HC Deb 11 June 1913 vol 53 cc1705-43

Order for Second Reading read.

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

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)

As this Bill, although I believe it, is quite non-controversial, involves the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, about £1,000,000 in all, it is necessary that I should explain as briefly as I can the purposes of the Bill and its provisions. Its purpose is to enable the Post Office to construct an electric railway from the East to the West of London for Post Office purposes, and for the carrying of mails and parcels. I mentioned this subject in introducing the Post Office Estimates last year and again this year, when the plans for the railway had matured, and we were able to make our concrete proposals. The Post Office naturally always desires to adopt any improvement that may be feasible in its methods of handling mails and parcels. At the present time mails are carried in London in motor or horse-drawn vehicles, which run at contract speed of eight miles an hour when letters are being carried and six miles an hour when parcels are being carried. My predecessor appointed a Departmental Committee in 1909 to consider whether some method of underground traction could not be adopted which would be more expeditious and generally of a better character. That Committee reported in February, 1911, in favour of the construction of an electric railway as against the construction of pneumatic tubes, and recommended that this railway should be owned and used exclusively by the Post Office. The advantages to be derived from this plan are, in the first place, that the mails will be carried much more expeditiously, consequently the public will be benefited by the improvement in the postal service, and the mails will not be delayed, as is now frequently the case, beyond the normal time of transit by the excessive crowding of traffic in the streets or obstructions which may be caused by fog, snowstorm, or the occurrence of some public function or procession or other causes of that kind.

Further, from an internal Post Office point of view, it is of great importance that the sorting staff should have a regular continuous flow of work, and that the letters and parcels, as the case may be, should not come upon them in large masses, but should, to whatever extent be feasible, come in at short and regular in- tervals over a considerable period of time. This will enable the mails to be handled much more cheaply and expeditiously than in the circumstances now prevailing. Lastly, from the point of view of the users of London streets, it is very advisable that the traffic congestion which now prevails in so many localities so frequently should be relieved by taking the very numerous Post Office vans and motors off the streets if possible. Following on the recommendations of this Committee, and the decision of the Government to adopt this plan, we invited the assistance of Mr. Dalrymple Hay, a very distinguished civil engineer, who, I believe, has more experience in the construction of tube railways of this kind than any other man in this country. He has been working on the preparation of the plans with the Chief Engineer of the Post Office and his staff. The railway will start at its westward end at Paddington District Office, there being a connection with Paddington Station. It will run under the Western Parcels Office in Bird Street, under the Western Central Office in New Oxford Street, under the great sorting office at Mount Pleasant and Clerkenwell, and under the General Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand. It will pass under Liverpool Street Station, and will end at the Eastern District Office in the Whitechapel Road. Its total length is six and a half miles. Provision will be made at the outset to enable later extensions to be made, if thought desirable, northwards to Euston Station, King's Cross Station and the Northern District Post Office, and southwards to Cannon Street, London Bridge, Waterloo, and the South Western District Post Office. There will be lifts and automatic conveyors to enable the mails to be handled very cheaply and expeditiously, and to be transmitted from the station on this railway to the sorting offices and to the railway stations. It will consist of a nine-foot tube and will contain two tracks. The trains will consist of comparatively small trucks. They will be electrically controlled from the stations, and will not be accompanied by drivers. They will run at a speed of about twenty-five miles an hour, and there will be ingenious automatic arrangements which will enable them to be run, whenever necessary, with perfect safety at intervals of one minute. The railway will be completed in about two and a half to three years. It is proposed that it will be built by contractors, and tenders will be invited, and the specification will be completed when the sanction of Parliament is obtained.

In respect to the finance of the scheme, it is proposed to defray the cost by loan, because this is not an expenditure like military or naval work which brings in no revenue. The Post Office being a revenue-earning business, expenditure of this kind earns income in future years. Moreover, it is not practicable to throw on to the finances of one, two, or even three years so large an expenditure as is involved in this case. The cost of interest and sinking fund will be equalled by annual savings almost completely. The Bill asks for authorisation for an expenditure of £1,100,000, but I think the expenditure is expected to be about £964,000, a higher sum being authorised in order to provide for possible at present unforeseen eventualities. Of course, it will be constructed as cheaply as possible. The expenditure includes a sum of £120,000 to enable the stations to be constructed on a sufficiently large scale to enable, later on, the extensions which are contemplated to be made. The annual expenditure will be, for interest at 3½ per cent. and sinking fund, £43,000, and working expenses £15,000, a total of £58,000. On the other hand, there is a saving in existing mail services of £43,000. We shall be able at once to terminate an existing expenditure of £43,000 for mail cart services. We also shall be able to effect an economy in electric current for other Post Office purposes of £4,700. We shall be so enormously increasing the current used in London for Post Office purposes that it will be greatly cheapened for other uses, and the engineers estimate a saving of £4,700—a total saving of £47,700. Therefore, in the first year there will be an increased expenditure of £11,000. The tube railway once constructed will, of course, be able to handle any increase of growth which is likely to occur in the London Post Office in a very long period of time. It will not only be able to handle the existing amount of mail matter, but any increase which can possibly be foreseen without any appreciable increase of cost. The capital cost will remain stationary, no matter how much increased work has to be dealt with. On the other hand, the mail cart services will increase in cost in the future year by year as the work grows, therefore, in a very few years' time this initial increase of expenditure will be more than covered by the avoidance of increased expenditure which would otherwise have been necessary. Even if that were not so, I believe this small increased expenditure of about £11,000 will be well worth making in consideration of the great acceleration of the mails—about twenty minutes in each case, eastwards and westwards—which would follow, and the increased economy which will be effected by the more even flow of work. It is proposed that the Bill shall go to a Committee of the House of Commons for its details to be examined, and, as this is a Hybrid Bill, partly in the nature of a public Bill and partly in the nature of a private Bill, it is proposed, following the usual course, that three Members of the Committee shall be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection, and that all the parties who are interested in the matter should have an opportunity of being heard before the Committee. On that understanding I hope the House will be good enough to sanction the Second Reading of the Bill.


After the explanation that the Postmaster-General has given the House, we can rest assured that the intentions of the Post Office in this matter are strictly honourable; but there are one or two points to which I should like to draw attention, and, on the question of finance, I should like the House to note that there is a deficit, according to the right hon. Gentleman's figures, of £11,000 on the first year's working, whereas he anticipates that probably a good deal more will be saved by the facilities which this work will give to the Post Office in carrying increased traffic in the future. It is precisely with that point that I want to deal. The Government have introduced this Bill as a Government measure, although the Preamble shows that the Post Office will, after the passing of this Bill, become to all intents and purposes a railway company. "It is expedient that the Postmaster-General should be authorised to construct and maintain a railway." At the very outset we are met with this. Here is a Post Office, a public Department which undoubtedly, although it may have very excellent reasons, is taking a very novel departure in becoming a railway company, and this Bill, the first of its kind, has not been, as it would have been if it had been the undertaking of any private company, open to discussion or challenge before a Committee before it is introduced into this House. It may be, and probably is, to the public convenience that the Post Office should become a railway company; but I would ask the attention of the House to the fact that under Clause 5 they are exempt from the provisions that Parliament has made in time past which apply to every other railway company, and particularly from "the provisions of any general Act relating to railways, except such provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as are incorporated with this Act." Those provisions that do not apply to this railway include all the provisions with regard to undue preference and matters of that kind, and with regard to any increase in rates. Of course it may not be applicable to the present purposes for which the railway is intended, but there are matters which traders generally in the country regard with a good deal of jealousy, and we are led to expect from what the Postmaster-General has said, that there will be a strong inducement held out to Postmaster-Generals in the future, now that they have once embarked on this new form of enterprise, to increase the work which the Post Office does, and to develope beyond what is the present limit of parcel postage, which is 11 lbs., into being much more general carriers of small goods than they are at present.

I, myself, welcome this proposal to handle small goods of this kind that the Post Office now deal with in a much more modern, expeditious and satisfactory way, removing from the streets the cumbrous methods at present adopted; but if the Post Office takes this new departure, whereas the railway companies continue to handle their heavier traffic and small goods by the antiquated, cumbrous, and inconvenient means which they still adopt, surely the whole tendency will be that the more modern and up-to-date method of the Postmaster-General will tend more and more to do away with the functions of seine of the existing railway companies, at any rate, with their functions so far as they concern the carriage of the smaller class of goods and large parcels. If that is so it seems to me that if there is to be a development in this direction it is extremely desirable that the provisions that Parliament has made with regard to undue preference and the like should be applicable to the Post Office in their capacity as a railway company, and that that should not be done away with altogether, as is proposed in this Bill. At present traders generally feel that the railway companies do not treat them fairly in the matter of rebate for collection and delivery, and it would be very undesirable if, under this Bill, as the Post Office have full power if it is passed in its present form, they were to give a preference to railway companies or to any class of carrier, railway companies as against carriers, carriers as against the general public, who prefer to do their own delivery and collection, and transmit these larger parcels, which I contemplate only from some central point, and not use the Postmaster-General's system at all. In support of what I have said, I might call attention to another Clause of the Bill. Clause 23 says:—

"In this Act unless the context otherwise implies:—

The expression 'the railway' includes the railways, subway, and works authorised by this Act;

The expression 'the purpose of the Post Office' has the same meaning as in the Post Office Act, 1908."

I find in the Post Office Act of 1908 that precisely what I have been saying is indicated. In that Act the expression "the purpose of the Post Office" means—

"any purpose of any of the Post Office Acts or of any Acts for the time being in force relating to Post Office money orders, Post Office telegraphs, or Post Office savings banks, and includes any purpose relating to or in connection with the execution of the duties for the time being undertaken by the Postmaster-General or any of his officers."

Clearly all that the Postmaster-General now contemplates is a limited system of tube railways of nine feet diameter in part of the Metropolitan area. It is entirely a new departure, and he may be right or wrong in limiting his demand to the small diameter to which I have referred. It might be wiser to take power to construct a tube of a more generally serviceable diameter when he is going to take land, and disturb streets and property, in the way that will have to be done in order to introduce a tube system such as this. Whether this is a right beginning or not, it is clearly only a beginning, unless the whole of the railway companies running into London follow his excellent example and handle their goods traffic in a modern and up-to-date way such as he is inaugurating with reference to the mails. There is no definition in the Bill of what is meant by "mails." I understand that there is a general definition somewhere, but I have not been able to find out where. It is not defined in the Post Office Act of 1908. There, again, we have another loophole for "mails" being extended to very much more than what is contemplated at present. The Postmaster-General has indicated in another way that this is only a beginning. I have here the plans of the works which the Postmaster-General has referred to and of extensions which are contemplated, and for which he says he is taking immediately powers to carry them into effect as they are required. They include two tunnels underneath the river to carry mails to the south side, and it is also, proposed that there should be large extensions northwards to Camden Town and Canonbury. We have a complete network, or the immediate prospect of it, of tube railways for this purpose. Therefore, I think the powers taken under Clause 5 of the Bill will make the Post Office practically a railway company to all intents and purposes, wholly apart from the work of carrying mails.

The question of protecting the traders of the country, as regards the Post Office, in the same way as they are protected in respect of every other railway undertaking authorised by this House requires very careful consideration. I would like to ask the Postmaster-General, if he is going to say anything more on the subject at all, whether by the £1,100,000 asked he is making provisions for sorting the mails at a central clearing house, because that is part of the scheme which, I believe, must in the near future be adopted by the railway companies? If this is to be a model, as I hope it will be, as to how small goods traffic can be dealt with, I sincerely hope that he will make provision for dealing with the heavier parcels traffic at a central point when he is taking powers for providing modern and up-to-date machinery. I do not desire to oppose the Postmaster-General's proposal, but as this is a new beginning which is undoubtedly capable of very large extension, and as he and his successors will be practically in the position of a railway company in the future, I would ask him to consider whether, in order to relieve the minds of traders, the same safeguards against undue preference and excessive rates and charges that are imposed upon every other company should not also be imposed on the Post Office?


I should like to say a few words on this interesting proposal from the point of view of one who is considering the question of London traffic on the Committee upstairs. I should be glad to know if the Postmaster-General could tell me how far this proposal will have an effect in relieving the traffic on the streets, and also whether he can give some sort of idea as to how many mail carts will be taken off the streets as the result of this proposed railway. I should be glad to know whether the Post Office have in mind considerable extensions of these railways. That has an important bearing on the questions we are considering upstairs, and I wish him to give us all the information he can on the subject. I wish to know what exactly is to be the trade of this railway. Is the traffic to be confined entirely to the ordinary Post Office work, merely the carrying of mails, or does he contemplate that he will be able to carry other traffic which is not conducted by the Post Office at present? I should like to know also whether consideration has been given to the question if, when a tube railway is going to be made, it would not be better to make it on a larger scale, in order to deal with a great deal of traffic which now passes along the London streets, and helps to cause congestion. I do not know whether he contemplates that some of the goods carried by railway carts should be carried on this railway. I should be glad to know if that is so. Two questions have been raised by the road authorities—the borough councils—and I presume these authorities will have an opportunity of raising any objections which they feel in regard to any Clause in the Bill when the subject is considered upstairs. I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that this will go to a Committee which will, if necessary, hear evidence from the local bodies. One of the questions raised is as to the powers to be taken in regard to the breaking up of streets. It is suggested that the Post Office is rather an offender in the matter of breaking up streets, and it is hoped that some provision will be made in the Bill, or that some assurance will be given, in order to regulate in some way the breaking up of streets which is one of the principal causes of congestion in London. The other question arises on Clause 6, which provides for the supply of electrical energy. Is it contemplated by the Post Office to supply their own electrical energy or is it proposed to take it from the municipal authorities, who are naturally very anxious to supply electricity to those requiring it? At present they complain that railway companies and others have power to supply their tenants or customers with electricity, and they hope that the Post Office will be willing to take their supply from the local authorities.


I think the House is under a debt of obligation to the Postmaster-General who introduced the Bill for the very clear and lucid speech he made in stating its provisions. The only fault I have to find is that he did not go on with his explanations. It seems to me that he cut his speech very short considering the magnitude of the undertaking proposed and the very important questions that have been raised by the two previous speakers. Of course, I am not opposing this measure. Quite the contrary. As a Member representing a London constituency, I am very much interested in a public improvement of this kind. In addition, personally, I am a very strong supporter of the idea of Government ownership of railways, and I am very glad that in this practical way the Government have made a start in this direction. They propose that this railway shall be owned by the great Post Office Department, the operation of which to my mind is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Government ownership of all railways. The Government proposes, by this measure, to build a considerable amount of railway in the City of London, and instead of being used to provide dividends for private individuals, it is to be used for the benefit of the whole people. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill in a general way; but I am disappointed that we have not had a more detailed explanation. The Bill covers seventeen pages, and the work is a very large work indeed. In Clause 2, provision is made for as many as sixteen railways, though it is true that they are not of very great length, but at the same time they are very important because they are all underground. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that a very eminent engineer, whose name I did not catch, probably the most competent man to be found for the construction of underground railways in the City of London, has designed them. The Bill discloses the fact that plans have been prepared, and they are on the file in the public office where they can be examined. I would not expect the Postmaster-General to go into these plans, but I do think that we are entitled to have some general description of the work. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us where these railways were, and I think that before asking us to vote this very large sum of money, involving and giving very extensive powers in a field not heretofore occupied by his Department, the construction of a railway, we ought to be in more complete possession of the extent of the scheme, and we should have a fuller explanation of the reasons which induced the Post Office to come to the conclusion that the construction of this system of railways in London will be an advantage to the Department, and, of course, incidentally to the public. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has gone into the matter, as he usually, does in all matters connected with his Department, with the greatest care. I am rather surprised to see that with the exception of the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Harris), the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones), the hon. Member on the Front Bench (Captain Norton), and the hon. Member for Southwark, no London Members are here.


There are other London Members present.


I understand that the hon. Member for Dulwich has just arrived on the scene, but if it had not been for the vigilance of the hon. Member for Paddington this Bill would have been read a second time in the absence of the hon. Member for Dulwich. In a general way the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the cost of this system of railways is expected to be £960,000, but he told us, and we find in the Bill, that the Government propose to take authority from this House for the expenditure of £1,100,000. That is about £150,000 more than the work is intended to cover. I protest against that, and I think that if this House furnish the Government with money sufficient to pay the cost of a proposed public works, they are doing all that they ought to be expected to do at the moment. I quite admit that it is very difficult even for an eminent engineer to make a fairly accurate estimate of the cost of public work of this kind, but this work will take a considerable time to complete. The right hon. Gentleman did not give us any information on this.


Two and a half or three years.


In two and a half years there will probably be three more Sessions of this House. It would be quite hopeless for the right hon. Gentleman, should he leave his Department, or if there should be a change of Government, to come to the House and claim that the £950,000, which was calculated to be required for this work was not sufficient, though the House, no doubt, would be very ready indeed to grant an additional sum. It does seem to me, however, that unless some special ground is put forward to justify an exception being made, it is a wrong principle for the Government to deliberately add the considerable sum of £150,000 to the amount of money for which they ask authority to spend. I submit that that is a very loose way of doing business. From the history of the Liberal party, especially when it was the Opposition, we have a right to expect that when that party is in power it should be very economical—that is to say, that it should not spend any more money on any work it undertakes than is actually required for the purpose of that work. The Government come down and deliberately ask the House for £150,000 more than they themselves expect will be required for these public works. That, at any rate, is one inducement for the Government to practice economy which has been removed.

It is always more or less an interference with other business for a Government to come to the House and ask for an additional appropriation in connection with public works. But I am not sure that it is not also a very considerable inducement for any Department to keep within their estimates if they know that should they exceed them in any way they will find it necessary again to come to the House and be subjected a second time to have their whole scheme reviewed. I notice by Section 13 of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman takes power for the Treasury to issue terminable annuities for the purpose of spreading this sum of something like a million pounds over a term of thirty years, or not exceeding thirty years. It seems to me that that proposition opens up a very large field indeed as to how far the Government should be allowed to put the country into debt in respect of expenditures, which, if they are not exactly capital expenditures, in one sense, may be spoken of as capital expenditure. After all, it is something like buildings. If the Post Office required more buildings, it has been the practice in the past to construct those buildings out of the revenues of the year. After all, these are small railways, but in principle they are like buildings. Railway No. 1 is of considerable length—2 miles 3 furlongs 7.87 chains; No. 2 is 8 chains in length, or thereabouts; No. 3 is 3.28 chains; No. 4 is 7.2 chains; No. 5 is 6 furlongs 9.8 chains; No. 6 is 8.3 chains; No. 7 is 6 furlongs 8.25 chains; No. 8 is 8.3 chains; No. 9 is 3.65 chains; No. 10 is 1 furlong 5.4 chains; No. 11 is 7 furlongs 3 chains; No. 12 is 7.2 chains; No. 13 is 2.2 chains; No. 14 is 1 mile and 2.43 chains; and No. 15 is 4 chains. There is a subway of 5.6 chains.


What is the total?


I should be very much pleased, if the hon. Gentleman has time, that he should add the figures together for me, and I shall be very glad to state the result to the House. No doubt, it is a tube of considerable magnitude, and I do not say that it should all be provided for out of the year's revenue. But I do say that the deliberate postponement of this money over a period of thirty years is an infringement of the principle laid down by the Liberal party time and time again. It was the practice of the Conservatives, when they were in power, to issue bonds or Consols, or some securities, for the purpose of buildings in connection with the Army. I have listened with great pleasure to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining quite frequently that this Government had abandoned that policy, which they considered a bad one. I find it very difficult to see the difference between buildings, such as barracks for the Army, and the permanent structures which are contemplated in this Bill. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that it was a very bad policy to postpone these payments, and that it was abandoned by this Government, which is admittedly very superior to the Government which hon. Gentlemen opposite carried on for many years, yet now that we have this proposal for subways, which are as much permanent structures as are buildings, I find it difficult, as an ardent supporter of the Government, to reconcile the proposal to postpone payment for these works with the policy of abandoning that principle which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has told us that this Bill is a hybrid measure, partly a private Bill, and partly a public Bill—a public Bill, so far as concerns the authorisation of the Government to invest the money of the country in structures of this kind, and a private Bill so far as it will affect the rights of persons under whose property the subway will be constructed. Being a hybrid Bill, the right hon. Gentleman informs us that it is his intention, after the Bill has been read a second time, to propose that it shall go to what will be practically a Private Bill Committee. I do not object to that in toto, but I do think that in a Bill of this magnitude, which not only involves the rights of individuals, of corporations, and of owners of property, under which the subway may pass, but also involves a new departure in public works, the details should be very closely scrutinised by a competent Committee. My point is, that the number of Members which has been suggested as being the number that shall be appointed in connection with the Bill is not sufficient for a Bill of this magnitude. I do think that the House would prefer that a Committee to have charge of important details and in which important private rights are affected should be larger than five, and that the right hon. Gentleman would please the House better by suggesting to double the number.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)

That does not arise on this Motion, but on the subsequent Motion.


The hon. Member for the Devizes Division (Mr. Peto) has drawn attention to one of the Clauses of the Bill upon which the right hon. Gentleman gave us no light whatever, and which seems to me of great public importance. I refer to Clause 5, which in the second Sub-section proposes to exempt the Post Office Department from all the laws which govern railways, while the Bill proposes to constitute practically the Postmaster-General, in his corporate capacity, as a railway company. It does seem to me that that is not a Committee point but one as to which responsibility rests on the whole House. Those laws were passed presumably in the interests and for the protection of the general public. The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest to us whether this railway was a mere experiment with regard to London, and it appears to me we ought to know, in case this tube turns out to be practical and to confer the advantages which he has indicated, whether those facilities will be extended to other large cities in the United Kingdom like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dublin, Manchester, and Birmingham.


What about Liverpool?


And Liverpool, too.


The hon. Member forgets the city of Sheffield.

9.0 P.M.


I must admit I did for the moment. Of course the same argument applies to it. Although those cities are not perhaps as well represented as London, they are entitled to any benefits which may turn out from a public work of this kind. We are under a considerable obligation to the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Harris) for the two points he raised. The first was with regard to the effect of this work on the great problem of the traffic of the London streets, about which important matter there is a Committee of this House sitting at present. The right hon. Gentleman overlooked that question entirely in his opening remarks. If a considerable number of automobiles and horse carriages were removed from the streets of London by the construction of this subway, that would affect the question of traffic in London. We have had no light thrown on that question by the right hon. Gentleman, whose duty I suggest it was to give us a full review of a new proposal like this. In this Bill we are not simply carrying out precedents of previous years. It is an entirely new departure, and I do think that under the circumstances the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was incomplete, to say the least of it. The other point referred to by the Member for Paddington was that of electrical energy. Clause 6 of the Bill provides that the Postmaster-General may lay down and maintain and use cables and lines for the purpose of transmitting electrical energy. I am not opposed to that idea. I am in favour of the Government ownership of railways and of all public facilities, and therefore I am not opposed, for the moment, to the suggestion in this Bill that the Government should have power to provide electrical energy for themselves rather than buy it from a private company. The point raised by the hon. Member was that a number of municipal boroughs had already expended very large sums in electrical plant, and we wanted to know, and I do also, what is to be the attitude of the Government towards those. For instance, in my Constituency of East St. Pancras the borough council of St. Pancras have a very effective and complete electrical plant. They have electrical energy to sell, and it does seem to me that the hon. Member brought forward a very material issue in the suggestion that the Government should not construct plant that would come into direct competition with the plants of the municipal boroughs. I would not hesitate to give the Government my strong support to a proposal that they should have the right and power—and I would expect them to use that right and power—of constructing electrical plant that should compete with plant constructed, owned, and operated by private companies. But it is entirely different when we come to the question of one public authority, the Post Office Department, undertaking to construct plant which is to compete directly with public plant constructed by the different boroughs of London. I feel sure that the Borough Council of St. Pancras, when it learns that the Government are contemplating going into the electrical lighting and power business, will, at the earliest opportunity, ask the four representatives of the borough, two of whom sit on the Government side and two, unfortunately, on the Tory side, to bring all the influence they can to bear upon the Government to see that they do not overlook the opportunity of assisting in a certain way the borough councils in their attempt to develop the idea of the public ownership of public utilities. I have no intention of opposing this Bill, but I am really disappointed that there should be present so few of the Members through whose constituencies this proposed subway would pass.


That is the third time the hon. Member has made that remark. I must ask him not to repeat it again.


I was about to sit down. I shall certainly not repeat that remark or any other part of my speech. I have endeavoured briefly to lay before the House certain matters which occurred to me, and certain considerations put forward by the hon. Member for Devizes and the hon. Member for South Paddington which also appealed to me as a Member whose Constituency is directly affected by the proposals of the Government. I have no desire to add to what I have already said.


We have been privileged to listen to an exhaustive and detailed examination of this Bill, which has been expressed very eloquently and exceedingly briefly, having regard to the important subjects with which the hon. Member dealt, some of which subjects were in the Bill and others not. The Bill is, in one respect, no doubt important, because it is a new departure. But, after all, it is not a very serious matter, or one that ought to occupy the tune of the House at any great length.


A million of money!


A million of money is nothing to some of my hon. Friends; they vote £14,000,000, £15,000,000, or £20,000,000 in a few moments, without any discussion at all. But that is not the point. We have here a proposal that the Post Office should put down an underground railway, about six miles in length, for the purpose of facilitating postal arrangements. If the Post Office could suggest any means of expediting and cheapening the service, I would heartily support them. It is not in any sense a political question; it is simply a question of expediency and whether it is the right thing to do. Seeing that we have had for all these years the penny post in London, with six or eight deliveries every day, and that there have been no improvements at all on that state of affairs, either in point of charge or in point of delivery, I think we ought to welcome any serious attempt on the part of the Post Office to improve its service. It is commonly supposed that the Post Office is a progressive institution, but a careful investigation for some years past has convinced me that it is one of the most backward and dilatory institutions in the country. In spite of the improvements in railways and other means of transit, there has been no serious attempt, at all events in London, to cheapen the proved and could be effectively carried interests of the public and of the trading community. One or two features of the present proposal are rather startling. Borne of us were under the impression that the postal service had been vastly improved, and could be effectively carried out in the Metropolis by an extension of pneumatic tubes, and that it would be quite sufficient to make a small tube through which parcels and mails could be sent with great facility and at very little cost. But here we have a proposal for a tube no less than 9 ft. in diameter generally, and 16 ft. in diameter at the stations. That is quite a different matter. It is practically equivalent to making a railway by which postmen and passengers, as well as parcels and mails, could be sent. It is a very serious matter to construct a railway of such dimensions through such a city as London.

The question of the electrical working of the line is one of considerable importance. I had the privilege, two or three years ago, of serving upon an important Committee of this House in reference to the electrical supply of the whole Metropolis. We sat for six or seven weeks, and made a very important Report upon the bulk supply, as well as upon the other electrical supply, all over the Metropolitan area. The conclusion that we came to amounted to this, that if every consumer of electricity could be induced or compelled to take his electricity from one source, the cost to every consumer would be immensely reduced, because the whole question in the case of electricity depends upon what is known as the load factor. You can only increase that load factor to 100 per cent. by getting an infinite variety of utilities for the purposes for which it may be used. When a public Department like the Post Office comes forward and desires to set up a separate electrical supply it goes right in the very teeth of the Report of that Committee. It goes right against the advice of any electrical expert or any person who has given any attention of importance to the subject. It shows a total disregard of the general convenience and the general interests of the community when persons desire to have an electrical supply for their own particular purpose where the load factor could not possibly under the circumstances exceed about 14 or 15 per cent. The whole of the other 85 per cent. is practically so much loss, so much energy created or capable of being created for which there is no possible use owing to the fact that the machinery can only be used for that same purpose. I very much regret that in this Bill the Postmaster-General has not seen fit to follow the lines of electrical advance upon this subject, and take his electricity from those sources, people, and institutions in the district through which this railway is going to pass. These people are making it for the public good and necessarily try to use that electricity to the best advantage and sell it at the lowest cost.

I notice in this Bill that there are a number of very important provisions. For instance, I think the Postmaster-General does not propose to acquire any surfaces for the purpose of the Bill. He is going to use certain public places, and certain public streets for the purpose of approaches to his underground tunnel. He does not propose to pay for these different places. In addition to that, he does not propose that the Department should be liable under Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Acts: that the Post Office should be responsible for carrying out any of the Clauses of the Railways Consolidation Act. If the Post Office were really or to any extent competing with any other public bodies it obviously would be wrong that the other public bodies should be liable, in pursuance of their undertaking, to adhere to these general public Statutes and that the Post Office should be relieved. We have had this particular point raised on several other occasions when the Post Office have brought forward Bills for the purpose of their buildings and undertakings in different parts of the country. We have discussed it rather ad nauseam, but it has always been carried against the objectors and in favour of the Post Office. If the Post Office are going to take a piece of anybody's land, they are not subject to taking the whole piece like a railway company and paying for it. The Post Office will take the bit they require and can snap their fingers at the owner or owners of the property. That is one of the Sections of the Bill which we have now got under discussion. There are a number of other Sections of the same character. All that the Post Office have got to do under this Bill in regard to anybody's property on the top is simply to pay for the damage in case the building shows signs of giving way. One cannot help thinking that the Post Office, if they get this Bill, will be in a very favoured position. They will be able to make a railway under 5 or 6 miles of London without paying for any property; without even having to buy any land for stations. If they go sufficiently deep there will be practically nothing to pay for property at all. No railway company can get any such privileges as that. That is one of the arguments why some of my hon. Friends opposite desire to nationalise the railways in order, I presume, that they may have somewhat similar privileges.

We are entitled to do two things in regard to this Bill. First, we are entitled to congratulate the Postmaster-General on having had the audacity, the ability, and the energy to resolve on any item of any initiatory character whatever. It is a long time since the Post Office showed such signs of life as they are apparently manifesting to-night. I think that the House of Commons ought to be delighted to see that under the Postmastership of the right hon. Gentleman there is some small indication of vitality and progress in the Department. That is one feature of it. The other is that, I presume, the Post Office is now making arrangements not to do anything in a piecemeal, small, humbugging sort of way, with, so to speak, pneumatic tubes, with which they might take a few million letters and so on, but are going to make a 9-ft. tube which will take all the correspondence and all the parcels along the given route which anybody can possibly shove into it, and transport them with the greatest possible celerity. If I were inclined to emulate the eloquence and critical acumen of the hon. Member for East St. Pancras and to deal in detail with each Clause of this Bill, there is no doubt I could prevent the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill from coming on for the next fortnight. I am not disposed to do anything of the sort. My object in rising was simply to point out a few of the features of the Bill, and one or two points of view, and to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the initiative and progress which is now being displayed by the Post Office


Perhaps I may be allowed to answer some of the questions which have been put to me. On each side I notice some hon. Members take a deep interest in this Bill, which should be very gratifying to the Minister in charge; though I would like to point out that several of the hon. Members who have spoken happen to be the strongest opponents of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill and the Bee Disease Bill, which happen to be the next Orders on the Paper.


I rise to a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to suggest improper motives?


I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman as making any references outside the limits of Parliamentary debate.


Several questions of substance have been addressed to me, the first by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes, who is not now here. He suggests that since we are constructing a railway we ought to do something towards the provision of the Railways Act. The provisions of the Railways Act are, of course, intended very largely for the safety of the public, and the public will not use this railway at all. It is purely a private railway. There will not even be any drivers or conductors on the trains. They will be worked automatically. They will carry no passengers, nor any persons at all. Consequently the main provisions of the Railways Act are quite inapplicable in this case.


Not with regard to the taking of land or property?


So far as this is concerned the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, so far as it is applicable in this case, is reserved and is made applicable by Clause 5. The hon. Member suggested that certainly these provisions of the Railways Act which forbids preference to be given to individuals ought to be applicable to the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General is under a general obligation in all cases not to show favour or preference to anyone, and it is quite impossible to conceive that any Postmaster-General would at any time make preferential arrangements with any individual or company for the carriage of parcels or goods at favoured rates. If he did so he would, of course, be subject to the reprobation of this House, which would be visited upon him very swiftly and in no uncertain fashion. The whole work of the Post Office, so far as rates are concerned, is carried on under Statutes and Rules and customs which would make it absolutely impossible for such a contingency to arise. The hon. Member then said it might be in the power of the Postmaster-General to increase rates for the carriage of parcels. The Bill gives no power whatever to the Postmaster-General except to construct this railway for the purposes of the Post Office. It does not affect in the smallest degree those other purposes, and it does not deal in any way with the rates and neither enlarges or restricts whatever power the Post Office may have to vary rates. It enables the Postmaster-General to construct a railway for the purposes of the Post Office and nothing more at all. For example, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that under this Bill we might increase the rate for parcels above 11 1bs. weight. No provision under the Bill touches that.


For the purposes of the Post Office the 1908 Act undoubtedly includes a provision for the carriage of parcels up to any weight that may be necessary.


That is totally unaffected by this Bill. The weight of parcels is fixed by a regulation approved by the Treasury, and can be altered whether this Bill is passed or not by regulation approved by the Treasury, and, of course, subject to the controlling authority of this House. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention whatever in passing this Bill to extend the parcel post or to carry any other weights. The point has not been considered in this connection. The Bill is not introduced with any such purpose. I am not saying that all my successors for all time shall never increase the weights of parcels, but certainly this Bill does not in any way affect the matter. The hon. Gentleman asked whether this Bill dealt with the sorting of the mails, and would enable the mails to be sent better to the clearing house, and also the parcels. All parcels are now sorted at Mount Pleasant, and this Bill will facilitate the traffic in the transmission of parcels and mails, and will enable a practical and necessary concentration of the work to be effected.

The hon. Member for South Paddington asked what would be the number of vans taken off the streets. I cannot give the exact figure, but as the saving will be £43,000 a year in the cost of carting, that is about £800 a week, it is obvious that the number of vans must be very large. We employ a very large number of vans for £800 a week. The Board of Trade, who are interested in the traffic problem, attach much importance to this Bill as a means of relieving congestion in the streets. The hon. Member asks if there was to be any further extension of these railways. I dealt with that in my opening remarks. He further inquired whether we propose to take over any of the work now done by the railways and further relieve the traffic. That is not our intention. He complained about the breaking up of the streets. Obviously you cannot make underground railways without digging holes. You must get at the work somehow, and as the stations are to be on Post Office premises, some of them in the neighbourhood of railway stations, pits can be dug for access to the lower work of the railway. Another inquiry was where the energy, that is the power for working the-railway, would be obtained from. The Post Office has now very large electrical power stations at Blackfriars. Hon. Members walking along the embankment between Blackfriars and Waterloo Bridge will see a large building which is the Post Office power station, recently built and admirably equipped, and that will enable the power required to be supplied for the railway for very small cost, and will enable us to obtain cheaper power to be used for other Post Office purposes, because the production will be on a larger scale.

The hon. Member for East St. Pancras asked me a number of questions, but I think he will find that all of them were answered in anticipation in my opening remarks. I dealt with the question why we were dealing with this by loan very fully. He suggested we ought to take precisely the amount we estimate and no more, leaving no margin for contingencies, and come back to Parliament for another Bill in another year, if it was necessary to ask for more money. I feel perfectly certain that the House would regard a second application for money for the same purpose as a most unbusinesslike proceeding, and the Post Office would be unanimously condemned, and by no one more than by the hon. Member who might be anxious to speak upon the second Bill. He would be the first to protest against the want of foresight and lack of business capacity on the part of the Postmaster-General for not asking for the proper figure and not leaving a margin for contingencies. Whether the principles of this measure will be applied to the provincial towns must depend on the future. As at present advised, I cannot imagine that the financial saving obtained even in the largest of our provincial cities would be sufficient to justify the construction of tube railways in any of them. I trust after this unexpectedly prolonged discussion the House will now be able to come to a decision upon the matter.


My hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool made a most interesting speech, with the greater part of which I agree, but there was one part of it with which I did not agree, and that was the part in which he stated that the Post Office was not an enterprising body. In my belief the Post Office is far too enterprising and far too prodigal of the money of the tax payers.


That is another point.


It is a point that is relevant to the Bill before us at the present moment, as I think I shall be able to show before I finish the few remarks I intend to make. I admit it is very rarely that my hon. Friend is wrong, but in the very eloquent, speech which he addressed to the House he made one small error. I have two objections to this Bill. The first is founded on the ground of expense, and the second upon the ground that the Post Office are allocating to themselves powers which they would be the first to refuse to any private body or company which came before this House and asked for those powers. I think in what I am going to say that I shall have the support of the Labour party, because they have always maintained that the State ought to set up as model employers. In the same way the State ought to set up as a model with regard to the powers they take, and ask only for the same powers as they would be prepared to give to private capitalists.

I wish to say a few words upon the monetary 'question, which is, to my mind, extremely important. At the present moment we are liable to pay to the State taxation amounting to something like £185,000,000 a year. This is not the opportunity or the moment when fresh expenditure should be lightly incurred. At the present time I think it is extremely doubtful whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to find the money which is required to meet the liabilities of the country, and yet at the present moment the Postmaster-General comes down to this House and asks the House of Commons to find a sum amounting to £1,100,000. I think that is the amount which will be required under this Bill. I admit that I have often said in this House that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not consistent, and, though I regard with great suspicion the proceedings of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I admit that they are not altogether on every occasion inconsistent. If there is one thing upon which they have always been insistent it is that the expenditure should be met out of the revenue of the year, and here the Postmaster-General proposes that the expenditure under this Bill shall not be met out of the revenue of the year but by loan. I can conceive the anger which would have animated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel) if any Unionist Postmaster-General had made such a proposal as this. We should have been kept here not only until e'even o'clock, but I am afraid that hour would not have been reached while the right hon. Gentleman opposite was speaking, and probably the Postmaster-General would have been compelled to succumb to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. I am looking forward to the right hon. Gentleman taking the same line in power which he would have pursued in opposition.

I do not see how hon. Gentlemen opposite can vote for a provision such as that which I have described. I will put aside all questions as to whether the expenditure under this Bill should be met out of revenue or by loan, but, speaking with all humility, I say that the present is not a very good time to raise a loan, because Consols are now about 73, and the money market is in a state of panic; consequently this is not a good time to raise a loan. I would like to ask whether this is a favourable moment to come forward to spend money on this particular object? I have endeavoured during the years I have had the honour of a seat in this House to exercise the little influence I possess to place a restraint upon expenditure, but I have never endeavoured to restrain expenditure if I thought that that expenditure was necessary, or if I thought that the money would be spent in a proper manner. I am always most anxious to spend money if I think the object is necessary, and if I think that the money, when found and spent, will be expended in a proper way. I very much doubt whether this Bill comes within that category. This measure raises a very important question as concerns London. I am going to speak later on about the Constituency which I represent and which I think has been treated with very scant courtesy by this Bill.

Personally, I think we shall very soon see the development of a considerable amount of motor traffic in our streets. I walk about a good deal in London for my health's sake, and also because one sees a good many things in walking about the streets. One thing that has struck me more than another is the extraordinary development of motor traffic during the last few years, and that development is not confined to motor cars or motor cabs, but it is very evident that the use of motor traffic for goods is increasing very largely. I was very glad to learn last year that the Post- master-General had initiated a very large supply of Post Office motor vans. I see every day a large number of these vans in the City. On this point I should not like to misrepresent the Postmaster-General. It may be that the Post Office vans have been put upon the streets under a contract with a certain private firm, but supposing this is being done by contract, and the Post Office has not invested any capital in the provision of these vans, I presume that the contract is for a good number of years and cannot be terminated at once. Motor vans are presumably a success. I have seen two or three which have gone down as far as Brighton and other towns a considerable distance from London. If that be so, is this the moment to spend £1,100,000 on a mode of conveyance which is unnecessary if motor vans are capable of doing that which I think they are capable of doing. Nothing could be more foolish—I claim the sympathy of the Postmaster-General in this—in any enterprise than to sink a large sum in capital expenditure until you are quite certain that there is no other way of arriving at the object at which you desire to arrive. If the Postmaster-General were to spend £200,000 or £300,000 in buying motor vans, he would probably arrive at the same result as he will arrive at by spending £1,100,000 in making a sewer, or whatever it may be called, under the street, and he would arrive at it without putting everybody to the inconvenience of the streets being taken up whilst this particular tube is being sunk into the ground. During the last twenty or thirty years there has been an enormous extension of the underground railways and various tubes in London. The electrification of the Underground Railway has been a very great success and has made underground travelling very pleasant; but I remember as a young man that when the Underground was first being built we were told that congestion of the streets would be considerably diminished. Notwithstanding all the railways that have been made and which were supposed to do away with congestion of the streets, the fact remains, though I do not pretend to explain it—


The population has increased.


Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will follow me in the Debate and give the explanation I am unable to give. I am only stating a fact, and I say that notwithstanding the prophecies which were made as long ago as 1865, which I believe was the year of the opening of the Underground Railway, that congestion would disappear from the streets, the absolute reversal is the case, and the more tubes and underground railways we have the greater is the congestion of the streets. I therefore venture to say that the interruption is really not relevant. I wanted to ask for an explanation as to Clause 5, which says:—

"The railway may be used for the conveyance of mails and for any purpose of the Post Office."

The right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago told us that the railway would be used merely for the conveyance of the mails and the parcels of the Post Office, but that is not the effect of the Clause. The effect of the Clause is that it may be used for the conveyance of mails and for any purpose of the Post Office. I am not a lawyer, but I can quite understand the Attorney-General defending this particular Clause and saying it was thoroughly understood when the Act went through that the railway might be used for the conveyance of Post Office servants to and from their residences. If there is any possibility of that being the case, it is a very great blow against private enterprise, and it is, in fact, a breach of the understanding by which £1,300,000,000 have been invested, on behalf of the railway companies, because it was never contemplated that the Government of the day would bring in a Bill which would enable them to carry Post Office servants or any other people at the expense of the State and to the detriment of the railway companies. The Postmaster-General, a few moments ago, told us that the Land Clauses Act would apply to this Bill in exactly the same way as it applies to the railway companies. I am sorry to say that I think the Postmaster-General must have made a mistake. It is possible that I may have misunderstood him, but I do not think it is at all likely. Clause 7 is in these terms:—

"The Land Clauses Act and the provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, specified in the First Schedule to this Act, shall, unless inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be incorporated with this Act, with the following exceptions and modifications:"

There are eight different paragraphs covering nearly two pages of exceptions to the Land Clauses Act, and yet the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago told us that the Land Clauses Act was incorporated in this Bill exactly in the same way as it was incorporated in any ordinary Railway Bill which might come before the House. I think that we ought to have a very clear explanation of that from the Attorney-General. Clause 9 gives power to the Post Office to require owners to, sell parts only of certain property. My hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford), dealt rather shortly with that particular point. I will not, therefore, go, into it at any great length. But I would remark that it is not fair to the owners of property. I am afraid I shall not receive much sympathy on that point from hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, but if it is put to them fairly I think that even they have a sense of justice. I say the owners of property should not be treated in a more unfair way by the State than by the railway company. I do not see why, because I happen to own a house in the City of London, a little bit of that house should be taken by the Post Office for their necessities, while at the same time a railway company could not come forward and do the same thing. I am injured. I am sure hon. Members themselves dislike being injured, whether by a railway company or by the Post Office. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that I am willing to sacrifice my property for the extension of the Post Office any more than I would do so for railway companies which, after all, carry on a public service.

Clauses 14 and 15 affect my Constituency in the City of London. They deserve some consideration. Clause 14 says that the Postmaster-General may, for the purpose of constructing the railway, enter upon, open, break up, and interfere with the surface of certain streets and places in the City of London. The first place is Finsbury Circus. There there is considerable congestion; it may not be quite so congested as the space opposite the Mansion House. But I want to know why the Postmaster-General should come forward and, without the leave of the corporation, be allowed to enter upon, open, break up, and interfere with the surface of the street. The Clause goes on to say that he may do the same in the boroughs of Holborne, Marylebone, and Stepney. So far as I know, no other body has power to come forward and say, "We choose to take up this street; we are not going to ask the local authority for permission; we shall do it without 'By your leave,' and we are going to keep it up as long as' we choose." My hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) earlier in this Debate declared that the Post Office were dilatory. I venture to say that so far as this Bill is concerned they are going a little too fast. I do not think they can be alleged to be in any way dilatory. We cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that a very large number of complaints are received from the public as to the dilatory motions of the Post Office in making telephone connections. If it takes a very much longer time for the Post Office to connect a subscriber with the telephone system than it took the National Telephone Company, it follows that the Post Office may be equally dilatory in taking up the streets and laying them down. It may be that, in order to conciliate the Labour Members, nobody

employed by the Post Office in breaking up a street will be allowed to work more than eight hours, or to do too much in that time. What is going to happen while the friends of hon. Members are taking up the streets or putting them down in a leisurely fashion? There will be no power for the authorities in my Constituency to say, "We have had enough of this congestion, and we require the Post Office to proceed with their work a little more expeditiously."


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 88.

Division No. 108.] AYES. 10.0 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Acland, Francis Dyke Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Kilbride, Denis
Adamson, William Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) King, Joseph
Agnew, Sir George William Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Lardner, James C. R.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Esslemont, George Birnie Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Farrell, James Patrick Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Lundon, Thomas
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Ffrench, Peter Lynch, A. A.
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) Field, William Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Fitzgibbon, John Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Barton, William Flavin, Michael Joseph McGhee, Richard
Beale, Sir William Phipson Gelder, Sir W. A. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Gill, A. H. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Gladstone, W. G. C. MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Bentham, G. J. Glanville, H. J. M'Callum, Sir John M.
Black, Arthur W. Goldstone, Frank McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Boland, John Pius Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Bowerman, Charles W. Greig, Colonel J.W. Manfield, Harry
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Brace, William Hackett, John Marks, Sir George Croydon
Brady, Patrick Joseph Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Marshall, Arthur Harold
Brocklehurst, W. B. Hardie, J. Keir Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Bryce, J. Annan Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Meagher, Michael
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Menzies, Sir Walter
Cawley, Harold T. (Luncs., Heywood) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Middlebrook, William
Chapple, Dr, William Allen Hayden, John Patrick Molloy, Michael
Clough, William Hayward, Evan Molteno, Percy Alport
Clynes, John R. Hazleton, Richard Money, L. G. Chiozza
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Helme, Sir Norval Watson Morgan. George Hay
Condon, Thomas Joseph Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Morrell, Philip
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Henry, Sir Norval Watson Morison, Hector
Cotton, William Francis Higham, John Sharp Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Crooks, William Hodge, John Muldoon, John
Crumley, Patrick Holmes, Daniel Turner Munro, Robert
Cullinan, John Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Murphy, Martin J.
Davies, Ellis William (Elfion) Hughes, Spencer Leigh Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Nolan, Joseph
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Dawes, J. A. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Nuttall, Harry
Delany, William Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Deviin, Joseph Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Dillon, John Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) O'Doherty, Philip
Donelan, Captain A. Jowett, Frederick William O'Donnell, Thomas
Doris, William Joyce, Michael O'Dowd, John
Duffy, William J. Keating, Matthew Ogden, Fred
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Kelly, Edward O'Grady, James
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Sutton, John E.
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Robinson, Sidney Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
O'Shee, James John Roche, Augustine (Louth) Thomas, James Henry
O'Sullivan, Timothy Roe, Sir Thomas Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Palmer, Godfrey Mark Rowlands, James Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Parker, James (Halifax) Rowntree, Arnold Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Webb, H.
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Pointer, Joseph Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Whitehouse, John Howard
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Scanlan, Thomas Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Williamson, Sir Archibald
Primrose, Hon. Nell James Sheehy, David Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Radford, G. H. Sherwell, Arthur James Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Winfrey, Richard
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Wing, Thomas
Reddy, Michael Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Young, William (Perthshire, East)
Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Richards, Thomas Sutherland, John E. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Archer-Shee, Major M. Goulding, Edward Alfred Perkins, Walter F.
Baird, John Lawrence Grant, J. A. Peto, Basil Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Pringle, William M. R.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Haddock, George Bahr Raffan, Peter Wilson
Barnes, George N. Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Ratcliff, R. F.
Barnston, Harry Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Harris, Henry Percy Rees, Sir J. D.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Helmsley, Viscount Remnant, James Farquharson
Blair, Reginald Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Booth, Frederick Handel Hogge, James Myles Salter, Arthur Clavell
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Hope, Harry (Bute) Sanders, Robert Arthur
Boyton, James Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Butcher, John George Houston, Robert Paterson Stewart, Gershom
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Hume-Williams, W. E. Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Ingleby, Holcombe Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) Touche, George Alexander
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Kyffin-Tayior, G. Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Croft, H. P. Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Bootle) Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)
Denison-Pender, J. C. Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Watt, Henry Anderson
Denniss, E. R. B. M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Wheler, Granville C. H.
Duke, Henry Edward Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Fell, Arthur Middlemore, John Throgmorton Yate, Colonel C. E.
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Forster, Henry William Newton, Harry Kottingham TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Gilmour, Captain John Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Stanier and Viscount Dairymple.
Goldsmith, Frank

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 74.

Division No. 109.] AYES. [10.10 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Bentham, George Jockson Clancy, John Joseph
Acland, Francis Dyke Black, Arthur W. Clough, William
Adamson, William Boland, John Pius Clynes, John R.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Booth, Frederick Handel Collins, G. P. (Greenock)
Agnew, Sir George William Bowerman, Charles W. Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Condon, Thomas Joseph
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Brace, William Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Brady, Patrick Joseph Cotton, William Francis
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Brocklehurst, William B. Crooks, William
Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somersett) Brunner, John F. L. Crumley, Patrick
Barnes, George N. Bryce, J. Annan Cullinan, John
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs) Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Barton, William Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Carr-Gomm, H. W. Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Beale, Sir William Phipson Cassel, Felix Dawes, J. A.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Delany, William
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Chapple, Dr. William Allen Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas
Devlin, Joseph Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Dillon, John Lundon, Thomas Pringle, William M. R.
Donelan, Captain A. Lynch, A. A. Radford, G. H.
Doris, William Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Rattan, Peter Wilson
Duffy, William J. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) McGhee, Richard Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Reddy, Michael
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) M'Callum, Sir John M. Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Rendall, Athelstan
Esslemont, George Birnie M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Richards, Thomas
Farrell, James Patrick Manfield, Harry Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Ffrench, Peter Marks, Sir George Croydon Robinson, Sidney
Field, William Marshall, Arthur Harold Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Fitzgibbon, John Martin, Joseph Roe, Sir Thomas
Flavin, Michael Joseph Meagher, Michael Rowlands, James
Gelder, Sir William Alfred Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Rowntree, Arnold
Gill, Alfred Henry Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.
Gladstone. W. G. C. Menzies, Sir Walter Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Glanville, Harold James Middlebrook, William Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Goldstone, Frank Molloy, Michael Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Molteno, Percy Alport Scanlan, Thomas
Greig, Colonel J. W. Money, L. G. Chiozza Sshwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Morgan, George Hay Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Gulland, John William Morrell, Philip Sheehy, Davied
Hackett, John Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Sherwell, Arthur James
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Morison, Hector Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Hardie, J. Keir Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Muldoon, John Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Harris, Henry Percy Munro, Robert Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Murphy, Martin J. Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Newton, Harry Kottingham Sutherland, John E.
Hayden, John Patrick Nolan, Joseph Sutton, John E.
Hayward, Evan Norton, Captain Cecil W. Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Hazleton, Richard Nuttall, Harry Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Helme, Sir Norval Watson O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Taylor, Thomas(Bolton)
Henry, Sir Charles O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Thomas, James Henry
Higham, John Sharp O'Doherty, Philip Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Hodge, John O'Donnell, Thomas Toulmin, Sir George
Holmes, Daniel Turner O'Dowd, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Ogden, Fred Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Hughes, Spencer Leigh O'Grady, James Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Illingworth, Percy H. O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Watt, Henry Anderson
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Webb, H.
Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) O'Shee, James John White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Sullivan, Timothy Whitehouse, John Howard
Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe) Outhwaite, R. L. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Palmer, Godfrey Mark Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Jowett, Frederick William Parker, James (Halifax) Williamson, Sir Archibald
Joyce, Michael Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Keating, Matthew Pearce, William (Limehouse) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Kelly, Edward Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Winfrey, Richard
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Peto, Basil Edward Wing, Thomas
Kllbride, Denis Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Wood, Ht Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
King, Joseph Pointer, Joseph Yate, Colonel C. E.
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Young, William (Perth, East)
Lane-Fox, G. R. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lardner, James C. R. Price. Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)
Archer-Shoe, Major Martin Croft, Henry Page Haddock, George Bahr
Baird, John Lawrence Dalrymple, Viscount Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Denison Pender, J. C. Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)
Barnston, Harry Denniss, E. R. B. Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Doughty, Sir George Helmsley, Viscount
Blair, Reginald Duke, Henry Edward Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Hibbert, Sir Henry F.
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Fell, Arthur Hogge, James Myles
Boyton, James Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Hope, Harry (Bute)
Bridgeman, William Clive Forster, Henry William Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)
Campbell, Captain Duncan (Ayr, N.) Gilmour, Captain John Houston, Robert Paterson
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Goldsmith, Frank Hume-Williams, William Ellis
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.
Courthope, George Loyd Goulding, Edward Alfred Ingleby, Holcombe
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Grant, James Augustus Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)
Kyffin-Taylor, G. Remnant, James Farquharson Talbot, Lord Edmund
Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Salter, Arthur Clavell Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Sanders, Robert Arthur[...] Touche, George Alexander
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton) Ward, A. S. (Harts, Watford)
Middlemore, John Throgmorton Stanier, Beville Wheler, Granville C. H.
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Perkins, Walter Frank Starkey, John Ralph
Ratcliff, R. F. Steel-Maitland, A. D. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Rawson, Colonel Richard H. Stewart, Gershom F. Banbury and Mr. J. Mason
Rees, Sir J. D. Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Bill accordingly read a second time.


I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection:

That all Petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsels, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel or agents heard in support of the Bill:

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:

That three be the quorum."


I beg to move as an Amendment to leave out the words "five Members," and to insert instead thereof the word "four." This is a very important reference, because it deals with private interests, and, as a matter of fact, I believe that this Bill ought to go to the ordinary Private Bill Committee, which is one of the best tribunals which we have in this House.


Does the hon. Baronet object to the Bill being sent to a Select Committee because it affects private interests?


That is why I think the Bill should not be sent to a hybrid Committee.


This is the usual form for sending a Bill to a Select Committee.


Is it not possible to alter the usual form?


The hon. Baronet, I think, is generally very insistent that we should follow precedent.


Circumstances alter cases, and it may be necessary in dealing with this Bill, which is of rather a complicated nature, to make some alteration in the ordinary procedure applicable to ordinary Bills. I think my Amendment to leave nut the word "five" and insert the word "four" is in order, and therefore I propose that without any further remarks.


I beg to second the Amendment.


This is a most unusual Amendment to make. Of course, if the hon. Baronet moves it, I am bound to put it, but I would point out that it is altering the usual form.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 64.

Division No. 110.] AYES. [10.24 p.m.
Abraham. William (Dublin, Harbour) Boland, John Pius Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Acland, Francis Dyke Booth, Frederick Handel Condon, Thomas Joseph
Adamson, William Bowerman, Charles W. Cooper, Richard Ashmole
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Agnew, Sir George William Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Cotton, William Francis
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Brace, William Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Brady, Patrick Joseph Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian
Anstruther-Gray, Major William Brocklehurst, William B. Crooks, William
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Brunner, John F. L. Crumley, Patrick
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Bryce, J. Annan Cullinan, John
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Daniel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)
Barnes, George N. Buxton, Noel (Norfolk) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Barnston, Harry Carr-Gomm, H. W. Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.W.) Cassel, Felix Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Barton, William Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Dawes, J. A.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Delany, William
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Chapple, Dr. William Allen Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Clancy, John Joseph Denniss, E. R. B.
Bean, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Clough, William Devlin, Joseph
Bentham, G. J. Clynes, John R. Dillon, John
Black,,Arthur W. Collins. G. P. (Greenock) Donelan, Captain A.
Doris, William Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Radford, G. H.
Duffy, William J. Lundon, Thomas Rattan, Peter Wilson
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lynch, A, A. Rea, Rt. Hen. Russell (South Shields)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Reddy, Michael
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) McGhee, Richard Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Rendall, Athelstan
Esslemont, George Birnie M'Callum, Sir John M. Richards, Thomas
Falconer, James McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Farrell, James Patrick M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Manfield, Harry Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Ffrench, Peter Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Robinson, Sidney
Field, William Marks, Sir George Croydon Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Fitzgibbon, John Marshall, Arthur Harold Roe, Sir Thomas
Flavin, Michael Joseph Martin, Joseph Rowlands, James
Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Rowntree, Arnold
Gelder, Sir William Alfred Meagher, Michael Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Gill, Alfred Henry Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Gladstone, W. G. C. Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Glanville, Harold James Middlebrook, William Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Goldstone, Frank Middlemore, John Throgmorton Sanders, Robert Arthur
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Molloy, Michael Scanlan, Thomas
Greig, Colonel J. W. Molteno, Percy Alport Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Money, L. G. Chiozza Scott. A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Hackett, John Morgan, George Hay Sheehy, David
Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Morrison-Bell. Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Sherwell, Arthur James
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Morison, Hector Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Hardie, J. Keir Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Muldoon, John Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Munro, Robert Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Murphy, Martin J. Stewart, Gershom
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Murray, Captain Hon, Arthur C. Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire) Neilson, Francis Sutherland, John E.
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Newton, Harry Kottingham Sutton, John E.
Hayden, John Patrick Nolan, Joseph Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Hayward, Evan Norton, Captain Cecil W. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hazleton, Richard Nuttall, Harry Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Helme, Sir Norval Watson O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Thomas, James Henry
Henry, Sir Charles O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) O'Doherty, Philip Toulmin, Sir George
Higham, John Sharp O'Donnell, Thomas Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hodge, John O'Dowd, John Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Hogue, James Myles O'Grady, James Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Holmes, Daniel Turner O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Hope, John Deans (Haddington) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Shaughnessy, P J. Watt, Henry A.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh O'Shee, James John Webb, H.
Illingworth, Percy H. O'Sullivan, Timothy White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Palmer, Godfrey Mark White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Parker, James (Halifax) Whitehouse, John Howard
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe) Pearce, William (Limehouse) Williamson, Sir Archibald
Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Jewett, Frederick William Perkins, Walter F. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Joyce, Michael Peto, Basil Edward Winfrey, Richard
Keating, Matthew Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Wing, Thomas
Kelly, Edward Pointer, Joseph Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Yate, Colonel C. E.
Kilbride, Denis Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Young, William (Perth, East)
King, Joseph Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Lardner, James C. R. Primrose, Hon. Neil James TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Pringle, William M. R. Gulland and Mr. W. Jones.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Croft, H. P. Haddock, George Bahr
Baird, John Lawrence Dairymple, Viscount Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Denison-Pender, J. C. Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Doughty, Sir George Helmsley, Viscount
Bird, Alfred Duke, Henry Edward Hibbert, Sir Henry F.
Blair, Reginald Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Hope, Harry (Bute)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Fell, Arthur Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Bridgeman, William Clive Fletcher, John Samuel Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)
Butcher, John George Gilmour, Captain John Houston, Robert Paterson
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Goldsmith, Frank Hume-Williams, W. E.
Cave, George Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Goulding, Edward Alfred Ingleby, Holcombe
Courthope, George Loyd Grant, J. A. Kyffin-Taylor, G.
Craik, Sir Henry Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Lane-Fox, G. R.
Lewisham, Viscount Rees, Sir J. D. Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Remnant, James Farquharson Touche, George Alexander
Malcolm, Ian Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Salter, Arthur Clavell Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Newman, John R. P. Stanier, Beville Yerburgh, Robert A.
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Starkey, John Ralph
Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. Staveley-Hill, Henry TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Ratcliff, R. F. Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) F. Banbury and Mr. Jardine.
Rawson, Col. R. H.

Main Question put, and agreed to.