account of notice not having been given. The matter was complicated and very technical in its details, but notice was not given to the parties affected with regard to the second of these two Bills, and, therefore, what was in order on the instruction in the first would not be in order in regard to the second. That being so, they did the next best thing, and said to the second company: In consideration of our giving you these linking up powers, we will exact from you a pledge that at no future time shall you oppose any Bill which shall be brought in either by the London County Council, or by the Government of the day, to authorise the transference of the purchase rights to the London County Council. To this they agreed. Therefore, the matter now stood that this group of companies with which they were dealing in this Bill were, of course, to have their purchase liabilities transferred. But the second group of companies only bound themselves not to oppose any such scheme in the future. Meanwhile, by this Amendment, the second companies were admitted to the advantages of the first, and without in the same way coming under the whole liability of the first. But let them see where they stood. They still had against them the purchase rights, which were not diminished in any respect, only they would be exercised against them by the individual boroughs instead of by the London County Council, and until a Bill had been introduced, doing for this second group of companies what this Bill did for the first, that position would still continue. He agreed that that period ought to be as short as possible, and so far as it was possible to govern the future he gave the undertaking on behalf of the Government and the Board of Trade that they would, at the earliest possible moment compatible with the procedure of the House in private Bill legislation, produce a Bill in order to transfer the purchase rights operative against the second of those two groups of companies to the London County Council in exactly the same manner as were those rights in regard to the first. That pledge publicly given would, he thought, safeguard the very valuable and proper point to which the hon. Member had drawn attention.

Question put, and agreed to.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL moved to insert at the end of Clause 3 the following protective section: "If the specified companies, or any of them, exercise any powers under the provisions of this Act they shall, in respect of the exercise of such powers, be subject to the provisions of this Act to which authorised undertakers would be liable in the exercise of similar powers, and for that purpose the expression 'authorised undertakers' in this Act shall mean and include such specified companies or company." He said this was a protective clause which had been agreed upon with the companies. The First Commissioner of Works had exercised the most rigid and zealous supervision in regard to the proposals of the companies, and under the Amendment the Office of Works had inserted that a particular company was not allowed to do anything in its area, but when they were all linked up it would be possible, under certain conditions, for another company to come in and do in another area what it would not be entitled to do in its own area. It was to stop that danger which might perhaps capsize the admirable provision made by his right hon. friend that he ventured to move this protective clause.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 27, at end, to insert the words 'If the specified companies, or any of them, exercise any powers under the provisions of this Act they shall, in respect of the exercise of such powers, be subject to the provisions of this Act to which authorised undertakers would be liable in the exercise of similar powers, and for that purpose the expression 'authorised undertakers' in this Act shall mean and include such specified companies or company.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster)

said he desired to move a very small Amendment to the Amendment which had just been moved by the President of the Board of Trade, namely, to insert after the word "provisions" the words "or for the purposes."

Amendment to the proposed Amendment proposed— In line 2, after the word provisions, to insert the words 'or for the purposes.'"—(Mr. Barnard.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended agreed to.

Consequentia Amendments agreed to.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS (Bury St. Edmunds) moved to amend Clause 4 by adding a proviso that the provisions of the sections should extend and apply to the London County Council as if they were a local authority. His object was to give the London County Council concurrent powers with the borough councils in deciding which routes the mains should run. The important part of the clause was contained in subsection (4), which gave the local authority the power to object to any proposed line on the ground that it was going to pass through a busy street, and in that case they could suggest an alternative route which would have to be adopted if the arbitrator thought it was reasonable, practicable, and did not involve unreasonable expenditure. The County Council also desired to have on this point the same power as the local authority to decide which routes should be followed by the new mains. The borough councils claimed to be heard because they were the road authority, but the County Council had an equal claim because they owned the tramways and the large connecting sewers which ran through the principal thoroughfares, and in a considerable number of places they had subways. It was, therefore, obvious that unless they had power to be heard their interests in many cases might suffer. This was no new proposal. In every case where the County Council had claimed this right it had been granted, and as precedents he might mention The Metropolitan Electric Supply Act, 1905, The North Metropolitan Electric Supply Act, 1905, The Central Electric Supply Companies Act, 1899, and in the last three bulk supply Bills. He thought the London County Council had a far greater claim under the present Bill than they had ever had before, because they would be the future owners of the electric supply companies in London, and they ought to have the right to be heard before the arbitrators as to how these new mains should be laid down and where they should be placed. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would see his way to accept this Amendment.

MR. H. GOOCH (Camberwell, Peckham)

formally seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 9, to insert at the end, the words 'and the provisions of this subsection shall extend and apply to the London County Council as if they were a local authority.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* SIR LUKE WHITE

said that the substance of this proposal was brought before the Committee on behalf of the London County Council, and it was strongly opposed by the borough councils throughout the Metropolis. The Committee were unanimous in their decision that in respect of this linking up system there should not be a dual authority set up in London. The Committee were also opposed to the London County Council having within a borough the same powers as the borough itself, which at present was the road authority. Under this particular Bill the London County Council would be able to purchase the interests of the company in 1931, and if they purchased at that particular period they would then obtain all the powers which the companies at present possessed with regard to the roads and streets of the Metropolis. In the meantime and until 1931 the Committee were unanimously of opinion that the borough council should remain the road authority, and that any proposals with regard to their streets and the manner in which those streets should be broken up should remain vested in the borough councils as at the present time. He trusted that the House would support the Committee in the decision they had come to after considering all the circumstances with regard to the Metropolis, and the interests not only of the London County Council, but of the boroughs as well. The Committee were unanimous that the borough councils should remain the sole authority in regard to the breaking up of their streets. Supposing they passed the proposed provision in all similar, Bills proposed to the House of Commons by such bodies as the Metropolitan Water Board, the gas companies, and various other companies, the County Council would have equal claim to be constituted the road authority, and there would be confusion worse than existed, at the present time.

SIR EDWIN CORNWALL

said they had before them an object lesson of the extraordinary position of London with regard to local government, the breaking up of the street, and other similar questions. They had the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds moving on behalf of the London County Council, a proposal which was not in sympathy with the Bills promoted by a past London County Council, and on behalf of the present London County Council the hon. Member was asking the House to recognise the London County Council as being responsible for the matters raised in his proposal. On the other hand they had the Chairman of the Committee asking the House to resist the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member on behalf of the London County Council. How was London to bring itself into some system of unification when both sides in municipal politics came to the House and agreed to join hands in recognising the London County Council as the authority in matters of this kind. In the face of this fact they had hon. Members great interested no doubt in doing the best they could for London but representing other parts of the country without having all the responsibilities which many of them had had for a large number of years of advising the House, in these matters. They all knew that the London County Council, whatever party might dominate it, had to bear the responsibility of many of the ills that London suffered from from time to time. A cartoon appeared in a well-known weekly paper issued in London as to the County Council being responsible for the breaking up of the streets. The London County Council was not responsible for that, but they asked that the Council should be put in a position to be able to control important matters of that kind. He supported the Amendment and hoped it would be passed.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he did not know that the House would be willing to follow the advice of the hon. Member for the Buckrose division, who was Chairman of the Committtee which investigated these Bills. While this was not a matter on which he desired to force a Ministerial opinion on the House, after careful reflection he should certainly be disposed to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Member had put down the Amendment in a form which he thought was rather a duplication of the Amendment to Clause 15. He should be prepared to support the Amendment to Clause 15 when reached. He thought if the words now proposed were inserted at the end of sub-clause 4, that would be a better form and a more convenient place. The addition which the hon. Member now proposed and the Amendment which he would move to Clause 15 would together achieve his object. What was that object? He thought it was a very innocent one. All it was proposed to do was to give the County Council the same power of revision in regard to the laying down of linking-up mains which they already possessed in regard to distribution mains; and he thought they were entitled to that power, not only, as the authority over the streets of London, but as the authority which one day, he hoped, would possess the unified system. Without in any degree wishing to traverse the very vaulable and important opinion expressed by the hon. Member for the Buckrose division or impugning the view he had put forward, he himself would vote in favour of the Amendment.

LORD R. CECIL

, on behalf of the borough council of St. Marylebone, hoped the House would uphold the decision of the Committee and not accept the Amendment. If there were two authorities there would be great addition to the complications and expenditure. From the point of view of roads the County Council had no jurisdiction. [Cries of: "They ought to have."] That was a totally different proposition and an irrevelant interruption. As the law stood there was reason why the County Council should be consulted any more than the owners of other pipes or mains under the street.

MR. FLETCHER (Hampstead)

quite admitted that sooner or later the London County Council would have larger powers in this connection as a sort of appeal court; but as matters now stood it was an unfortunate phrase to associate the Council with the powers of a local authority. There certainly was no intention on the part of promoters of the Bill to transfer powers from the local authority to the Council. He moved the addition of the words: "Without prejudice to the rights, powers, and privileges of any local authority."

MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment. At the end, to add the words 'without prejudice to the rights, powers, and privileges of any local authority.'"—(Mr. Fletcher)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment."

* SIR LUKE WHITE

said this would simply be to state the existing position.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he could hot accept that. It seemed to him that these words would reduce the drafting of the clause to mere verbiage, so far as it operated at all. The Amendment would leave the local authority possessed of exactly the same privileges as they possessed at the present time.

MR. BOWLES

said the incident which they had just witnessed might be taken as a real indication of the effect of the clause. The hon. Member did not move his Amendment in the form in which it stood on the Paper. In the form in which it appeared on the Paper the words proposed by the hon. Member for Hampstead were included, and yet it was suggested that the insertion of the words would reduce the Amendment to nonsense. The real truth, of course, was that this clause invaded the rights, powers, and privileges of every local authority concerned. That was a very serious thing, and one which he submitted ought not to be done without the greatest consideration of all the complicated questions which were concerned, or which might be concerned as a result of this alteration, and certainly not under the present circumstances in the direct face of the unanimous Report of a Committee, composed without distinction of party. The real effect of the Amendment, as it stood, appeared to be doubtful. He could not help thinking that if they were to decide on this matter now they should have the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. It was quite clear that the effect of the Amendment would have very far-reaching consequences. Although he was no lawyer he could not understand how the House of Commons or any reasonable man could say that such a system as this clause proposed could be accepted or could work, for they were setting up a system of dual control. They were superseding one authority for dealing with the roads for one particular purpose by other authority for dealing with them for another purpose. It might Well be that Parliament had chosen the wrong authority for dealing with the roads of London. He quite understood hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that they had. He himself was of opinion that all the roads in London ought to be under the control of the London County Council. But Parliament had, rightly or wrongly, decided that in dealing with the roads of London the London County Council was not the only authority, but that certain bodies which they had set up, viz., the Metropolitan borough councils, should have the control. It was an extraordinary thing that in relatively small matters an exception should be made to that general rule and that they should refuse to trust the great local representative bodies to whom Parliament had already committed these matters. He regarded the proposal in the Bill as a perfectly gratuitous and unnecessary restriction upon the powers of the Metropolitan borough councils. In the second place, he was afraid of this aspect of the case—that many of these proposals were the outcome of an extraordinary spirit, which he could only describe as a megalomania that affected otherwise reasonable persons who had at any time occupied a seat on the London County Council. He was bound on every consideration to support the Amendment.

MR. WATERLOW (Islington, N.)

thought that there was some confusion in the minds of hon. Members as to the effect of the Amendment. With the Amendment as it now stood, he was in entire sympathy. Some hon. Members who had spoken did not seem to realise that in many of the streets of London there was already dual control; viz., in the great bulk of the lines of streets where the electric-lighting companies' mains were laid. There, the London County Council had control. Then, the London County Council had control on all lines of streets where the main sewers ran. The London County Council in that respect required to have a say on those lines of streets where new electric lighting mains were to be laid. Again, on all main roads where London County Council tramways ran, the cost of two-thirds of the road was contributed at the present time both as to maintenance and keeping them in proper repair. For these reasons, he thought the London County Council should have a right to say where those electric mains were to be laid.

* MR. H. GOOCH

said that whatever might be said of the London Country Council it could not be alleged that they suffered from lack of employment.

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Gretton, John	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Ambrose, Robert	Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)	Pretyman, Ernest George
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord	Helmsley, Viscount	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hunt, Rowland	Stanier, Beville
Carlile, E. Hildred	Joynson-Hicks, William	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Valentia, Viscount
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh
Courthope, G. Loyd	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Claude Hay.
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Fell, Arthur	Nannetti, Joseph P.

No one wished that their employment should be seriously increased in any respect. The point of the Amendment was simply that the London County Council had considerable interests underground and it was only fair that they should be able to look after, to the best of their ability the interests of London as a whole. The London County Council was the only body which could look after or speak for London as a whole.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said he thought that it would be better to settle first the Amendment to the Amendment, and then go on to the discussion of the principal Amendment.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

said the hon. Member for Norwood seemed to assume that the words were put down to protect the rights and interests of the borough councils and that those rights and interests were being invaded. There was, however, another alternative, viz., that the words were unnecessary. He could not, however, see any possible harm in accepting them so as to make it quite plain that there was no intention to invade the rights and powers of the Metropolitan borough councils. If they did that they could get on with the discussion on the main issue.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 43; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 454.)

NOES.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Hedges, A. Paget	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Helme, Norval Watson	Radford, G. H.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Henry, Charles S.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Renwick, George
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Higham, John Sharp	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Holland, Sir William Henry	Ridsdale, E. A.
Barnard, E. B.	Horniman, Emslie John	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barnes, G. N.	Hudson, Walter	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Beale, W. P.	Hyde, Clarendon	Robinson, S.
Beck, A. Cecil	Idris, T. H. W.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Bell, Richard	Jackson, R. S.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Jenkins, J.	Rowlands, J.
Boland, John	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Bowerman, C. W.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Brigg, John	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Sears, J. E.
Brodie, H. C.	Joyce, Michael	Seaverns, J. H.
Brooke, Stopford	Kearley, Sir Hudson E.	Seddon, J.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Kekewich, Sir George	Seely, Colonel
Bryce, J. Annan	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Lambert, George	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Byles, William Pollard	Lamont, Norman	Snowden, P.
Cameron, Robert	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E)	Spicer, Sir Albert
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Lehmann, R. C.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Levy, Sir Maurice	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Summerbell, T.
Clive, Percy Archer	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Clough, William	Lupton, Arnold	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Lynch, H. B.	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Maclean, Donald	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Tomkinson, James
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)	Toulmin, George
Cowan, W. H.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Crosfield, A. H.	M'Crae, Sir George	Ure, Alexander
Curran, Peter Francis	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	M'Micking, Major G.	Vivian, Henry
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Walsh, Stephen
Dobson, Thomas W.	Mallet, Charles E.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Duckworth, Sir James	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Waring, Walter
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Marnham, F. J.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Waterlow, D. S.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Micklem, Nathaniel	Watt, Henry A.
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Molteno, Percy Alport	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Everett, R. Lacey	Mond, A.	Whitbread, Howard
Fenwick, Charles	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.
Field, William	Morse, L. L.	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Gill, A. H.	Napier, T. B.	Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Glendinning, R. G.	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Wilkie, Alexander
Glover, Thomas	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Williamson, A.
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Nolan, Joseph	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Gulland, John W.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton	Nuttall, Harry	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hall, Frederick	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Winfrey, R.
Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Parker, James (Halifax)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Stephen Collins and Mr. Wiles.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Pease, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Saffron Walden
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Pollard, Dr.
Haworth, Arthur A.	Power, Patrick Joseph

Original Question, "That those words be their inserted," again proposed.

* MR. RUPERT GUINNESS (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

hoped the members of borough councils who took part in the division on the Amendment would appreciate that the County Council did not want to take away any of their powers, because those who represented the County Council voted for the last Amendment. All they wanted was that the County Council should be represented before the arbitrator, and it seemed to be necessary and important that they should have some voice in the route which mains followed, especially as they had a large number of sewers and all the tramways and would eventually own the property. He should like to press that this Amendment should form part of the Bill, because they would want very considerable powers in order to take over the undertakings when 1931 arrived.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

*MR. B. S. STRAUS (Tower Hamlets, Mile End) moved to substitute £4 10s. for £6 15s. as the limit which might be charged per kilowatt by the company. He said he moved this because it was the limit inserted in the original Bill of the company, and he could not, for the life of him, understand why it should have been increased from £4 10s. to £6 15s. He thought it was due to the House to explain the position. When this Bill went to the Lords numerous clauses were left out because that House only considered the question of linking up, and this clause went out with many others. When the measure came before the Committee of the House of Commons, which was ably presided over by the Chairman sitting on his left, it appeared that the Committee insisted quite rightly on the company inserting in the Bill a maximum. Then the company, he could not understand why, inserted the amount of £6 15s. instead of the amount in the original Bill which appeared on page 23, line 15, as £4 10s. per kilowatt. There were also measured maximum tolls for all energy supplied in the original Bill only instead of ½d. for every unit they had 5 of a penny, which he approved of as he supported the decimal system. It was the bounden duty of Members of the House to consider in what way consumers would be affected in this matter, and there was no question that even £4 10s. was such a price that it would not pay people to use electricity in bulk to any great extent. The higher the maximum the greater the leverage upon the company to get a larger amount from the users of current. The consequence was that he thought the best thing was to put the maximum as low as possible, and there was no reason why they should not adopt the proposal of the promoters and make it £4 10s. as his Amendment would do. He would point out that the railway companies all had maximum rates, and they continued to use the existence of those rates as an argument for their charges. They pointed out how low their charge was as compared with the maximum and they used the latter for the purpose of extorting a higher rate from their customers. [Cries of "Oh!"] He would withdraw the word "extorting" which he did not use offensively and say the companies used the maximum to get higher rates from their customers. He hoped the House would adopt the Amendment, as it was the only chance they would have to look after not the interests of the County Council or the borough councils but of the public. They were there for the purpose of looking after the interests of the people. [Cries of "Oh!"] His hon. friends opposite said "Oh," and perhaps they were there to represent the companies, but he was not. This matter was so important that even if the companies said they could not go on with the Bill, as he was only adopting their own figures he maintained that the House should carry it through, because it so materially affected the consumers. He did not wish to detain the House at that late hour, but he hoped hon. Members would see the importance of the case, and he was sure that those who looked at the question from an unbiassed point of view would have regard to the interests of the consumers. He, therefore, hoped his proposal would be adopted.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 32, to leave out the words 'six pounds and fifteen,' and to insert the words 'four pounds and ten.'"—(Mr. B. S. Straus.)

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

MR. LEVERTON HARRIS (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

said the hon. Member who had spoken had so absolutely misinformed the House, that, being connected with one of the electric companies, he felt bound to contradict one or two statements that he made. The Bill introduced into the House of Lords did, it was quite true, give the figure of £4 10s. as a maximum, but that was an entirely different Bill from that of the present one now before the House of Commons. The Bill before the House of Lords was one for forty-two years, enabled the companies to link up together, and provided that any capital expenditure spent on sending out their own supply should be repaid by a sinking fund. This Bill was only going to continue for twenty-three years the rights of the company, and they were fettered in their interest, because when the twenty-three years came to an end the existing Electric Lighting Acts came into force, and the company had to sell their undertaking under the terms of those Acts. He thought there was very great difference between the Bill introduced into the House of Lords and the present Bill, and he hoped the House, in justice to the alterations made in the terms of the Bill, would not accept the Amendment.

SIR LUKE WHITE

thought it was fair that he should state that when the Committee considered the Bill no maximum price was included in its terms, and the Committee had to consider what the maximum price should be. After considering the matter the Committee came to the conclusion that it was a question for experts more particularly to consider, and to take into consideration the facts of the case. There was no doubt an absolute necessity that a considerable reduction in the maximum prices put forward should take place, and ultimately on behalf of the promoters, on behalf of the London County Council, and other parties interested, a conference was agreed upon to go into the maximum charge, the engineers to give a decision, and they agreed on £6 10s. as a compromise. The following day the counsel for the promoters with the sanction of the London County Council said that a decision had been come to that £6 15s. should be inserted as a maximum price, and with the consent of all parties the Committee agreed to put that sum in. There was no objection whatever on the part of those interested to see a very large reduction. That was the maximum price, and he hoped the Committee would support the decision of the Committee, and insert the words as they stood.

MR. CHURCHILL

said that great as was the economy in charges which would be effected by the Bill, much greater economy was expected under the Bill as originally introduced, and, therefore, the promoters were able to guarantee a maximum charge of £4 10s. But he was advised that in the altered conditions the Amendment, if accepted, would inflict such a hardship on the promoters that they would not be justified in going on with the Bill. He would point out, however, that while the charge per kilowatt was £4 10s. in the original Bill and £6 15s. in the present Bill, the charge of a halfpenny per unit remained constant in the two propositiors; and the charge per unit was the more important of the two. Before the Bill was introduced, and if it did not pass they would revert to the old price, the price of electricity was 8d. a unit. That was not comparable altogether because there was then no charge per kilowatt, which represented the charge for the horse power of the engine, whilst the unit represented the charge for the amount consumed. Moreover, the price mentioned in the Bill was the statutory maximum, and while there was no question of the promoters charging the full price, the Board of Trade had power on the application of the county council or the local authority to revise the maximum price every seven years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved an Amendment which he said was really a consequential Amendment to that moved by the President of the Board of Trade.

Amendment proposed— In page 13, line 25, after the word 'undertakers,' to insert the words 'or a specified company.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHURCHILL

said he was advised that the words were not necessary; that the Amendment he had inserted was sufficient to carry out the object, and that it was not necessary to insert the words in every clause.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

said that if the Amendment at page 4, line 27, covered the whole point he would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman had inserted these words in about ten other places.

SIR H. KEARLEY

pointed out that Clauses 3 and 4 were the operative clauses of the Bill, and that no useful purpose would be served by constantly inserting this Amendment in others.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments proposed— In page 13, line 35, after the word 'ground,' to insert the words 'within the administrative County of London.' In page 14, line 4, after the word 'undertaker,' to insert the words 'or a specified company.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 18, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'under the provisions of Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888.'"—(Mr. Guinness.)

SIR H. KEARLEY

I agree.

MR. JOHN WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

desired to elicit some explanation of what the clause meant. His remembrance of the Committee proceedings on Electricity Bills led him to regard the Act of 1888 as the most important part of the electrical law.

MR WALTER GUINNESS

explained that it was a simple matter. The clause transferred powers from borough councils to the London County Council, and if these words were left in it would be quite possible that companies who were not under the Act of 1888 (Section 2) might not be included, some of the companies had a longer run.

MR. CHURCHILL

said that was the explanation of the Amendment. The words would limit the effect in regard to purchase rights of the London County Council inherited from the borough councils. It had nothing to do with the terms in the Act of 1888, upon which he agreed with his hon. friend it was necessary to keep a sharp eye.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved a proviso to Clause 22, which he said was made necessary by one which had been inserted by the right hon. Gentleman. The subsection provided that under certain conditions the Council could purchase the bulk undertaking of the Metropolitan Electricity Supply Company. Subsection (2) of the clause provided that the Council should not purchase any undertaking or any part of the undertaking of the said company unless they gave notice, etc. In pursuance of Section 22 they would be empowered to purchase, if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was accepted, the bulk part of the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company; and he moved his Amendment to make it quite clear that their failure to purchase this bulk supply would not vitiate their power to purchase the rest of the companies throughout the County of London.

MR. H. GOOCH

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 18, line 39, after the word 'purchase,' to insert the words 'Provided that this subsection shall not apply in respect of any part of the undertaking of the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company which may not in pursuance of this section be purchasable by the Council upon the terms specified in Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHURCHILL

thought he might accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he now had to ask the House to consider the most important of the Amendments submitted by the Board of Trade. It referred to the re-modelling, or rather the restoration of the purchase terms. When the Bill came from the Committee before the House he put to the company this proposition: The Government desired to consolidate the purchase liabilities against the company and vest them in the County Council. They represented to him that they would lose considerably by that, because the purchase prices were ineffective prices while they were held by all the separate boroughs, but consolidated and vested in the County Council they would become effective and there would be great or considerable loss on account of the possibility of severance which would inevitably arise in the course of a piecemeal purchase. That being so, he agreed to insert in the instruction he moved—the instruction vesting the rights of purchase in the London County Council—the words "on equitable terms." It was perfectly understood that those words were only inserted to enable the question of purchase terms to be raised before the Committee for the purpose of providing, if necessary and desirable, a clearer definition of certain points which the promoters urged were obscure and uncertain in regard to the operation of the purchase terms as they stood. It was clearly stated by him at the time that the Board of Trade did not contemplate any improvement of the purchase terms at all. They were willing to give a clearer and more precise definition if that were necessary, and they were anxious that the matter should be discussed before the Committee, but they certainly never intended making—and he certainly should not support—any proposal for improving the conditions of purchase. He held that the companies were, to a very large extent, compensated for the extra efficiency of the purchase rights operating against them by the facilities for linking up which they were asking for under the present Bill. When the company went before the Committee a very long and careful examination of their case was made and the very able counsel whom they were able to engage induced the Committee—and he was certainly not condemning the Committee for their action in any way—to insert the words "on equitable terms" in the text of the Bill. It was quite true the Committee never intended, he understood, by that to give the companies power to be compensated in 1931 for goodwill or for expectation of future profits or anything of that kind; but he was advised that the clause might very easily have been construed in that manner by an arbitrator. He was advised it was quite possible that an arbitrator might give to the company terms substantially better than those under the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, under which they were liable to be purchased in 1931. That being so, he thought it was his duty—and he trusted the House would support him—to submit to the promoters that unless they were able to modify the conditions which were granted by the companies so as to make quite sure the terms were the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, terms, and no other, it would be his duty, on behalf of the Government, to oppose the Bill when it came back to the House on Report. He was very glad to be able to inform the House that after considerable negotiations, which on more than one occasion very nearly jeopardised the Bill, the promoters had accepted the clause in the form in which he now moved it. The companies, therefore, would be purchasable on Electric Lighting Act, 1888, terms as they originally would have been without any improvement at all. There were, however, to the general statement two exceptions. There were two companies which had a longer run than 1931, one the Charing Cross and the other the City Company. One was purchasable in 1932 and the other not till 1940. They thought it absolutely wrong that those companies should have any improvement in their purchase terms as granted by Parliament; but they thought the two companies, in giving up the extra period they had to run, were entitled to special consideration. In that respect they got value received, viz the public acquirement at an earlier date. He thought it only right to make this exception in the case of companies which had given up their statutory right to run. There was sub-clause 4 which he was also moving. That was a very small, but a very peculiar point. The transference they were now effecting was the individual purchase rights of a number of boroughs in a consolidated purchase right to the London County Council. There were some things, such as some mains and a generating station at Willesden, which would not be purchasable under the terms of piecemeal purchase, but which would be purchasable under the new system of consolidated purchase. The company said they should be allowed to have special terms in regard to that part of their plant, and the Board of Trade found it impossible to deny the justice of that claim. If, however, they had allowed the company to have that special licence in regard to that small outstanding piece of their plant, and at the same time allowed them to insist on the London County Council buying it all at one moment, it was possible the London County Council might have had no opportunity of refusing to pay an excessive price for one portion of the property without giving up their option over the whole of the rest for which they would know within small limits what they would have to pay. The Board of Trade, therefore, said that if the company had the right to except those particular mains and the Willesden station from the general operation of the existing purchase clause, they would also be excepted from the obligation of the London County Council "to purchase them all or none." If in purchase negotiations high prices were named for these outstanding properties it would, therefore, be optional for the London County Council to refuse to buy them, and they would be left on the hands of the promoters. That was an arrangement which, after careful negotiation, they found to be satisfactory to the representatives of the London County Council, and it was also accepted by the companies. He had dwelt on it at considerable length, because, although it figured to a small extent in the proposals, he wanted the House to see it had been carefully and narrowly considered. He commended the subsection to the House because it enforced against the companies substantially the same purchase terms as those under the Electric Light Act, 1888.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, to leave out lines 1 to 17 (inclusive,' and to insert the words '(3) The undertakings of the several London Electric Supply Companies within the county, including any lands, buildings, works, materials, and plant provided or constructed under the powers of this Act shall, if purchased by the Council, be paid for upon the terms specified in Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, provided that if the Council give notice for purchase at the twenty-sixth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one—(a) That part of the undertaking of the Charing Cross, West End, and City Electricity Supply Company, Limited, which is authorised by the City of London Electric Lighting Order, 1899, shall be purchased only upon the terms set forth in the said Order; and (b) the City of London Electric Lighting Company, Limited, shall be entitled to such additional compensation as may be agreed upon, or as such agreement being arrived at, the Council or such local authority may appeal to the Board of Trade, who may make such Order as having regard to all the circumstances of the case may appear to them to be expedient. (7) In the event of any purchase under the provisions of this section taking place the Board of Trade may, by Order, modify or adjust the powers exercisable by the Council or any local authority in such manner as may appear expedient, and do anything which appears to them to be necessary to enable the provisions of this section to be carried into effect, and any such Order may modify the provisions of any Act or Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

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

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

said he gathered that an arrangement entered into in Committee was going to be upset by the right hon. Gentleman on the Report stage. He had been many years in the House, but he never remembered such a case. The Bill had been before a Committee, and apparently the whole of it was going to be rediscussed at half-past ten at night by a House in which there were not three Members who were not on the Committee who knew anything about it.

MR. W. THORNE (West Ham, S.)

Speak for yourself.

SIR F. BANBURY

said if the hon. Member was a member of the Committee—he was not referring to him personally—of course, he did not include him in the remarks he made, but if he was not a member of the Committee he did include him, because, however able he might be, if he had not been at the Committee, and heard the evidence, he could know nothing whatever about it.

MR. W. THORNE

I have read it.

SIR F. BANBURY

asked what was the use of having a Committee if this principle was to obtain. They left it all to the hon. Member below the gangway who had read the case, and thought he knew all about it, and they ignored the long sittings upstairs. That was a very important point, and one which would deal a blow at the work of Private Bill Committees, which had hitherto always been considered to have gone into their work carefully, and it was on very rare occasions that the House ever interfered with the decisions at which they had arrived. The right hon. Gentleman had told them, putting it in a very terse phrase, that he had levied blackmail on the companies. The Committee arrived at a decision, and the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to reverse that decision, because the Government was all powerful in the House, unless they altered their terms, and took a smaller advantage. If that was not blackmail he did not know what was. He had risen to speak, because he felt certain if such things were to be done no one would ever put his money into any of these enter prises. This sort of thing was growing day by day, money was going abroad, and hon. Gentlemen below the gangway who lived upon the money of the investor—

MR. W. THORNE

They do not get much of yours anyhow.

SIR F. BANBURY

said they would get none of it, if he could avoid it. The result would be detrimental to the interests and the commercial prosperity of the country.

MR. DICKINSON

said there were a great many more than four Members who knew a good deal about the subject. He rose merely to express, on behalf of London generally, their great appreciation for the successful work that had been undertaken in regard to this matter by the President of the Board of Trade. After having watched these proceedings through both Committees, without bringing any reflection to bear upon the action of the Committee upstairs he said that if this clause had been presented to the House as it left the Committee the Bill could not possibly have passed. That being so, it was in the interest both of the Company and of London generally that the right hon. Gentleman intervened and with great wisdom and tact persuaded the Company to accept the terms which were embodied in this clause. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman very much for what he had done.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, S.)

, speaking as one of the members of the Committee who had devoted very laborious days to the question, said the Board of Trade suggested that the members of the Committee had been induced by the persuasive eloquence of counsel to put a construction on his instruction which they were not justified in doing, and he thought it would have been for the convenience of the Committee if the Board of Trade had at an earlier stage explained more fully what their intention was when the instruction was moved. It left them in this position—that it was quite impossible for them on the instruction which they had before them to report to the House such a clause. He really did not think it was their desire to have anything but reasonable terms.

MR. W. GUINNESS

said the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London rather suggested that the Board of Trade had dealt harshly with the companies. It was well to point out that the companies had, he believed, assented to the clause.

SIR F. BANBURY

Very reluctantly.

MR. W. GUINNESS

said it might be that they had assented reluctantly, but of course, the Committee gave them what he thought they could hardly have expected, and he really believed the right hon. Gentleman in moving the clause was only carrying out what the Committee really intended. Reading the evidence, and so far as one could judge, the Committee did not intend the companies to get anything more than Electric Lighting Section 2 terms, except in the two special case of the City Company and the Charing Cross Company, and all that the Board of Trade had done was to redraft the clause to carry out the objects of the Committee, and to secure that when the time came for the assessment of compensation the arbitrator would not be compelled, by the ambiguous wording of the clause, to give something over and above electric lighting terms for the severance, which would not, in point of fact, ever arise, but which might have arisen if the borough councils had been the purchasers instead of the County Council. He believed if this clause had been moved in its original form the London County Council might have been mulcted in an enormous sum, and on behalf of the County Council, who had devoted a considerable amount of time and labour to this matter, he should like to express their gratitude for what the right hon. Gentleman had done in re-drafting the clause.

MR. JAMES PARKER (Halifax)

said he associated himself with the hon. Member opposite with regard to instructions given by the House to Committees. The instruction was that the Committee should consider that something more was required than merely the terms of the Electric Lighting Act. He did not consider that more was required. As a Member of the Committee he had voted quite conscientiously with his colleagues for the clause as put into the Bill, and the reason for it was this. He had sat on two of these Committees, the one in 1906, and the Bulk Supply Bill which the Committee threw out on the preamble, and upon these two later Bills, and anyone who considered the condition of the consumer of electricity in London and the conditions as they prevailed with the various borough councils would be prepared to go a long way to get a united bulk supply of electricity under the control of the London County Council. When instructions were given they should be given by the Board of Trade, in terms which the Committee could understand, and when the House gave an instruction he took it to be the business of the Committee to endeavour to carry it out.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he was quite willing to admit some blame attached to him for not having had an opportunity when moving the instruction of more clearly explaining the historical circumstances, which were only known to himself, which led to the insertion of the words "on equitable terms" in the instruction. That misled the Committee as to the intent and wishes of the House upon the subject, and it was through that that the Bill came down to them in its present form. He thought the House would recognise how very complicated this question was, with all sorts of small points, and how much compromise and negotiation was necessary. He was sure the House would not, in accepting his Amendment, desire in the slightest way to reflect at all upon the zeal, ability, and industry, with which the Committee had done their work. That would be most ungrateful towards Members who discharged a most severe and laborious and, in some respects, thankless portion of Parliamentary work.

* SIR LUKE WHITE

said the Committee felt that under the instruction of his right hon. friend, with regard to equitable terms, they had to consider that question from the point of view of the powers given by the present Bill, and if it had been the intention of the Board of Trade that the purchase under the terms of this Bill should have been the exact terms of Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, as this Amendment proposed, it would have been a very easy matter for the Committee to have placed such a clause in the Bill. But the Bill had to deal with a very complicated question. They never intended, under the clause which now stood in the Bill, to give anything whatever in relation to goodwill or future profits. What they intended to give to the promoters of the Bill was fair and equitable terms, taking into consideration the capital expenditure which they would have to incur under the provisions of the Bill. He held that the Amendment would carry out what was the intention of the Committee, and accordingly the Committee would support the clause as amended.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

said he moved his subsection down to the end of sub-head (a) because sub-head (b) dealt with quite a different question, and he hoped even if he was not successful in inducing the Government to accept the first part, they might anyhow accept the second. Sub-head (a) proposed that after the London County Council purchased the undertakings supplying electricity throughout the county, after they had done what the borough councils could not do, owing to the difficulty of severance, they might then be entitled to sell back to the borough councils so much of the undertaking as was concerned with the distribution of electricity within the area of that local authority. The London County Council were anxious that this Amendment should be accepted, because they did not think that the distribution of electrical supply for London would be so well forwarded in the hands of one authority as if it was divided up into a bulk supply and a distributive supply. The actual work ought obviously to be in the hands of a body in touch with the district. The borough councils were in a far better position to say whether a man was entitled to a certain amount of credit or should be made to pay cash down for the supply which he had. In distinguishing between the bulk and the distribution supplies of electricity the Government would only be earning out the same principle as had been applied in other parts of London. They felt that the London County Council was overworked, and it would be impossible for it to run a bulk supply and at the same time to distribute electricity to every single consumer. He felt that this proposal was only doing common justice to the local authorities. They ought to include the local authority on equitable terms, not only between the companies and the council but also between the borough councils and the London County Council. The borough councils in many places felt that they had a fairly valuable prospective reversion in these electric undertakings. He was anxious that they should have this reversion, and he asked the House to allow the County Council to sell that reversion to the local authorities in the year 1931. The Council could not administer the distributing work so well as the local authority, and, therefore, the power was asked for that the County Council should be able to resell the distributing part of an undertaking to the local authority desiring to acquire it.

MR. H. GOOCH

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, line 30, at end, to insert the words '(6) In the event of the Council purchasing an undertaking (or part of an undertaking) in pursuance of powers transferred to or conferred upon them under this section the following provisions shall have effect: (a) The Council and any local authority who, before the passing of this Act, were empowered to purchase such undertaking (or part of an undertaking) may, with the approval of the Board of Trade, enter into and carry into effect an agreement or agreements for the purchase by such local authority from the Council of so much of the distributing system comprised in such undertaking (or part of an undertaking) as may be situate within and used for the supply of the district of such local authority, and as from the date of the purchase effected under any such agreement all such powers as may have been vested in the Council with regard to such system (or part of a system), and the distribution of electrical energy there by shall be vested in such local authority and shall be exercisable by them in lieu of and in substitution for the Council, and shall cease to be exercisable by the Council.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHURCHILL

said he had found himself so often in agreement with the hon. Member opposite in the course of this Bill, that he was sorry to differ from him directly. The policy the Government were pursuing was for the unification of the electrical supply for London, but the adoption, of this proposal would have the effect of dividing it up again. Out of unity would proceed economy in generation, management, and distribution, and though economy in generation would remain, the economy in management would be largely impaired by distribution being in another hand. It was evident from the expression "valuable prospective reversion" that local authorities expected to make a middleman's profit; but that was not the policy of the Government. Again, inasmuch as not all the local authorities would purchase the right of distribution, the Council would be left with a lop-sided system of distribution without the means of making up the loss in one district from gain in another.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved a further Amendment to provide that where a local authority was in competition with the County Council, the County Council should have the power to acquire the undertaking of the local authority. There were only two cases in London where that state of things was likely to arise, namely, Bermondsey and Southwark, the borough councils of which had each got undertakings in the area that would be supplied by the companies included in this Bill. It was manifestly undesirable that two different sections of ratepayers should be in competition in the supply of electricity, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment.

MR. H. GOOCH

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, line 30, at end, to insert the words 'The Council and any local authority having an electrical undertaking which is being carried on in competition with the undertaking (or part of an undertaking) purchased by the Council as aforesaid may, with the approval of the Board of Trade, enter into and carry into effect an agreement or agreements for the purchase by the Council of the electrical undertaking of such local authority, or any part thereof, and upon any such agreement being entered into, all such powers as may have been exercisable by such local authority in regard to their electrical undertaking or so much thereof as may be purchased by the Council shall be vested in the Council, and shall be exercisable by them in lieu of and in substitution for such local authority, and shall cease to be exercisable by such local authority. In the event of no such agreement being arrived at, the Council or such local authority may appeal to the Board of Trade, who may make such order as, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may appear to them to be expedient.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHURCHILL

said there was no great objection to the object of the Amendment, but he did not think this was the occasion when they need consider the danger to which the hon. Member had referred. The date of purchase was, unfortunately, very distant, and he was quite certain that further legislation would be necessary before that date was reached. He agreed that they ought to avoid anything like competition between the London County Council and the borough councils, but he did not think that the scheme for the unification of the electrical supply of London could be completed if they stopped where they were carried by this Bill. It was evident that further legislation would be necessary before London possessed a perfectly complete and comprehensive scheme, and when that legislation was proposed, the hon. Member's subsection, which was unobjectionable in itself, but would be dangerous if introduced into the present Bill, might very properly be considered.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved subsection (7) of his Amendment, which he said was intended to prevent the necessity of any further legislation when purchase rights took effect. He was advised that unless the Board of Trade had power to modify and adjust the powers exercisable by the council owing to the different expressions in various Provisional Orders in force throughout London administered by the London County Council it was certain that fresh legislation would be necessary and that might be avoided by his proposal.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, line 20, at the end, to insert the words '(7) In the event of any purchase under the provisions of this section taking place the Board of Trade may, by order, modify or adjust the powers exercisable by the Council or any local authority in such manner as may appear expedient, and do anything which appears to them to be necessary to enable the provisions of this section to be carried into effect, and any such order may modify the provisions of any Act or Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

MR. CHURCHILL

said he had on a number of occasions heard hon. Members express the opinion that they thought a good deal too much power was given to the Board of Trade, and he had had to defend his Department against that charge. But never in his most enthusiastic moments had he conceived it possible that Parliament would be asked to confer upon the Board of Trade or any public Department the powers which the hon. Member desired to give them in this Amendment, which would confer upon the Board of Trade almost illimitable power. It was an absolute and uncontrolled power which on the grounds of modesty he felt compelled to decline.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, line 31, after the word 'The,' to insert the words 'London County.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved an Amendment providing that three-fourths of the purchase money instead of one-half as proposed by the Bill should be paid in stock. It was obvious that the London County Council might have very great difficulty in raising the enormous sum of ready money which would be necessary to pay off the interests on the capital of those companies it half of it had to be satisfied in cash. The capital of those companies was already over £13,000,000, and he thought it was most desirable in the interests of the credit of London that a huge amount of stock should not suddenly be floated on the market. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would see his way to accept his Amendment.

MR. H. GOOCH

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 19, line 32, to leave out the word 'one-half,' and to insert the word 'three-fourths.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

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

MR. CHURCHILL

said he quite agreed with the hon. Member that they should do everything they could to render the purchase of these undertakings in 1931 by the London County Council easy and convenient, and he agreed that it would be an advantage that the larger portion of the purchase price should be payable in stock instead of in cash. This matter was examined before the Committee upstairs, and the Committee came to an agreement with the parties concerned that the proportion should be one-half. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment asked that that proportion should be three-fourths. That was asking for a greater concession from the companies than was thought proper by the Committee. He was, however, anxious to facilitate in every way the operation of purchase, and he had had some negotiations with the companies upon this subject. He was glad to announce that they had been successful, and he was, therefore, in a position to accept the Amendment which bad been moved by his hon. friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed— In page 20, line 7, after the words 'when the,' to insert the words 'London County.' In page 21, line 2, after the word 'accordingly,' to insert the words 'Provided any supply company requiring the Council to advance money under this section shall satisfy the Council that any money so advanced will be or has been properly expended for the purposes for which the same was advanced.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. CHURCHILL moved to add a subsection to Clause 24, which he said had been the result of considerable negotiation, conducted through the medium of the Board of Trade, between the London County Council and the promoters of the Bill. Under the Bill the London County Council could, if it chose, exercise the option of purchase by giving three years notice before 1931 of its intention to purchase. The operation of all purchase clauses in the past had been very carefully watched, because it was found that unless provision was made for the support of the private enterprise during its last years of life it was often exploited, neglected or starved, that it was allowed to deteriorate, and that when the public authority acquired it, it was not acquired in the most economical, efficient, and satisfactory condition. Therefore, it was necessary that there should be a time when the new authority should come in and exercise a certain amount of control, taking a certain amount of responsibility, and consequently contributing a certain amount to the support of the enterprise. Under this Bill it was proposed to make it obligatory on the County Council, if it desired to exercise the option of purchase, to provide under very carefully fenced about limitations sums of money which were necessary for the carrying on and for the proper upkeep of the company's undertaking during the last three years. The subsection which he proposed to insert safeguarded the County Council on a point on which they were anxious, namely, the assurance that they would not be obliged to advance sums of money unless they had security for the payment of the sums and the interest. The County Council put this forward, but the promoters had not completely agreed to it as a right and proper safeguard. On the other hand he saw no reason, reviewing the circumstances of the Bill, and the general possibility of its passing through this House, why they should not insert it. He hoped its insertion would not seriously compromise the fortunes of the Bill. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 21, line 19, at the end, to insert the words '(d) The Council shall not be obliged to advance any sum to a company under this section unless they are satisfied that there is adequate security for the repayment to them of the sum to be advanced and for the payment of the interest thereon.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)

Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 21, line 19, at end of clause, to add the words 'It shall be lawful for the Council and any of the London Electric Supply Companies to enter into and carry into effect any agreement or agreements with regard to matters dealt with in this section, and any such agreement may contain any provision for the repayment to the Council of any sum which they may advance to a supply company in pursuance of this section, notwithstanding the provisions contained in this section.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. CHURCHILL

said he was willing to accept this.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he understood that if the London County Council advanced money to companies it was to be a prior charge on the undertakings. Was it intended by this clause that a loan made by the County Council, which the mortgagees and debenture-holders could know nothing about, was to rank in front of the mortgages and debentures? If so, he should certainly oppose the Amendment.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

said this Amendment would only give enabling power to a company to agree to such a proposal. There was a precedent for it. Obviously it was not equitable that the County Council should have to pay twice over, and without this clause they might have to do so. If the debenture-holders did not agree, the provision would not take effect.

LORD R. CECIL

said the effect of the Amendment would be to enable a company to prefer the County Council to other creditors of the company. If that was what was meant, it was a startling proposition. He agreed that the situation was exceedingly difficult under the terms proposed. He did not think that tramway terms were the best for the public in the long run, because they were a direct incitement to a company not to keep up plant in a proper condition at the end of the term, and the result was that there was always a danger that the purchasing party would not get value for what they paid. He shared the apprehension of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in regard to the giving of power to prefer the County Council to other creditors.

MR. BONAR LAW

said the position was not so bad as suggested by the noble Lord. As a rule, a company's articles of association determined whether or not a prior lien charge should be made, and in almost all cases it could only be made by getting the assent of the whole of the debenture-holders or a large portion of them. If by any chance the effect of this would be to give a prior lien charge on these properties without the knowledge and consent of the debenture-holders, it would be obviously a thing which the House ought not to do, and it would be necessary to put the matter right either here or in another place.

MR. CHURCHILL

It will certainly not have that effect. It is only an enabling clause to empower the London County Council to make special arrangements with other companies who are not in acknowledged conflict with the ordinary law.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is not the point. The point is whether there is power on the part of the company and the London County Council, without the consent of the debenture-holders, to rank such a loan of money in front of the debenture-holders and mortgagees of the company. Now, as I understand it, that turns upon the articles of association. Certain companies are so framed that proceedings cannot take place, and on the other hand, other companies' rules are so framed that such tranasctions can take place. What the House wants to know is whether the company in question under this Bill belongs to one class or the other. Everybody agrees that the provisions of the Bill would be a very serious invasion of their rights if the consent of the debenture-holders were not to be obtained, and if this information had not been given to them.

* SIR LUKE WHITE

said that this question had been before the Committee, and if this Amendment were carried without some qualification, so far from saving the rights of the debenture-holders and the mortgagees was concerned, it would have the effect of over-riding the articles of the association. He quite agreed that there might be some doubt on the point, and he hoped that his right hon. friend would consider that point, because he himself thought that these Words were necessary to safeguard the rights of the mortgagees and the debenture-holders.

MR. CHURCHILL

Nothing in this clause enables the company or the London County Council to over-ride the articles of association, or do anything in violation of the existing law, or of the existing equities between the existing company shareholders and the debenture shareholders. Under this Bill as now proposed the London County Council will have power to make advances during the last two years, subject to the security being satisfactory. But there are many cases in which security may not be satisfactory as against the advances made. This clause only permits elasticity in regard to the articles of association where an agreement has been come to between all the parties.

MR. BOWLES

said that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was nothing in the clause which could possibly impair the rights of the debenture holders. He had two observations to make upon that. Was the right hon. Gentleman quite certain that the words in the second half of the clause secured that that was really the case? Here they were giving statutory powers to the London County Council to enter into agreements. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that they were going to give direct statutory powers to the London County Council to over-ride the provisions of the articles of association? If the hon. and learned Solicitor-General would give the House direction on this point of law it would be of great advantage. He understood that they were all agreed. Would not the situation really be met if the right hon. Gentleman would accept some such proviso as this: "Provided that no such agreement shall be entered into to the prejudice of the rights of the debenture-holders without their consent?" That would, he thought, meet what they all wanted, and it would get them out of the difficulty. If the right hon. Gentleman could not agree to that, it would be of great advantage to the House if the Solicitor-General, or somebody else, would give the House the benefit of their advice.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E.

There is no Law Officer here, and my opinion on a point of law is not of much value. But I give it for what it is worth. In my opinion, it is perfectly clear that if this clause is enacted in the form proposed it would not give any power whatever to enter into agreements which would over-ride existing rights or interfere with existing obligations. It is a purely enabling clause, giving a power which is consistent with and not inconsistent with existing rights which are secured by contract or in any other way. I do not believe that there is any necessity whatever, speaking as a lawyer, to insert the safe-guarding words; but the matter will be considered, and if it is necessary we shall put in the words.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved to add to the same clause the words: "Trustees, executors, administrators, and all other holders in any representative or fiduciary capacity of any of the mortgages, debentures or debenture stock of a supply company are hereby expressly authorised to give and shall incur no liability whatsoever for giving or having given their consent or consents to any such agreement or agreements as may be entered into under this section." The effect of that would be entirely to prevent the necessity of further legislation because it would enable trustees to alter the articles of association or to alter their trust deeds. There was a precedent for this clause in Clause 12 of the Metropolitan Districts Railways Act, 1908, where the words were almost identically the same. He begged to move.

MR. H. GOOCH

seconded.

Amendment proposed— After the words last inserted, to insert the words 'Trustees, executors, administrators, and all other holders in any representative or fiduciary capacity of any of the mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock of a supply company, are hereby expressly authorised to give, and shall incur no liability whatsoever for giving or having given, their consent or consents to any such agreement or agreements as may be entered into under this section.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. CHURCHILL

said the Government could not be expected to accept Amendments of so complicated a character without seeing them on the Paper. This was the first he had heard of it. He did not know that it was objectionable; he would consider it, but at this moment he would recommend the House not to accept it.

MR. WALTER GUINNESS

said it had been shown to the promoters, who saw no objection to it.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he was not quite sure that he understood his hon. friend. The Amendment filled him with amazement. He really did not know what was going on. His hon. friend was advocating that the County Council should lend money to different councils, which loans should rank in front of debentures, and the unfortunate trustees who held any of the stock were to be made to consent to it. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman would not accept it, but he certainly hoped he would not consider it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments proposed— In page 21, line 20, after the word 'The,' to insert the words 'London County.' In page 21, line 21, after the word 'purchase,' to insert the words 'or loan.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)

Amendments agreed to.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Prince of Wales' Consent signified.

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.