§ Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
§ Clause 90, as amended by the Lords:—
§ [Mem.—The words in square brackets were omitted, and the words in italics inserted by the Lords.]
§ (1) The Corporation may subject to the provisions of this section [sell] let for hire and fix, repair and remove, but shall not manufacture lamps, meters, electric lines, I fuses, switches, lamp holders [motors] and other electrical fittings for lighting motive or other purposes, and may provide all materials and work necessary or proper in that behalf and with respect thereto may make such charges and subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.
§ [(2) The Corporation may enter into contracts for the execution of any of the powers of this section including the wiring of private property.]
§ (2) The Corporation shall not under the powers of this section themselves execute the wiring of private property except between the main of the Corporation and the consumer's meter, but they may enter into contracts for the execution of any of the powers of this section including the wiring of private property provided that the Contractor acts independently of the Corporation in the execution of the contract. The Corporation shall not under such powers sell any such electrical fittings except through a contractor carrying on his business independently of the Corporation.
§ (3) Any electrical fittings let for hire under the provisions of this section shall not be subject to distress or to the landlord's remedy for rent or liable to be taken in execution under process of law or proceedings in bankruptcy against the person 1452 in whose possession the same may be, Provided that such fittings are marked or impressed with a sufficient mark or brand indicating the Corporation as the actual owners thereof.
§ [(4) Provided as follows:—
- (A) The Corporation shall so adjust the charges to be made by them for any such fittings or for the fixing, repairing or removal thereof as to meet any expenditure by them under the powers of this section in connection therewith (including interest upon moneys borrowed for those purposes, and all sums applied to sinking fund for repayment of moneys so borrowed):
- (B) Every sum charged by the Corporation to a consumer in respect of the provision of such fittings or the fixing, repairing or removal thereof shall be separately stated on every demand note delivered by the Corporation to the consumer:
- (c) The total sums expended and received by the Corporation in connection with the purposes in this section mentioned in each year (including interest and sinking fund) shall be separately shown in the published accounts of the electricity undertaking of the Corporation for that year:
§ (5) Any expenses incurred by the Corporation in carrying into effect the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be expenses incurred by the Corporation under the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, and not otherwise provided for and the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of that Act shall extend and apply accordingly to such expenses.
§ (6) Any moneys received by the Corporation under this section shall be applied in manner provided by Article 61 (paragraphs A and B) of the Sheffield Electric Lighting Order 1892.]
§ (7) Section 18 of the Act of 1903 is hereby repealed.
§ (4) Provided as follows:—
- (a) The Corporation shall so adjust the charges to be made by them for any such fittings of for the fixing repairing
1453 or removal thereof as to meet the sum properly chargeable for the costs and expenses incurred by them under the powers of this section in connection therewith (including interest upon moneys borrowed for those purposes and all sums applied to sinking fund fur repayment of moneys so borrowed):
- (b) The sums property chargeable and received by the Corporation in connection with the purposes in this section mentioned in each year (including interest and sinking fund) shall be separately shown in the published accounts of the electricity undertaking of the Corporation for that year:
- (c) Every sum charged by the Corporation to a consumer in respect of the provision of such fittings or the fixing repairing or removal thereof shall be separately stated on every demand note delivered by the Corporation to the consumer.
§ (5) Any expenses incurred by the Corporation in carrying into effect the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be expenses incurred by the Corporation under the Electric Lighting Act 1882 and not otherwise provided for and the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of that Act shall extend and apply accordingly to such expenses.
§ (6) Any moneys received by the Corporation under this section shall be applied in manner provided by paragraph A of Article 61 of the Sheffield Electric Lighting Order 1892 except capital moneys which shall be applied in. manner provided by paragraph B of the said Article.
§ Certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 33 (Clause 90) (Sub-section (1) leave out the word "sell" ["sell, let for hire"], read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Pointer.]
§ 11.0 P.M.
Those who have taken the trouble to make themselves acquainted with this Bill will see that the object of my Motion to disagree with the Lords in the certain Amendments is to reinsert certain words taken out of the Bill by the Lords and to delete cither wards inserted by the Lords in Committee. I wish to trace briefly the course that has led to the presentation of this Bill and the 1454 reasons for the course we are taking tonight. There was a private company, known as the Sheffield Electric Power Company, which had the general powers of supplying electrical energy and powers to carry on the wiring and fitting business. In 1898 the corporation came to an agreement with the company to buy them out, so to speak, lock, stock, and barrel, and that included the business of wiring and fitting. The corporation paid a lump sum of £299,323. I want to lay special emphasis upon this, that the corporation paid very dearly for the privilege, amounting to £213 for every £100 stock. It is important that that fact should be noted, because of what has followed. From that day to this the corporation has carried on the business formerly carried on by the company in all its departments; as a matter of fact, all that was left of the company after the agreement of March, 1898, was a minute book. Everything came into the possession of the corporation, all the plant and buildings were taken over as a going concern by the corporation in that year, and from that day to this they have exercised those powers. Ultimately, certain private traders began to think that the corporation had become a competitor with them and they resorted to litigation, and they brought an action in the early part of 1907. It was not taken up again until last year, and the exact reason why they renewed their litigation was that in 1910 an action was decided against the Leicester Corporation, preventing them from exercising these powers, and on the strength of the decision then come to, the private traders of Sheffield again resorted to litigation. The point we ought to notice, without any disparagement to Leicester, is that Sheffield is altogether in a different position. Later in the year 1898, on 28th July, an Act was passed through this House without opposition, and it went to another place and there passed without the slightest opposition, known as the Sheffield Electric Lighting Transfer Act, which ratified the bargain made between the company and the corporation and granted borrowing powers to the corporation that they might borrow in order to increase their business. I think it ought to be said that the Sheffield Corporation have been actuated by a good desire, and they desired to avoid litigation. They said, "We do not believe in spending the corporation's money in the Law Courts, and therefore we will go to the House of Commons and endeavour to get our title rectified. 1455 We believed that when the agreement of March, 1898, was made that we had bought all the powers of that company, including the power to carry on the wiring and fitting business, and if we did not we want that power making good now. We paid very heavily for it, and we have not abused our powers." So far as I have been able to gather there has been no complaint that the corporation have indulged in unfair competition or resorted to any illegal acts. All they have done is to pursue what they thought was their power of carrying on a business which they thought they had bought. Furthermore, there has never been any loss upon the transaction. The electric light business has been a paying concern and as a matter of fact the most important point for our consideration is this: Whilst the electric light business as a whole has not paid from the very commencement, because of the heavy purchase price that portion of it which refers to wiring and fittings has been a paying concern and has returned a profit. When it came before the Committee very great consideration was paid to this request of the Sheffield Corporation, and the Chairman, who I understand still believes the corporation made good their case, said:—The Committee did not ignore but recognised the principle of municipal trading not being encouraged——I want to be clear about this. I am an ardent advocate of municipalisation, but I am not fighting this on that ground at all. I am merely taking up the ground I have been asked to take up by the corporation and not pressing it from the municipal standpoint:—They did not ignore but recognised the principle of municipal trading not being encouraged beyond what was necessary and expedient in the special circumstances of this case for the inhabitants. Also that it was a case in which in the circumstances which have transpired in the course of the last fourteen years, including the fact that Parliament in 1903 granted analogous power as regards motor powers to sell fittings and so on, the Committee passed the Clause as it stood in the Bill.It does appear to me that the Commons Committee which spent several days upon this Clause and discussed it and heard evidence upon it at very great length, having come to a unanimous decision favouring the Corporation's Clause is a reason why this House should be called upon to refuse to accept the Amendment made by the House of Lords to take away from the Corporation the power to sell in regard to this matter. There has been 1456 opposition raised to the course the Corporation are taking in bringing it to this House again on the ground that the Sheffield inhabitants are not united upon it. Technically, of course, that is true, but the only persons who oppose are those who were in power in 1898, and entered into this arrangement. Since then whatever party has been in power in Sheffield they have always carried the position for which I am fighting. There may be a very serious loss, estimated by the Corporation at £2,000 a year, if these powers are not ratified, and if the Corporation are not able to exercise the powers which they thought—and everybody else at the time thought—they bought, and a serious injustice may be done.
§ Mr. LEACH
I desire to second the Resolution, and I hope that the House will accept the motion of my hon. Friend. My chief reason for seconding the Motion is that I happened to be a Member of the Committee before which this Clause came. We gave serious consideration to it, and after a patient hearing of those who objected we unanimously agreed to recommend the Clause. There is no change in our views now. There are many reasons besides those given by my hon. Friend why Sheffield should be allowed to continue this business built up with so much care and expense. We have been told what a large sum was given for this business at the beginning and how they have built up a great business in the fourteen years since they purchased the right to do the work they have been doing. Sheffield is not asking for any new Clause or powers; they simply ask for sanction to continue what they have been doing for fourteen years. During that time they have had no monopoly, nor do they now seek one for this kind of trade. They want to be one amongst many firms carrying on this kind of business. If the action taken by the other House is confirmed, Sheffield ratepayers will be subject, not only that the loss of the £2,000 profit, but they will also have to find the £800 per annum which has to be paid as sinking fund and interest on the money borrowed for the business. During the whole time the ratepayers have not had one penny to find for the business. I sincerely hope the House will agree to the Motion of my hon. Friend.
§ Sir H. KIMBER
As Chairman of the Committee which passed this Bill I wish to 1457 state respectfully the grounds upon which we arrived at the conclusion to agree to it, which we did unanimously. I had the support on that Committee of three gentlemen on the other side of the House, and they all concurred in the decision arrived at. The facts are few, but it took three days to hear witnesses and counsel on this particular point. The Bill was an Omnibus Bill dealing with a number of subjects, and we thought it would be a disaster to Sheffield if the Bill coud not be passed with or without this particular Clause. In 1898 the Corporation of Sheffield got the sanction of Parliament to acquire a business which had been carried on by an electric lighting company, which company had a provisional order under the Lighting Act to do lighting business. That company also had powers under its Memorandum of Association to do other things, including wiring and fitting on the premises of customers whom they supplied with electric light. The agreement with which they acquired the business was scheduled in the Bill of 1898.
The purchase was at the price of £300,000, minus a few shillings. In that price was included a sum of £13,300 for that part of the business called "wiring and fitting." The Local Government Board had the case before them, and, on the footing of that purchase, they gave the Corporation power to borrow the necessary funds for that purpose. The Corporation, having obtained that Act, proceeded on the assumption that they had got, if not an expressed, certainly the implied, sanction of a Government Department and of Parliament to carry on this business, and they did carry it on. They carried it on without challenge for some years. They were challenged in 1906, eight years afterwards, but in the meantime they had also come to Parliament for power to supply motor power and to supply in respect of motor power those very things which are now under discussion—wiring and fittings—power that was given in the widest terms that could be put into an Act of Parliament—I can give them to the House if it so desires—to supply everything that was necessary to fit any plant for the supply of motor power. In 1906 they were challenged by a local business man engaged in the electrical fittings trade, who challenged their powers under the Act of 1898, asserting that that Act did not give them more power to carry on this business. It is true that in the Act of 1898 there was no 1458 Clause giving them in so many words the power to do wiring and fitting, nevertheless this was the only challenge they received. For three and a half years that challenge was not proceeded with. The writ was issued, and the matter went so far as issuing notice of trial, but it was never set down for trial until the Leicester case arose. That was the case of a corporation having obtained a Lighting Order under which they sought to exercise the same powers. That was challenged, and an adverse judgment was given by Mr. Justice Channell. Encouraged by that case the litigant, who in 1906 brought his action, set down the case for trial, and it was tried in the present year by Mr. Justice Eve, who followed the Leicester case and considered that the corporation had not the technical power to carry on the business, but, having regard to the fact that it had been actually carried on by the Corporation, and that, when they had the sanction of Parliament to purchase this business, he refused to grant an injunction, and, being told that the Bill was before this House, he left it to this House to decide whether these powers should be granted or not. So the matter comes before this House. The materials on which we come to a decision were rightly stated by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pointer). We considered that the corporation, under the sanction of a Government Department, and under a Bill approved and passed by both Houses of Parliament, had carried on the business for fourteen years, first expending £13,000 in acquiring the business and plant, and we thought an exceptional case had been made out, and that if we refused this Clause it would have the effect of throwing away £13,000, and whatever else had been spent—I believe the corporation had spent some £21,000, including the £13,000 upon this department—and that we should throw a loss on the ratepayers by refusing to allow them to carry on the business which in the past, and all the time, had been carried on quite honestly and openly.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
The real facts of this case are as follow. For the last six or seven years there have been attempts by municipal corporations to obtain powers in addition to electric lighting powers, to wire houses and manufacture lamps. These attempts to obtain these powers have been resisted by the tradesmen in the different towns which applied to obtain these powers, and in the majority of cases these attempts have been resisted 1459 successfully. A model Clause was drawn up about four or five years ago preventing corporations from wiring houses or manufacturing lamps, and it said if they desired to wire a house they must employ a local tradesman and if they desired to manufacture lamps they must buy them of the manufacturers. [Laughter.] That is not a laughable matter to the small tradesman who looks for his living to the sale of articles which he manufactures or to the wiring of the houses, and objects to being charged rates which are used to cut his own throat and prevent him employing his time and his labour in his own business. Attempts have been made by various corporations to override the model Clauses of this House and the House of Lords. In three or four cases these attempts have been successful, partly because the corporations having been defeated over and over again in Committees of this House and of the Lords and in the Law Courts, have persistently used the money of the ratepayers in this way. No doubt the tradesman is at a disadvantage. He has not the means to employ counsel or Parliamentary agents and consequently on effect have slipped through unknown. With regard to this special Clause the Corporation, in the document which I have in my hand and which is issued by themselves, admit that in 1898 when they bought this private company they did not include in that Act powers to supply electric fittings or to wire houses. That is admitted in the Paper which they themselves issued. In that they say that they paid £13,000— I am leaving out the odd hundreds—for this particular privilege which the private company enjoyed. They say also that the income arising from the wiring of houses and from the manufacture of electric films and lamps during the last year of that private company was £20,000. I put it to any business man if in buying an income of £20,000 for £13,000 the Corporation did not know that the purchase was illegal. The purchase was held to be illegal by Mr. Justice Eve.
§ Sir H. KIMBER
The income at the time of the purchase was not £20,000 a year. That is a subsequent matter altogether. The income at the time of the purchase was a very small sum indeed. I think the income then was £1,000. It has grown since because the consumers of electric light in Sheffield have greatly 1460 desired it. It has proved a great success, and they have made £20,000 in the whole of the fourteen years. I do not think the figure refers to any one year.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am afraid the experts and the lawyers employed by the Sheffield Corporation have rather bamboozled my hon. Friend. The Paper issued on behalf of the Corporation in support of a Motion disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments says that the income from the wiring and fitting business in the last year of the company's existence was £20,483. [An HON. MEMBER: "You said profit."] I said income. They claim for the undertaking £299,323 of which £13,550 was for the wiring and fitting business. This money was borrowed with the sanction of the Local Government Board. I venture to say that if you buy an income of £20,483—it does not matter what the profit was—for £13,000, it is pretty good evidence that you are under the impression that the purchase was not a very sound one.
§ Sir H. KIMBER
I am sure the hon. Baronet does not mean to mislead the House. He omits the important fact that, though £13,000 was the capital at which they purchased, it was greatly increased. I think it was increased to £28,000, and the profit last year was not upon £13,000, but upon the increased capital.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I have nothing to do with fourteen years. I am quoting the statement of the Corporation itself as to the amount paid. The Law Courts have declared the purchase of the Corporation to be illegal and the Corporation come to us and ask us to say that it is legal. If we did that the result would be that every corporation would spend the ratepayers' money buying businesses which they have no business to buy, and when the Law Courts held they had acted illegally they would come to the House of Commons to put them right, and they would say "do this because if not the ratepayers will lose money." This attempt by corporations to make legal what is illegal should not be allowed by this House. If the House disagrees with the Lords Amendments the living of small tradesmen will be taken away, so that officials in corporations may have a little more money to spend and a little more patronage to distribute. The Corporation are supplying electric light. Is not that sufficient for them? This is 1461 not an isolated case of an attempt by a corporation to obtain these powers. If the House gives way now every other corporation will come forward and say—"why should we be in a different position from Sheffield?" The result will be that the difficulty of small tradesmen to earn their living will be intensified. It may be held that when a Committee of this House has come to a decision it is not advisable for the House itself to over-rule that decision. As a rule that is a very good rule to follow, but it is to be followed when the Committee has had evidence before it which the House has not had on which it can express an opinion. But this is not a question of evidence but of principle, and I think that the vast majority of Members when they think carefully over the matter will not desire that municipal bodies should have any such power. I know that pressure is brought to bear upon Members of this House by the log-rolling efforts of corporations. The clerk of one corporation writes to the clerk of another corporation, "get your Member to support this Bill." That is a thing that should not be done.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I have yet to learn that any corporation has asked a particular Member to vote for a railway Bill, and if the corporation did so, I should hope that the Member would reply, "I shall listen to the Debate, and form my conclusions after listening to the arguments." It is an utterly irrelevant argument, and I believe that my case is right, and I shall go to a Division in support of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. LEWIS HASLAM
As a member of the Committee who very carefully adjudicated this particular Bill, I think it my duty to say a few words on the Clause. From the statement of the hon. Baronet it would be imagined that the Sheffield Corporation are manufacturing lamps and electrical fittings. They are doing nothing of the kind. All they are doing is to sell lamps and electrical fittings and wires. They have power to do that already, and all they ask is to be allowed to continue doing what they have done for the last fifteen years, to trade in this particular way. It is to the advantage of the public, as hon. Members know. It is a great advantage to the householder to have one contract. He can go to the Corporation and say he wants twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty 1462 lamps, and he has confidence in the Corporation officials who are doing this-class of work every day.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I have the Clause here which the hon. Member wishes to cut out:—The Corporation may, subject to the provisions of this Bill, let for hire, fix, repair and remove, but shall not manufacture lamps, meters, electric lights, fuses, lamp-holders, and other electrical fittings for lighting and other purposes.
§ Mr. HASLAM
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the paragraph he will see that it is in black, and is part of the Bill. In conclusion, I would point out that nearly all the large towns have wiring and fitting powers, and why should powers be refused to Sheffield? I trust when this Bill goes back this Clause will be allowed to appear in its original form.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I should like to slightly qualify what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. I think the gist of his speech was that the Sheffield Corporation were making a strong advance in the direction of municipal trading. That really is not so. They are not fighting this upon principle. Opinion in Sheffield is not anything like unanimous upon the question; on the contrary it is very equally divided. It was a question in the municipal election, and the party opposed to this proposal gained some slight advantage but not enough to have a majority. As opinion is so equally divided among my Constituents, I shall maintain a position of neutrality.
§ Colonel GREIG
In the model Clause which the House of Lords presumably put into this Bill, they have altered the wording in this way: The model Clause reads, "corporations may, subject to the provisions of this Section sell or let for hire" and so on. The House of Lords in this Clause have struck out the word "sell."
§ Mr. E. P. O'KELLY
I was a member of this Committee. We considered the matter very carefully for three long days. We were unanimous in our verdict and I hope the House will approve of it.
§ Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 39.1451
|Division No. 464.]||AYES.||[10.42 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Lundon, Thomas|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Ffrench, Peter||Lynch, A. A.|
|Adamson, William||Field, William||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Fitzgibbon, John||McGhee, Richard|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Maclean, Donald|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||France, G. A.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Gilhooly, James||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Baker, K. T. (Accrington)||Gill, A. H.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Ginnell, L.||M'Callum, Sir John M.|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||M'Curdy, Charles Albert|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Glanville, Harold James||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Barnes, G. N.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Laren, Hon, F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)|
|Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)||Goldstone, Frank||M'Micking, Major Gilbert|
|Barton, W.||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Manfield, Harry|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Griffith, Ellis J.||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Bentham, G. J.||Guest, Major, Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Martin, Joseph|
|Black, Arthur W.||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Mason, David M. (Coventry)|
|Boland, John Pius||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hackett, J.||Meagher, Michael|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)||Hancock, John George||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Brace, William||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Millar, James Duncan|
|Brady, P. J.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Molloy, M.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hardie, J. Keir||Molteno. Percy Alport|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Mooney, J. J.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Morgan, George Hay|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Morrell, Philip|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Morison, Hector|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Muldoon, John|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Munro, R.|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hayden, John Patrick||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Hayward, Evan||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Hazleton, Richard||Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hemmerde, Edward George||Nuttall, Harry|
|Clough, William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Clynes, John R.||Henderson, J. M, (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt Hon. Sir J.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Higham, John Sharp||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Dowd, John|
|Cotton, William Francis||Hodge, John||Ogden, Fred|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Grady, James|
|Crean, Eugene||Holt, Richard Durning||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Crooks, William||Hope, John Deans (Haddington)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Malley, William|
|Cullinan, J.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Hudson, Walter||O'Shaughnessy. P. J.|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hughes, S. L.||O'Shee, James John|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jones, Leif Straiten (Rushcliffe)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Devlin, Joseph||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Dickinson. W. H.||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Joyce, Michael||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Doris, W.||Keating, Matthew||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Duffy, William J.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Kilbride, Denis||Pointer, Joseph|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||King, J.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts. Cricklade)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Essex, Richard Walter||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Leach, Charles||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Falconer, J.||Lewis, John Herbert||Radford, G. H.|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Raphael, Sir Herbert H.|
|Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Reddy, M.||Sheehy, David||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Shortt, Edward||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook||Wardle, George J.|
|Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Richards, Thomas||Snowden, Philip||Watt, Henry A.|
|Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Webb, H.|
|Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs)||Sutherland, J. E.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Sutton, John E.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Robinson, Sidney||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Roch, Walter F.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Thomas, J. H.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)|
|Roc, Sir Thomas||Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Rowlands, James||Thome, William (West, Ham)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Toulmin, Sir George||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Verney, Sir Harry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.|
|Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover S.)|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Fleming, Valentine||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Fletcher, John Samuel||Mackinder, H. J.|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Forster, Henry William||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)|
|Baird, J. L.||Gardner, Ernest||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gastrell, Major W. H.||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gibbs, G. A.||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gilmour, Captain John||Mount, William Arthur|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Goldsmith, Frank||Neville, Reginald J. N,|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Barnston, Harry||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Newman, John R. P.|
|Barrie, H. T.||Colliding, Edward Alfred||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Grant, J. A.||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Bathurst, Charies (Wilts, Wilton)||Greene, W. R.||Nield, Herbert|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gretton, John||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Haddock, George Bahr||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Pole-Carew, Sir A.|
|Bird, A.||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Blair, Reginald||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hamilton, Marquess, of (Londonderry)||Randies, Sir John S.|
|Boyton, James||Harris, Henry Percy||Rawlinson, J. F. P.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Helmsley, Viscount||Rawson, Lt. Col. R. H.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Royds, Edmund|
|Campion, W. R.||Hickman, Colonel T. E.||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hills, John Waller||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Salter, Arthur Claveil|
|Cassel, Felix||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Cator, John||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Cautley, H. S.||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cave, George||Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Horner, Andrew Long||Stanier, Beville|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Starkey, John R.|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Hunt, Rowland||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Hunter, Sir C. R.||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Ingleby, Holcombe||Stewart, Gershom|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Swift, Rigby|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Cripos, Sir Charles Alfred||Kerry, Earl of||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Croft, H. P.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)|
|Dixon, C. H.||Larmor, Sir J.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Doughty, Sir George||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lee, Arthur H||Touche, George Alexander|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M,||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Fell, Arthur||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Weigall, Capt. A. G.|
|Wheler, Granville, C. H||Wolmer, Viscount||Yerburgh, Robert A.|
|Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W)||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|Wills, Sir Gilbert||Worthington-Evans, L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Malcolm and Sir Randolf Baker.|
|Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.B.)||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Winterton, Earl||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
Lords Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 57, line 33, agreed to.
|Division No. 465.]||AYES.||[11.40 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Hancock, J. G.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Abraham, Rt Hon. William (Rhondda)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Hardie, J. Keir||Ogden, Fred|
|Adamson, William||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||O'Grady, James|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Shee, James John|
|Armitage, Robert||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Arnold, Sydney||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Baker, Sir Randolt L. (Dorset, N.)||Hayden, John Patrick||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Hayward, Evan||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Helmsley, Viscount||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Barton William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Henry, Sir Charles||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Higham, John Sharp||Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Hodge, John||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Slack, Arthur W.||Hogge, James Myles||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Boland, John Pius||Holt, Richard Durning||Reddy, M.|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Brace, William||Hudson, Walter||Richards, Thomas|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Hughes, S. L.||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||John, Edward Thomas||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Rowlands, James|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Jowett, F. W.||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Joyce, Michael||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Keating, Matthew||Sheehy, David|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Kilbride, Denis||Shortt, Edward|
|Clough, William||Kimber, Sir Henry||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||King, J. (Somerset, N.)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)|
|Crean, Eugene||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Crooks, William||Larmor, Sir J.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Sutton, John E.|
|Cullinan, John||Lundon, Thomas||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||McGhee, Richard||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Maclean, Donald||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Dawes, J. A.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Wadsworth, J.|
|Devlin, Joseph||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Doris, William||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Duffy, William J.||Malcolm, Ian||Wardle, George J.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Watt, Henry Anderson|
|Falconer, James||Martin, Joseph||Webb, H.|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Meagher, Michael||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Millar, James Duncan||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Morgan, George Hay||Wiles, Thomas|
|France, Gerald Ashburner||Morrell, Philip||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Gill, A. H.||Muldoon, John||William, John (Glamorgan)|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Munro, R.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Glanville, H. J.||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Goldstone, Frank||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Greig, Col. J. W.||Needham, Christopher T.||Younger, Sir George|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Nolan, Joseph||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pointer and Mr. Leach.|
|Hackett, John||Nuttall, Harry|
|Hall, Frederick (Normanton)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Doughty, Sir George||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Forster, Henry William||Royds, Edmund|
|Bird, Alfred||Goldsmith, Frank||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Boyton, James||Grant, J. A.||Stanier, Beville|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Touche, George Alexander|
|Cassel, Felix||Half, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cator, John||Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Horner, Andrew Long||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Hunt, Rowland|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Joynson-Hicks, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Rawlinson.|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.|
§ Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "motors" ["switches, lampholders, motors"] agreed to.
Lords Amendment: Leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause 90, and insert as a new Sub-section—
(2) The Corporation shall not under the powers of this Section themselves execute the wiring of private property; except between the main of the Corporation and the consumer's meter, but they j may enter into contracts for the execution of any of the powers of this Section, including the wiring of private property, provided that the contractor acts independently of the Corporation in the execution of the contract. The Corporation shall not under such powers sell any such electrical fittings except through a contractor carrying on his business independently of the Corporation.
§ Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
§ Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
§ Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their Amendments to the Bill.
§ Committee nominated of Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Lewis Haslam, Sir Henry Kimber, Mr. Leach, and Mr. Pointer.
§ To withdraw immediately.
§ Reasons for disagreeing with the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
§ To be communicated to the Lords.1466
§ The Orders for remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
§ Whereupon, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."