HC Deb 30 November 1908 vol 197 cc1212-28

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th November], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed.

MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

said he rose to move the rejection of the measure. It was long and complicated. It proposed among other things to take over several existing railway companies and place them under the control and authority of the North British Railway Company, also to build new lines and take over docks and harbours. In the provisions of the Bill the interests of various people were carefully safeguarded—the interests of the shareholders in the railways affected, the interests of the Postmaster-General, the interests of traders and shippers, of harbour dues and carrying rates, the interests of the ratepayers of Leven, and soon. But there was one class of people whose interests were not safeguarded. Under the Schedules it was specified that the North British Railway Company should appoint and pay all agents, officers, booking and other clerks, servants, porters and other persons and so on who were working the railway. He desired some assurance that the interests of the servants of the company taken over under the Bill should be safeguarded and their rights as citizens protected in a way that the present employees could not be said to enjoy. The company had a standing rule that all its employees must be at its disposal not merely during the working hours, but during the whole twenty-four hours of the day. That had been interpreted to mean that a servant of the company was prohibited from serving on any public body to which he might be elected, although its meetings were held during the hours when he was not on duty. They were not asking that servants of the railway company should be free to accept public positions which called them away from their duties during working hours, but they felt strongly on the point that during the time they were not on duty these men should be as free to accept positions of trust and responsibility to which they might be elected as any other members of the community. What they asked was that an assurance should be given of a definite kind that what had already happened in connection with the town council of Ladybank should not be repeated with the new people contemplated to be taken over under the Bill. Six members of the town council of Ladybank were employees of the company, and each had been compelled under threat of dismissal to resign his position on the council. A deputation of townspeople, including the provost and the parish minister, waited upon the manager of the company to plead the cause of these men, but the manager was obdurate and insisted that he had a right to control the whole of their time. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had read at Question-time a letter from the manager in which this sentence occurred— The company has no intention to enforce any restriction upon its employees to prevent them serving the town council so long as such service is not inconsistent with their duty to the company. It was not, however, alleged that the fact that these six men were acting on the town council in any way interfered with their duty as railway servants. The town clerk was also local agent to the railway company, and some of these men had occasion to criticise some charges he made for services alleged to have been rendered, and two days following their criticism the leader of the six was warned to resign from the council under pain of being dismissed. He had to resign, and the other five followed in quick succession. Since then two employees of the company who acted as chairman and secretary of the ratepayers' association had also been compelled to resign under a similar threat, which was actually carried out in the case of the chairman. This was a condition of servitude which would find little sympathy and no support, he hoped, in any quarter of the House. Unless satisfactory assurances were forthcoming they would do their best to defeat the Bill, or failing that, to have clauses inserted to safeguard the rights of citizenship of the employees of the company. They would fight strenuously if necessary to secure that railway servants should not be deprived of the rights of citizenship so long as the exercise of those rights did not conflict with their duty to the company.

*MR. MORTON (Sutherland), in seconding, thoroughly agreed with the statement that no company ought to have the right of interfering with the rights of citizens. If a man went to a meeting of any kind in his own time, no company had a right to say he should not do it, and that if he did he would be dismissed. He rather thought they would not go so far as that in Russia or any other uncivilised country. If a company got favours from the State and a monopoly with regard to its business it had no right to say that men should not do so-and-so in their own time. He had been informed that this company proposed to take Leven Harbour or Dock and close it, or do what they pleased with it, without any recompense to the real owners, and that the clause referring to that had been put in without the usual notice which enabled parties concerned to defend themselves. That was another reason why they should carefully look into this Bill. Another complaint that had reached him was as the way in which the company, kept their spare engine - drivers and firemen hanging about. The men complained that after hanging about all day they were not fit to do a night's work on a locomotive; that it was a danger not only to themselves, but to the public. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would see that not only the men but the public were protected from dangers which might arise from that cause. His main object, however, in intervening was the question of third-class sleeping carriages. As long ago as 1882 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, stated that whenever a public company came to get favours and monopolies granted to them by Parliament the public had a right to see that their grievances were redressed before further favours were granted. Not only had nothing been done with regard to third-class sleeping accommodation, but the company had actually raised the price of week-end tickets by 20 per cent. The railway company said the first-class sleeping carriages did not pay, but everybody knew there was a loss on all first-class traffic. That loss had to be met out of the profit made on third-class traffic. That was a reason why third class passengers should be treated at least as well as those who travelled first-class. He could not see why the sleeping accommodation given to first-class passengers should be paid for by third-class passengers. He gladly recognised that the Board of Trade had tried to assist him in this matter, and he hoped to have their further assistance. He warned the railway companies that some night it would be possible to punish them by throwing out a Bill. He was told that the North British Railway Company had not been doing very well. He found on inquiry that that was entirely their own fault. It was due to their own bad management. They had wasted a million of money in building a great hotel at Edinburgh, they had wasted other millions on useless undertakings, and then they had the impudence—he used the word advisedly—to come to Parliament and say that the public must pay for the loss they had incurred. His constituents were very much interested in the claim that the railway companies should be required to provide third-class sleeping accommoda- tion. They were about 700 miles distant, and he wished them to have reasonable opportunity of coming to London in comfort. Unless he got a satisfactory reply he would insist on going to a division. The public had a right to demand for third-class traffic similar accommodation to that given to first-class.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)

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

MR. J. M. HENDERSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

said the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire was asking a little to much when he asked for third-class sleeping carriages. If such carriages were provided, the trains would be inconveniently long. If the railway companies could afford to give the accommodation asked, he would not object, but he did not think the suggestion was practicable. He wished to call attention to a more serious matter. An alteration was made in the night mails from Aberdeen, which meant that the delivery of letters from his own and other northern constituencies was delayed in the South until the following day. Their conveyance took forty-eight instead of twenty-four hours. He made representation on the subject to the railway companies, and through the good offices of the Secretary to the Board of Trade they had met the request made to them in this respect. A conference of railway representatives was held, and the result was that the companies had agreed to restore the mail service to what it had formerly been, the alteration to take place in the beginning of May. He. was bound to say that the North British Company met them quite fairly. He could understand the difficulties they were in. Although their station in Edinburgh was large, it was not all that could be desired, and it was not an easy matter arranging the traffic. He desired to thank his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade for the ready assistance he had given in the matter.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,) Devonport

said the House would remember that the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill was adjourned in order that the conference to which his hon. friend had referred, might be held. He was glad to be able to confirm the statement made by his hon. friend. The railway companies had agreed not precisely to the arrangement existing before but to restore the mail connection so that those districts north of Aberdeen which were cut out would now be able to enjoy the mail service in the same way as they had done for many years past. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire had brought forward a topic which he had been pressing on the attention of the House for the past three years, He hoped the hon. Member recognised that the action of the Board of Trade in the matter had been sympathetic. In 1906 when the question of third-class sleeping accommodation was raised, he undertook to approach the managers of the various railway companies which ran trains long distances with the view of seeing whether they could be induced to give their favourable consideration to the suggestion. The Board of Trade had been unable to induce them to make the concession. The companies pointed out that the provision of third-class sleeping carriages would involve a financial loss. Not being satisfied his hon. friend again brought up the question in 1907, and he himself then supported the idea that third-class sleeping accommodation should be provided. He pointed out that the third-class passenger was really the backbone of railway traffic, and that he enabled the railway companies to pay dividends. The figures showed that third-class passengers were enormously greater than the second and third-class. He was not able to do more, but if the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to move a Motion or introduce a Bill, so as to let the House of Commons have a formed debate on the matter, and if the decision of the House of Commons was in favour of his hon. friend's action, then he was certain the railway company would reconsider the matter.

MR. MORTON

Will the Government give me time to bring in and carry a Bill?

SIR H. KEARLEY

said that the hon. Gentleman knew how to take advantage of every opportunity which offered of bringing this matter before the House of Commons, as had been shown by his heroic record in connection with the tramways. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil—viz., the treatment by the railway companies of their servants who took part in municipal affairs—when this Bill was under discussion a fortnight ago he promised that he would take advantage of the directors of the North British Railway Company being present, to act as a friend at Court as between the Company and the men with regard to this grievance. He had placed the case which had been stated to him by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil by letter, before the general manager and directors of the Railway Company, and at their request he sent a copy of that letter to the general manager. He had had an interview that day with the general manager, and asked him for an assurane that in future no such interpretation would be placed on the standing rule of the company as to prevent employees, when their services were not required by the company, exercising their rights of citizenship; and he was now able to give, on behalf of the company, an assurance on these terms— The directors of the North British Railway Company authorise me to say that the employees of the company shall be left free to discharge public duties, and to exercise freely their rights of citizenship during those hours when they are not on duty for the railway company. He hoped that the hon. Member after that assurance would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

asked leave to withdraw his Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

said he wished to move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons with respect to Clause 26, which dealt with the closing of Leven Harbour. The Commission in settling this clause dealt with new matter of a very important character, but no previous notice of it had been given to the owner of the Solum at Leven Harbour, They did not want to override their system of Private Bill legislation by any general rehearing or revision, but it was an entirely different matter to order the hearing of a point which had not been heard. Mr. Christie had not seen the plans of the works to be placed on the land, and he was inclined to agree with him that this House ought to grant a rehearing. He was fortified in that contention by what the Lord-Advocate said in the Arizona case, in which the right hon. Gentleman said he did not find any suggestion that the matter was not argued in full previously, or that any new fact was brought before this House. In effect he said there must be some new facts brought forward to those which were before the Commissioners, or some gross blunder proved to have been made by the Commissioners, before such a rehearing would be allowed. He contended that here there were new facts, that these facts were of very great importance, and that such protection as the clause granted to Mr. Christie in his absence, and his compensation, and his mineral rights, should be properly safeguarded. He was entitled to have a rehearing with the plans and sections of the jetty and all these works presented for consideration. He did not think Mr. Christie had made any unreasonable request. He would not discuss the various points at length, but would content himself with making this general statement. He begged to move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.

MR. DUNDAS WHITE (Dumbartonshire)

seconded. He said he did not think it was necessary for him to add much, but it seemed to him that special care ought to be given to the proposal to close one of these East of Scotland ports, and to enable one of the railway companies to set aside the obligations imposed under an Act of Parliament. This port was constituted in 1876, the Leven Harbour Company being the undertakers. Then it was passed on to somebody else, and from that somebody else it passed in 1889 into the hands of the North British Railway Company. From that time the railway company had neglected the obligations by which their rights were accompanied, viz., to keep the harbour open and in a fit condition to be used by vessels. They neglected to do that, and the harbour gradually silted up. Then the proprietor of the soil, from whom they bought, insisted upon their fulfilling their statutory obligations, and went to the Court of Session. That Court pronounced against the railway company, and issued an order to the effect that the place should be kept properly, and that the proprietor should be entitled to keep it in order himself and charge the railway company. The company did not appeal from that decision, but came before the House of Commons with a Bill, and by a clause got rid of their obligations, altogether overriding the decision of the Court of Session. The proprietor had had no opportunity of stating his case, and under these circumstances he supported what the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs had said. He believed there was one precedent in a similar case, but he need not go into it; he thought this was a case in which the House might very well refer this particular clause to a Joint Committee in order that it should receive particularly careful attention. He begged to second.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(Mr. Younger).

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

said he appeared for the first time in opposition to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs and he was glad that it was on a matter of personal and individual rather than of national importance. The hon. Member had referred to previous occasions in which attempts had been made in this House to refer Bills to a Joint Committee, and he candidly stated that there was only one in the history of Provisional Orders in Scotland on which such a reference was made. He thought that was a case where the Edinburgh Tramways Company had applied before the Commissioners for ''loas," but it was refused and when they came before this House it was granted. In all the other cases no similar permission had been granted. His hon. fiend had quoted the Lord-Advocate, and he thought that right hon. Gentleman had adopted a very sound argument when he said that no rehearing should take place except under special circumstances. Lord Balfour, who was then Secretary for Scotland, used similar terms, as also did Sir Robert Reid, now Lord Chancellor, and other authorities, who said that no Bills should be sent to a Joint Committee unless there was substantially a special case, and new matter had arisen. This Provisional Order now under discussion came in the ordinary course before the Commissioners who consisted of Lord Falkland and Lord Strathmore and two Members of this House who were very much respected. They heard all the evidence for four days, and went into all those points, and he ventured to say that no special circumstances had arisen which demanded a re-hearing, no new facts had been brought forward and no new point bad been raised which was not considered by the Commissioners. Last of all, these four Commissioners were unanimous in, arriving at their decision. His hon. friend said that no notice was given to Mr. Christie, but when objections were raised before the Examiner of Bills, an impartial authority, he declared that the Standing Orders had been complied with. Then as to whether the notice was given or not, the North British Railway applied for various powers to deal with this harbour as they wished, to sell it or to do what they liked with it. The Commissioners cut down those powers and said they must make roads, give some land to the borough, and do various other things. The greater included the less and, if the railway company applied for the fullest powers their notice might be held to cover the more limited powers which were confersed upon them by the Commissioners. The question whether Mr. Christie still had some claim was a legal point which the House was hardly competent to deal with. The Commissioners had decided that his case should be kept open and if he could establish his claim the railway company undertook to pay him compensation under the Lands Clauses Act, giving him the full value of his right plus 10 per cent. The Bill did not abolish the harbour. It only closed the dock and for reasons which appealed to everyone in the neighbourhood. Owing to the situation of the dock, within twenty yards of the main sewer, it had been condemned by the public health officer who had been health officer for Seventeen years, and who said the dock was a perfect cesspool and was injurious to the health of the locality. The town council said the basin of the dockyard was a filthy nuisance.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

That is not the fault of the dock which was there fifty years before the sewer.

MR. COCHRANE

did not think that made any difference. The dock was he longer required for its previous purpose. The enormous docks of Methil had grown up on which the company had spent millions of money. The Commissioners and the public health authority and the borough authorities were satisfied that Leven Dock ought to be closed and the Leven branch of. the Miners' Union had also declared that they desired to see it closed. Only one individual held out and he had been offered full and fair compensation if he could prove any claim to it. No case had been made out for sending the Bill to a joint Committee.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,) Forfarshire

said it was a very small point that had been brought before the House. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire had described with great clearness the situation, and he had very little to add to his statement of the facts of the case. Mr. Christie was the only objector to the Bill, and it was in his interest that the Motion was brought forward. There was no ground of objection on the part of Mr. Christie on the ground of notice. The Examiner of Bills had decided that point and it was perfectly clear. The Commission had heard Mr. Christie's case, which was one of objection to a clause less favourable to his interests than the clause as it at present stood. His case was not that the clause was less favourable but that new facts had been brought forward which were not covered by the notice and which had not been before the Commission. As a matter of fact, neither of these objections held good.

MR. MOONEY (Newry)

Was Mr. Christie allowed to be heard on the hew clause which was brought forward on the inquiry stage of the Bill?

MR. SINCLAIR

He elected to stand out.

MR. MOONEY

Did he apply through his counsel, Mr. Scott-Dickson, to be heard on the matter, and did the Committee sitting in Scotland refuse to hear him, or did he allege that there was no power to deal with the clause as it was not contained in the notice?

MR. SINCLAIR

said he had his opportunity of being heard and refused to take it.

MR. YOUNGER

My information is that Mr. Scott-Dickson refused to go on, because he was not seized of the facts. He had no notice of any kind. The agreement was made behind Mr. Christie's back, and he was not in a position to go on.

MR. SINCLAIR

said he understood it was not made behind his back. The company would have been very glad to treat with Mr. Christie as they had treated with other parties, but Mr. Christie chose to refrain from taking the opportunity which he certainly had of coming to an agreement in the matter. As to Mr. Christie's legal rights, the Commission had come to no decision. Unless there was very grave reason, and there was no such grave reason in this case, the Motion should be rejected.

MR. MOONEY

said it was only to preserve the reputation which had always belonged to Private Bill Committees that he intervened. As he understood it, the reason why the decisions of Private Bill Committees were so unanimously upheld was that any person, no matter how remote his interest, if he could prove that he had an interest which would be affected by any Bill, got the fullest and fairest consideration before any Committee. He understood that Mr. Christie alleged that he was injuriously affected by the Bill as originally proposed. The Committee sat and inquired into the clauses of the Bill, and at the last moment new clauses were brought-forward, and Mr. Scott-Dickson, on behalf of Mr. Christie, protested that the Committee were going outside the deposited plans. He should be very sorry to interfere with the decision of a Committee sitting in Scotland to decide a purely Scottish question; but, if they had departed from the ordinary course, laid down by that House, he thought they ought to exercise their revising power, which he admitted only ought to be exercised on rare occasions, and allow the complainant to go before a Joint Committee. He did not think, from their knowledge of Mr. Scott-Dickson, that he would have made the statement attributed to him that the clause inserted in the Bill went outside the deposited plans if he had not thought that was so; but, if the right hon. Gentleman could assure him that Mr. Scott-Dickson was under a misapprehension, he would not support any Motion to send the Bill to a Joint Committee. If, however, there had been a departure from the ordinary procedure, he did not think it would add to the high reputation possessed by Private Bill Committees to allow any individual to go away with the idea that he had been unfairly treated. It would be better to stretch a point and allow that person to appear before a Joint Committee rather than he should think he was suffering under a grievance. Under those circumstances, if Mr. Scott-Dickson was correct, he should vote in favour of the Motion; but if the right hon. Gentleman could assure him that the statement was made under a misapprehension, he should not support the Motion, because he was in favour of delegating these matters to the local people who knew all the circumstances.

MR. MORTON

said that one of the safeguards against lobbying which the two Houses had established was the very strict regulations as to notice. He understood the railway company were under a statutory obligation to maintain the harbour and dock and were also by the decree of the Quarter Sessions required to restore it to a state of efficiency for public use. In face of that it certainly seemed extraordinary that without the consent of those interested they were going to take the harbour or dock away—to sell or do anything they liked with it—and give no recompense to the owner. He agreed that if anybody felt a grievance—and especially when the ordinary procedure as to notice had been broken—they ought to be as lenient as possible and give redress by allowing them in cases of importance to go before a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, and have their case heard. He was very anxious that the strict rules made by both Houses as to the giving of notice and the handing in of plans and other information should be adhered to for the protection of everybody and the prevention of lobbying which would surely occur if they allowed those rules to be broken with impunity.

MR. SINCLAIR

said he did not think it was a question of relying on the good faith or character of Mr. Scott-Dickson, or any other counsel engaged in the case. The question really was whether Mr. Scott-Dickson had fair notice of the objections he had to meet. There was no doubt that two authorities in their separate spheres had decided that he had fair notice. In the first place, the Commissioners were decidedly of the view that he had. He was fully heard by them and they came to a unanimous decision. There was the further point whether the notice given by the company in these proceedings covered the form which the clause ultimately took. That was a matter which was referred to the Examiner of Bills, who decided that the notice given to Mr. Christie covered what had been done by the Committee. There was really no doubt on these two points.

MR. MOONEY

asked if a protest was made by Mr. Scott-Dickson against the competency of the Committee to insert this clause? Was there any ruling given on that point?

MR. SINCLAIR

Certainly. I have just said so.

MR. MORTON

Was the plan referred to deposited with the Secretary for Scotland in time?

MR. SINCLAIR

Yes.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

said supposing a man who was interested in some property had not had notice of a Private Bill, if his counsel appeared it was quite clear that it had been waived. Counsel might or might not proceed upon some further point, but if he appeared at all any prior question of notice was waived. The hon. Gentleman opposite had made a mistake in stating that there was no provision here for compensation for Mr. Christie. Subsection (9) of this very clause, said— In the event of Robert Maitland Christie or his successors making any claim in respect of, or interest in, the site in two years, the. company is to give him full compensation.

MR. MORTON

It is said they are going to close the harbour and dock and this man does not want it closed.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said they were not going to take the harbour away but simply to close up the dock. There could only be three people interested in the property. First of all, there was the owner of the dock—the railway company. Then there was the individual who came forward and said: "My predecessors sold this dock site to the railway company for the purpose of a dock, and if it is not going to be used for a dock any longer I claim to have a right in the soil." That was a very curious contention, and he could quite understand that when the Parliamentary notices were originally given no one thought that some individual, owing to some understanding which, he claimed, existed at some remote period was entitled in reversion to have the property back. The question of notice was disposed of and the question of irregularity was disposed of by the careful Way in which the officials saw that every interested party had had the proper notice. Who else could be interested in the property? The ordinary persons who lived there and owned property in the neighbourhood were represented by the local authorities who were parties to the Bill. In these cases arrangements were sometimes made by way of concession. Roads were made and pieces of land were given up, but these concessions were not shown on the original plans. It was absurd to say there was anything irregular because all the parties interested had met together and made a sensible arrangement which was included in the Bill. Mr. Christie was to have compensation if he proved his claim and anything fairer or more reasonable it would be difficult to understand. After all the criticism that had been passed on the railway company about points which were not in the Bill it was almost time they allowed these important works, which the railway company was going to carry out, to be authorised.

MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)

entered a word of expostulation against the time of the House being occupied upon the pleading of a private right on such slender grounds. A most extraordinary claim was put forward by the man who sold the dock, and was paid in cash and shares. The dock was thoroughly useless and antiquated, had only a very small draught of water, was not more than an acre in extent, and during the last six years hardly a vessel had come into it except for one firm. It was an attempt by a landowner, through his personal friends, to extort a larger price from the railway company.

MR. YOUNGER

I have never seen Mr. Christie in my life.

MR. ALEXANDER CROSS

said he was glad that fact had come out. He had never heard a more flimsy case in his life. He had thought this was a case of an attempt to obtain compensation for which there was no title, and that opportunities were being used which ought not to be used to prevent the passage of Bills in order to promote private interests.

MR. MOONEY

May I ask whether the hon. Member is in order in attributing motives to Members of the House? I have no connection with and have never seen Mr. Christie.

MR. SPEAKER

The intervention of the hon. Member showed that the observations of the speaker were made without knowledge. I understood him to withdraw them.

MR. ALEXANDER CROSS

Certainly. I am rather pleased that any observations I made were the means by which this fact was brought out.

MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

May I ask whether the hon. Member is entitled to make insinuations as to the motives which move hon. Members in bringing a matter before the House.

MR. SPEAKER

Certainly not. I thought I had made that clear. The hon. Member for Glasgow is not entitled to make observations of that kind. When they were contradicted, I understood him to say he regretted he had made them, and that they were not in accordance with the facts.

MR. ALEXANDER CROSS

I certainly withdraw immediately any remark which could be at all offensive. I said I was glad the opportunity had arisen in order that the facts might be made known.

MR. DUNDAS WHITE

The suggestion the hon. Member made was that those who opposed this were actuated by personal acquaintance and personal motives. I beg absolutely to disclaim both, and I ask him to withdraw his observation.

MR. ALEXANDER CROSS

said he had withdrawn the remark. What he ventured to submit was that the time of the House had been occupied at a late hour in the casting of a slur upon the operations of a Committee in Scotland which, in its discussions up to now, had been singularly successful. He thought that they ought to do what they could to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.

Question put, and negatived.

Bill to be considered to-morrow.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.