§ Order for Second Heading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Sir CLEMENT HILLThe corporation of the borough which I have the honour to represent have already petitioned against this Bill upon the general grounds advanced in the case of No. 1 Bill, and also on special grounds which affect the borough of Shrewsbury. The borough of Shrewsbury work under an Act which was passed in 1901, and Section 29 provides that Sugg's No. 1 burner should be used to test the case. The Bill in question proposes to alter this. The corporation of Shrewsbury object to burner No. 2 because they consider it a disadvantage to the consumers of gas in the borough. The Section also affects the sliding scale, and it is represented that if this is altered to the company's advantage by the adoption of the new burner, the sliding scale should also be altered. It is also considered that no efficient method is provided as to the 584 heating value of the gas in the Bill. The Bill proposes to amend Section 27 of the Shrewsbury Gas Act, and provides a standard of purity for the company's gas, and it is argued that this should not be done without the consent and approval of the corporation principally affected. Strong objection is also felt to the general principle of an omnibus Bill for these various gas companies, and they feel it is desirable that each borough should have an opportunity of presenting its own Bill, so that its own particular circumstances and conditions may be brought before the House. On those grounds I oppose the Second Reading.
§ Mr. ADKINSAs certain matters having relation to the contents of these Bills have been raised, I should like briefly to put the other side. So far as the borough of Shrewsbury is concerned, the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury can be dealt with in the ordinary way before the Committee upstairs. There is nothing in the grouping of the Bills in the second group to prevent the particular case of Shrewsbury being put before the Committee—a thing which-is done very often in cases of this kind. May I point out what would be the effect if the Second Reading of this group of Bills was rejected? You would have this extra- 585 ordinary position, that, whereas these Bills were brought into the other House with a large number of opponents, a very large proportion of them have now withdrawn. The question of dividing was considered by the Committee, and it was held by that Committee, after hearing counsel, that there was no adequate reason for dealing with each Bill separately. The course I suggest by no means precludes the possibility or certainty of dealing with any particular argument. Now, when these Bills come here, we who are anxious to have this business done in a way fair to the local authorities and gas companies, put down an Instruction which would enable those representing the borough of Shrewsbury—if they could show the special interest of that borough was distinct and separate, and ought to have special consideration apart from the general one— to put their case. With reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, I do not think it is an accurate forecast to say that this proposal would impose special expenditure either upon the borough of Shrewsbury or upon Wolverhampton, because, if they think they can prove that their case is really special in essence and distinct from the others, they could conduct their opposition as in a special Bill. If they have a particular point such as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, it could be dealt with in the ordinary way upstairs. The object of these Bills is not to injure the poor, as was fervently and inaccurately stated by one hon. Member. The object is merely to get an accurate measure of the quality of the gas, and it is in the interests of the community quite as much as in the interests of any company that you should have precision and accuracy in any tests applied to an illuminant like gas. Under the uniform practice of both Houses of Parliament for years past no fresh company or municipality has been allowed to sell gas without the provision of the standard burner. The object of this Bill is to extend universally what Parliament has extended invariably to all new applications. The House will see what is aimed at is not to benefit gas companies at the expense of the public nor to benefit the public at the expense of legitimate and lawful undertakings, but to clear up the matter and see that there should be as good a test in the interests of the public and the undertakers in all parts of the country as there are now in many parts of the country. That is the object, and those are the provisions of the Bill. Special 586 circumstances which are special in a high degree can be raised under the Instruction which we shall put on the Paper, and they can be dealt with separately by the Committee. In those circumstances I hope the House will adhere to the conclusion at which it arrives on the first group of Bills, because when you pass from the general principle I cannot think there will be any great difference of opinion. There was a Bill before the last Parliament enabling local authorities to unite in opposition to any Bill in order to save expense of special opposition. There are movements going on in the country to enable public bodies and others to group together for the purpose of a common Bill, and, providing you have the provision that special circumstances shall have special treatment, it is surely in the public interest that a point common to many cases shall be decided upon on one inquiry, and that you should not have a multiplication of cases and the same point decided on many inquiries. The Instruction we have put down and the view taken by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Illingworth), representing the Board of Trade, will, I hope, satisfy the House that we are endeavouring to pursue that end, to save cost and time where the issue is common, and to allow special treatment where the circumstances are special. The object of this Bill is to make uniform the very best test of gas, so that companies may not waste money nor the public get an article which is improperly tested. Under these circumstances, I hope that all Members of this House, from whatever point of view they approach this question, will see that a Second Beading ought to be given, and that the other questions bristling with technicalities should be decided, as these questions always nave been decided, by a Committee upstairs.
§ Sir C. HUNTERAs I represent a constituency very strongly opposed to this Bill, and as they have sent me a petition to oppose it, it is certainly my duty to do so. I have to claim the indulgence of the House on this my first occasion of addressing it, but I am sure that indulgence has only to be asked for to be granted. The objections which the city I represent make are very similar to the objections made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir Clement Hill). It appears to me that, if this Bill becomes law, it would be quite possible for the gas company to reduce their illuminating power by twenty-five per cent., which would be much more to the benefit of the company than to the 587 consumer. They also think that, if this Bill passes through Parliament, the cost of the changing the burner should certainly be provided by the gas companies and not by the consumer. The corporation of the city I represent is certainly far and away the largest consumer of gas, paying, as it does, a Bill of something like £4,000 a year. They think, and I think rightly, that if this Bill becomes law the testing machines should be undoubtedly under the control of the municipality, and also that any expense of altering the system should be borne by the gas company. An enormous amount of gas, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. H. S. Poster) rightly said, is now used for heating, and it is quite possible the calorific power of the gas might be reduced if this Bill is passed. I therefore beg to oppose the Bill.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Sir DANIEL GODDARDI think there is really a great deal of misconception as to the whole meaning of this Bill. I have listened to the speeches which have been made, and they are really full of inaccuracies. I should like to refer to a remark by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. H. S. Foster), who seemed to think this was going to be particularly hard on the poor—a more ridiculous theory was never put forth. Supposing the operation of the new test burner is to the advantage of the gas companies, how is that going to be charged upon the consumer? If it can save money it can reduce the price of gas, and surely everybody knows that the course of recent. legislation is to put gas companies on what is known as the sliding scale standard, which means that before they can get the slightest extra profit from any advantages in the course of manufacture they have to give the larger proportion of those profits to the public. Thus, if you reduce the cost of gas by 1d. per 1,000 feet, all that would go to the shareholders by way of extra profit would be ¼ per cent. The whole of the rest would go to the public. Supposing the adoption of this burner does reduce the cost of gas, it really means that by far the greater portion of that saving goes to the consumers of gas. I am speaking with some practical knowledge of this question, and I do not think these facts can possibly be disputed. The hon. Member for Bath (Sir C. Hunter) seemed to think that by the adoption of this Bill the gas company would be able to reduce the illuminating power of the gas by 25 per cent.
§ Sir C. HUNTERI say they might.
§ Sir DANIEL GODDARDIt is quite impossible they can do so. I will frankly admit, as an expert who knows something about the use of test burners, that this is an improvement on the old standard, and will give a better illuminating power to gas; but the only saving I have ever heard given is something like an extra candle or a candle and a half illuminating power. The candle power of the gas in an up-to-date city like Bath undoubtedly is will not be less than fifteen, and a reduction of one and a half could never be interpreted as twenty-five per cent. He also has a sort of impression that the cost of the adoption of this test burner will be charged upon the consumer and the public. This is quite a misconception. If you study Acts of Parliament you will find the apparatus for testing gas has to be provided at the cost of the gas company, and, if there is a change in the burner, it is the gas company that has to bear the cost of that burner for the purpose of testing, and not the local authority. The local authority, in fact, will be put to no extra expense in regard to the matter. Might I say a word on the question of the amalgamation of these companies for procuring this change of test burner. It is a general question, as was so admirably put just now. It is a question which has come forward on account of the advance of science, which has shown a better method of constructing the burner than formerly. It was laid down by the Gas Referees that the gas companies were entitled to be tested by a burner which would be the most suitable for obtaining from the gas the greatest amount of light. That is the principle on which we are going, and that is why we are insisting upon having this No. 2 Argand burner. In this very Session of Parliament the companies have come here with Bills to group themselves together for the purpose of getting the use of a common factor. This is not a new precedent. It has been done before, and there have been Bills introduced into Parliament in previous years for the sole purpose of dealing with the impurities in gas. Surely it will be clear, and my hon. Friends who represent the working classes more particularly will see that it is not in the interests of Members of this House to impose legislation which will be of a most costly description. It should be always our aim to reduce the cost of Private Bill legislation. Suppose, instead 589 of putting these Bills into three groups, every one of the forty-live companies had to come to Parliament for powers. It would be an enormous cost to them individually. Who is going to pay it? A gas company may not care to undertake the expenditure of promoting the Bill. I hope we may get a Second Reading of this Bill. There may be differences of opinion and of circumstances, but by the Instruction which is on the Paper it will be perfectly possible to remove this difficulty. I hope with this instruction in view the Bill will be allowed to go to a Second Reading.
§ Mr. H. S. FOSTERI should not have troubled the House a second time but for the fact that I have been faced with a charge of inaccuracy with reference to my statement that the tendency of this Bill will be to increase the cost of gas to the poor. The opinion of the local authorities which I quoted was that the new burner can be so manipulated in the testing as to introduce a greater or lesser amount of air to the gas, the object being to give less air to the lower-grade gas and more air to the higher-grade gas. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has admitted quite frankly that the effect of testing this burner with the No. 1 Argand has been to give better results. I am told that practically the effect of this burner, as compared with the Argand No. 1, is to show that when the gas is tested it is of better quality, the comparison varying about two candles in fifteen-candle gas, and a considerably more increased ratio in the lower-grade gas. I am told that in the case of Liverpool it would in effect allow a reduction to the extent of six or seven candle-power, and therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Bath was well within the mark in saying the difference may amount to twenty per cent. I am told that the practical effect of adopting this burner would be to enable the gas companies to sell gas of considerably lower value for illuminating, heat, and motor purposes than they are at present allowed to do under their Acts. It is obvious if the companies are to be permitted to supply gas of a lower power than is required by Act of Parliament it will necessitate having a greater number of cubic feet, and therefore the consumer will consume a larger quantity.
§ Sir D. GODDARDHas my hon. Friend read the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Lords on this very Bill, in which it was shown there might be a trifling loss of caloric power?
§ Mr. H. S. FOSTERUnfortunately I have not read the evidence given before the House of Lords Committee. I have stated the source of my information in putting this matter before the House, as supplied by the local authorities. I do not pretend to state this on my own authority to the House, but I am informed from a source upon which I think I can rely that the effect of the use of this burner is to decrease the calorific power in regard to the lower and poorer quality of gas, and the effect of that will be obviously to increase the price of gas to the poor, because they will have to use a larger amount of gas to get the same calorific results.
§ Mr. JAMES PARKERI have just an elementary knowledge of the testing of gas and I do not think that some of the things which have been stated in this Debate on the side of the promoters can be borne out in fact. I oppose this Bill not from any factious opposition, but because I believe that it will be a disadvantage to the very poorest class of the community. If I did not think so I should not go into the Lobby against the Bill. The very poorest class of the community do not buy incandescent burners and they have to be satisfied with the ordinary gas burner, and therefore this measure will be a disadvantage to them. I cannot give a scientific description of the testing of a burner inside the gasworks, but I think I can give some explanation which will be of some little use to Members in making up their minds in regard to this question. If the ordinary burner used is tested inside the gasworks you have a long flame and a glass tube, and the candle-power is judged by the amount of bright flame that you have. It is a well-known fact that in many gasworks, owned both by companies and corporations, the engineer, trying to get the best result he can, endeavours to save as much money as possible in regard to the purification of gas for heating purposes and for the purposes of the poor in regard to heat. I admit it does not make a great amount of difference, but for the purposes of light in the cases where gas is used without incandescent mantles it makes a great deal of difference to the poor if you do not make use of this invention. But there is another difference to my mind which is of equal importance to the poor who burn gas, and who have not the advantage of this invention, and that is that they usually live in the smallest rooms and if the gas is foul and not purified these 591 people are breathing much more poisonous air. I contend, therefore, that there is a case which can be made on the other side.
I admit that it is usual in the case of most Bills that they should be given a Second Beading, but I do not think that this House has been properly informed with regard to this particular Bill. As to the promotion and amalgamation of the Bills, I agree entirely with the promoters, because if anything can be done to decrease the cost of promoting private Bills or to decrease the cost of opposition to them I think it ought to be done. On the other hand, I think there is really a case to be made out—a genuine case on behalf of the poor—and they are going to suffer in this case unless they take advantage of the incandescent burners and of the latest inventions in order to get from bad gas the same illuminating power that they could get without incandescent burners from good gas. That is the position, I think, with regard to these particular Bills. The companies admit that this is going to be an advantage to them, and they say it is all right because the companies cannot have more than a 20 per cent. dividend under the Act of Parliament. Yes, but their capital can go up in value, and we have heard of such things as bonuses in regard to some of the older companies and other advantages which are not represented in dividends. I think these measures a disadvantage to the poor, and if this Bill goes to a Division I shall vote against it.
§ Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYIf I thought that the passage of this Bill would be a disadvantage to the poor I should certainly vote against it, but as I happen to have some experience in connection with gas, perhaps I may be permitted to explain why I do not believe that this measure would be a disadvantage to them. The first point which the House ought to remember is that which was mentioned by the hon. Member opposite, namely, the existence of the sliding scale in practically every relationship existing throughout the country between the producers and sellers and the consumers of gas. The position is not that before there can be greater profits there must be a lowering of the price of gas, but the sliding scale provides that before a greater distribution of profits—before a greater dividend is possible to any company—the price at which it sells the gas must be lowered. What was the object of that sliding scale, 592 and what is the effect of it? It is the indissoluble moulding together of the interest of the producer and the consumer, and the moment the producer by scientific processes or by any other means finds a way of reducing the cost, he is able to sell his gas at, then and then only is he on the high road to making or distributing a greater dividend amongst his shareholders. That is the first point which ought to be remembered in considering this matter. As to the reasons for this particular class of burner that is at the foundation of these Bills, some years ago the illuminant power of gas and its composition was obtained by what is known as the black burner. The gas had to be manufactured of such a composition that its direct ignition would produce direct rays of light in large quantities. Then it was discovered, some twelve or fifteen years ago, that by the use of an intermediate agent called thorium, which is now almost universally used in mantles, light was produced when they are heated to a white heat, and the incandescent state in which they are causes a diffusion of light. So that the House will see that in order to have gas which is best suited for lighting you have to have a diffused light in large quantities through the medium of a thorium mantle. You must therefore have gas which produces not the first effect of a direct illuminant, but the new necessity of heat, and therefore the best illuminant is obtained now by gas which produces the greatest amount of heat, and the old conditions are changed.
§ Mr. PARKERWill the hon. Gentleman state how that gas of the particular heating quality which he speaks of is affected by an ordinary burner?
§ Sir F. FLANNERYYes, I am coming to that. The effect generally of having gas which of necessity is the production of heat rather than the production of light is that the same quality of gas which is best for producing heat through mantles is best also for producing heat for cooking purposes. Therefore a gas company can now produce gas which is capable of the double use, and which is beneficial to the poor, because it is cheaper, having eliminated from it those constituent parts of direct illumination which used to add to its cost, and so gas can now be produced mainly for the one purpose of heating, and so can be produced cheaper. At Wandsworth gas is down to 593 2s. 1d. per 1,000—something like half the price that it was within a very few years— about the time the hon. Gentleman, I think, first came to this House. That is one instance, and there are others. The result, therefore, of this change in the constituent qualities of gas and the method of manufacture has been almost universally among gasworks of considerable size to reduce the cost per 1,000 feet of the gas-itself, and that is one of great benefit, as the enormous extension of cooking by gas-heating stoves proves, to the poor and to the poorest of the poor. Poor people who could not put their names down for quarterly payments in the ordinary way, and who have adopted the penny-in-the-slot system, and get a measured quantity of gas for cooking or for illumination, are benefited beyond comprehension by this system, which has enabled the price of gas to be reduced, and has brought it within the reach of people who a very few years ago could not possibly use it, and had to cook by small quantities of coal and illuminated their evenings by a tallow candle.
I now come to the point in regard to the flat-flame burner. It follows from what I have said that the increased calorific power of the gas reduces the direct illuminating power of the gas. I admit at once that if you were to pay the same price per cubic foot of gas of modern manufacture you would not get the same amount of illuminant, whether you were a rich person or a poor person, for the money as you would under the old system. But you do not pay the same money per 1,000 cubic feet that you used to pay. I have not the figures, but I am prepared to say that if you compare the illuminating power, even the reduced illuminating power of modern gas burned with the flat-flame burner against the cost of it in money, having regard to the reduced cost per thousand cubic feet, you will find that the poor person is no worse off than before this change took place. That being so, I claim that I have demonstrated that this is a matter, first of all, in which the interest of the consumer and of the producer are indissolubly united. I claim that, secondly, I have proved that for cooking purposes the poor and the poorest of the poor are benefited by the change that has taken place in the system of manufacture—a change which will be assisted and facilitated by the passage of this Bill and the general adoption of these burners. And I claim that, as regards illumination, from the point of view of money expended, the poorest of the poor are no worse off than they were 594 before this new system. On these three heads I recommend the passage of the Bill through the House with the utmost confidence.
§ Mr. G. R. THORNEI should not have addressed the House on this Bill had I not been specially referred to, but my hon. Friends have not converted me to their views, though I entirely understand their standpoint. I regret that the way in which these Bills come before the House produces very unsatisfactory results, results which are against the public interest. By opposing this Bill, I am opposing my hon. Friend, who desires, on behalf of the Corporation of Ipswich, to have this Bill. I am very sorry to be placed in that position, but by supporting the Bill he is helping the company to impose on Wolverhampton the particular Bill which the Wolverhampton Corporation does not want. It seems to me, notwithstanding all that has been said, that as a result of this procedure a lower gas will be given to the people. The information given to me from my corporation is exactly of the character of the information that has been given by hon. Gentlemen opposite, as well as by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and the result will be that there will be a poorer gas, and that the poorer classes of the population, who will not be able to use this particular burner, will necessarily suffer, and any reduction in the cost will not be sufficient to compensate them. If that be true, it is a very serious objection to this measure.
If I understood my hon. Friend he said those who were opposing this Bill were opposing scientific progress. I should be very sorry if that were the case. It seems to me that my hon. Friend either goes too far or not far enough. If it is right that this burner should be the standard it ought to be the regular standard all round. It ought to be standardised, not by a Bill produced by private companies in their own interests, but by a general Bill produced in the public interest. When individual corporations, as happen now, are going to be subjected by means of this combined Bill to a standard which is not made general throughout the country it does not seem to me a fair method of procedure. The point I raised hurriedly at the commencement of the discussion has not been answered. It may ease the companies combined together to do it more cheaply; but, so far as my information goes, the opposition is certainly not eased to the individual corporation. If it is carried 595 through I understand that, so far as any individual corporation is concerned, it will have to go before the Committee and try to show that it has special grounds for being exempted from the general Bill; and having done that and gone to all that expense, which will necessarily involve staying there day after day with a number of Bills before the Committee, it will have to go again and show the specific ground on which it opposes the Bill itself. On all these grounds, it seems to me, that this is not a fair way of dealing with a public question. I am looking at it purely, as I understand it, from the point of view of the public interest. When I find a combination of private companies governing by private, methods a public service, my stand is on behalf of the corporation, and in the interest of the public, and if the Motion goes to a Division, I shall be compelled to oppose the Second Reading.
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHI believe it is the common practice in this House in the case of such a Bill as this, unless it traverses some accepted principle, to give it a Second Reading. I believe there is still considerable misapprehension as to what is the object of this Bill and the other Bills. Gas companies must have a standard burner, and I may point out that so far back at 1868 it was laid down that the test burner should be the most suitable for obtaining from the gas the greatest amount of light. There are various burners now in use for officially testing the illuminating power of the gas supplied by the various companies under the powers which have been given to them. The object of this Bill and of the other
§ Bills is the adoption of the Argand No. 2 burner, which was recently mentioned, and which satisfies the requirements of a test burner. I would like to remind the House that it has been approved by the gas referees appointed by the Board of Trade, and it is generally used as recommended so as to get a uniform standard test for all gas wherever that gas may be produced. This test burner has been in use by the London gas companies since 1905, and it is provided, for in all modern Gas Acts and Orders as a matter of course. It has been prescribed in something over a hundred cases already, and any new gas company which was promoted at the present moment would have this particular burner prescribed for it as a matter of course. Therefore, the Board of Trade point of view is that they desire, in the place of the various test burners now in use, to get the one recommended by their own scientific committee in order to obtain an absolute standard of uniformity of gas in all parts of the country, so that one may be compared against another in the interest of economy, and the usefulness of the article produced. I hope the House will agree to the safeguard the Instruction will give to any authority in the conditions which are laid down. Having this safeguard in mind, I hope the House will give the Bill, according to custom, a Second Reading so that many of the technical details and complexities may be considered and decided by the Committee upstairs.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 56.
597| Division No. 80.] | AYES. | [9.40 p.m. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lambert, George |
| Alden, Percy | Cowan, W. H. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Allen, Charles P. | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Leach, Charles |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Elibank, Master of | M'Callum, John M. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Elverston, Harold | M'Laren, Walter S. B. (dies., Crewe) |
| Bar ran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Emmott, Rt Hon. Alfred | Mallet, Charles Edward |
| Barton, William | Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Mason, James F. |
| Beale, William Phipson | Forster, Henry William | Millar, James Duncan |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Greig, Colonel James William | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Gulland, John William | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Sums. Rt. Hon. John | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Higham, John Sharp | Muspratt, Max |
| Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) | Holt, Richard Durning | Norton, Capt. Cecil W. |
| Cameron, Robert | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W G. A. |
| Carlile, Edward Hildred | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Cave, George | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood) | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Clough, William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Kerry, Earl of | Priestley, Sir VV. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Shortt, Edward | Watt, Henry A. |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Soares, Ernest Joseph | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Robinson, S. | Strauss, Arthur | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Talbot, Lord Edmund | Young, William (Perth, East; |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Valentia, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Sanders, Robert A. | Walton, Joseph | D. F. Goddard and Sir F. Flannery. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adam, Major William A. | Grant, James Augustus | Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan |
| Attenborough, Walter Annis | Greenwood, Granville George | Ridley, Samuel Forde |
| Barnes, George N. | Hardie, J. Keir | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Barrie, H. T, (Londonderry, N.) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Bird, Alfred | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Seddon, James A. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Shackleton, David James |
| Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hudson, Walter | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath) | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Croft, Henry Page | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Wadsworth, John |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lehmann, Rudolf C. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Edwards, Enoch | Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Fell, Arthur | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Wing, Thomas |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Mitchell, William Foot | |
| Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.) | Parker, James (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Glanville, Harold James | Pointer, Joseph | C. L. Hill and Col. Sandys. |
| Goldman, C. S | Radford, George Heynes |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Sir DANIEL GODDARDI beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they do, on the request of any of the petitioners, consider the expediency of dividing the Bill in order to remove any difficulty that may in their opinion be proved to exist (by reason of the inclusion of several cases in the Bill) in the submission separately of any of the cases in opposition."
The Liverpool Bill not being in this Bill, I think it only fair that if the companies concerned could show that there are circumstances which would make it desirable for them to separate themselves the Committee should have power to do so.
§ Mr. RYLAND ADKINSseconded the Motion.