HC Deb 01 May 1923 vol 163 cc1286-327

Order for Second Reading read.

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


I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."


On a point of Order. May I direct your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present?


A count cannot be taken between 8.15 and 9.15.


This Bill seeks to confer powers on the Caledonian Railway Company for the acquisition of land and the maintenance of a hotel and golf course at Gleneagles in the county of Perth. A circular issued to Members of this House points out that objection is being taken to this Bill on the ground of third-class "sleepers," the reconstruction of the Buchanan Street Station in Glasgow and the facilities of passenger traffic from Glasgow. The circular states that these are not objections which are relevant to the Bill. I submit that they are very relevant. This Bill seeks to give to the Caledonian Railway powers which will involve a large expenditure of money. I take it from the Bill that they are not asking power to raise money to take over the golf course and finish the construction of the hotel. Consequently I take it that they intend to pay for those things out of the funds of the railway company. I submit that the construction of the Buchanan Street Station is of considerably more importance to a large industrial population and a commercial centre such as Glasgow than the construction of a golf course in the heart of Scotland, and the erection of a palatial hotel intended only to house luxurious tourists who go there to indulge in the game of golf.

The reconstruction of the Buchanan Street Station was contemplated by the Caledonian Railway Company for many years past. The only reconstruction which has taken place in the passengers' section has been to repaint it periodically and hang pots of flowers around it as though that were going to beautify a wooden erection that was put up possibly when Noah descended from the Ark. The provision of third class "sleepers" is another point, which ought to be considered by any railway company. When one considers the difficulties and discomforts of a journey at night, to those who cannot afford to pay first-class fare and £1 extra for the use of a "sleeper," and when many people have to travel at night and have no money to pay for sleeping accommodation, it is necessary to consider the provision of facilities for those people so that they may do their travelling with some comfort. Consequently I consider that the provision of third-class "sleepers" is a very important ground of objection to this Bill, because when railway companies come to this House to get further powers conferred upon them, there arises one of the few occasions on which Members can put forward the grievances of large sections of the community in reference to the railway companies and their methods of conveying passenger and goods traffic. The provision of third-class "sleepers" would, apart from the question of the general community, confer considerable benefit on large numbers of Members of this House who have to travel to Scotland on Friday nights and come back on Sunday nights.


With regard to the erection of the railway station, I do not raise any objection to the hon. Member's remarks. That is a matter for this particular company. But in reference to the question which is now raised by the hon. Member, I must draw attention to a ruling given by my predecessor on the 24th April, 1913, on the Second Reading of a similar Bill. That ruling states: The hon. Member is not entitled to take advantage of the fact that there is an omnibus Bill of a particular railway company to raise a grievance which applies not to that particular railway company alone, but to other railway companies. It stands exactly in the same position as third-class 'sleepers'; it cannot be raised on any one separate railway company's Bill. It is a general matter which must be dealt with by a general Bill and it is open to the hon. Member to bring in a Bill to abolish this particular system."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 24th April, 1913; Vol. 52, col. 655.]


Since that ruling was given by your predecessor, things have happened in this country. A Railway Bill has been passed which amalgamates the railways of this country, and the Caledonian Railway Company itself in the Bill refers to that amalgamation and includes itself as one part of this amalgamation. Consequently, while my remarks as to sleepers may seem applicable only to the Bill before the House at the moment, still the fact that the railway companies are now all in an amalgamation makes the matter of general application to all railway companies. The Caledonian Railway Company refers to itself in this Bill as a part of the London, Midland and Northern Railway Amalgamation, but I submit to your ruling if you press it.


I think that there is another company in Scotland on the East Coast. That makes the ruling apply.


I accept your ruling, though I am certain that a large number of people consider that this is a very urgent matter. But with regard to the reconstruction of Buchanan Street Station and the question of passenger facilities I submit that the money which will have to be spent if this Bill passes could be spent more usefully, so far as the people of Scotland are concerned, than on the acquisition of this golf course. The part of Scotland in which it is situated contains no industry. It is purely rural, and until the time that this golf course was projected, Gleneagles was an isolated station with only a small wooden waiting room which was the joke of all people who travelled to the North of Scotland via that line. And since the Gleneagles Company mentioned in this Bill laid down the golf course and commenced the construction of an hotel, a palatial junction has been placed there quite out of keeping with the amount of traffic that goes up to Gleneagles Station except the traffic which goes merely for the golfing.

I submit that until such time as this country has done a great many more things necessary for the well-being of the entire community, it cannot allow a railway company to expend money upon what, after all, is a pure luxury. There are plenty of golf courses in and around Glasgow, and on the West Coast and the East Coast. There is no occasion for another golf course in the heart of Scotland, at the present moment at any rate. The Railways Act of 1921 made a point of giving an assurance or guarantee on the part of the Government to the railway companies that their profits would not fall below the picked year of 1913. If the profits fell below that level and the railway companies could show that they had managed their railways with efficiency, the State had to guarantee the difference between the amount earned and the amount earned in 1913. There is no statement in this Bill that that money is to be raised by other means. Consequently we must assume that the money which the Caledonian Railway Company intends to expend is money that it has built up in its reserve funds, and that it is to form part of the new capital.

If the Gleneagles golf course does not show a profit, as I am certain will happen, since golf is purely a seasonal sport, are we to understand that the railway company can place upon the general expenditure of the railway company the loss made upon the course and hotel. If that is the case, it will bring down any profits which may be made by the company in other parts of the country. It surely is something beyond the intention of this House that any railway can enter on a project of this nature, and that persons who travel and merchants who send their goods by that railway should be compelled to pay their quota to the subsidising of a place that is only to be used by a few individuals for sport. That is one of the most striking arguments that we can put forward against the Bill. If the railway companies intend to carry out this scheme they ought to do it as something subsidiary to the railway, as seems to have been contemplated when the Gleneagles Company was first started, and when the Caledonian Railway Company acquired powers, in 1913, to lend money to the Gleneagles Company for the purpose of assisting it in carrying out the project then contemplated. If this were a subsidiary company, with its own capital and its own profit and loss account, standing upon its own legs and bearing either the burden of losses or the benefits of profit, one could not object to a scheme put forward by the railway company. But when they bring it in as part of the general working of the railway company, surely every man and woman who travels or sends goods by that company has a right to protest against the House passing such a Bill.

Then there is the question of the revision of fares. The English and Welsh sections of the amalgamation reduced their fares by the last 25 per cent. that had been put on. That is to say, they reduced the fares by one-seventh. In Scotland no such reduction has taken place. If you pick up the time tables and read what are called the revised fares, you will find that the Scottish people are paying that one-seventh still. There, again, we have a cogent argument against allowing a Bill of this character to pass. Week-end tickets have again been brought into vogue in a very limited manner for English and Welsh travellers, but one who has to go at the week-ends to Scotland does not get the benefit. If you travel on the Friday and leave London at 10 a.m., so as to arrive in Glasgow about 7 p.m., you must purchase an ordinary ticket. In pre-War times one could leave on the Friday morning and travel back on the Tuesday morning with a week-end ticket. To-day the week-end ticket is issued only after 5 o'clock, which means travelling by night both going and coming. We are told that this is an age when we must economise, and that we have too little money to spend upon luxuries. The passing of this Bill will give to the Caledonian Railway Company an opportunity for taking part in a display of extravagance and waste which this House time and time again has condemned, even in the Division Lobby. I hope that the House will refuse to give the powers which are sought by this company until the things that we desire most in this country have accomplished.


I beg to second the Amendment.

I recognise frankly that there are at least two difficulties which always attach to the discussion of a Bill of this kind. In the first place we are a little handicapped in debate by having to avoid as far as possible what is general argument applied to the railways as a whole, and by the effort to confine ourselves to this particular Measure. In the second place, I recognise it is difficult for any hon. Member to appear in opposition to a proposal which looks like one of railway development or progress in this country—particularly so for me in regard to a Scottish proposal of that kind. There are, however, considerations underlying this Bill on which the House is entitled to information, and I should like to summarise the difficulties as I see them in the shortest possible form. Quite clearly, this is an effort on the part of the Caledonian Railway Company to take over the undertaking begun by the Gleneagles Company. I am not going into the difficulties which have confronted that company, but there must have been difficulties of some kind, with the result that the railway company now appears on the scene and asks for considerable powers. These powers include the acquisition of land, and so forth, in the vicinity of this golf course, which, in the aggregate, involves the railway company in very considerable capital expenditure, and the question which we have to ask is how this capital expenditure is going to work out as affecting the people who use and who depend upon the railway services of this country?

The Mover of the Motion for the rejection of the Bill drew attention to Section 58 of the Railways Act, 1921. That Section amounts to a direction to the Rates Tribunal to fix the rates as far as possible so as to give the railway companies the net revenue of 1913, but there are included in that Section three paragraphs dealing with the different classes of capital expenditure. In Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), of that Section there is a direction to the Rates Tribunal to include capital expenditure on various works not less than £25,000 in the aggregate, undertaken since 1913, and, as far as I can find out, the proposal in this Bill would fall within that category. Unless we are quite mistaken, it would rank for consideration before the Rates Tribunal in the adjustment of the rates and charges which are fixed from time to time. This is not a party question, but an economic proposition, and I think hon. Members will agree that it is a very important point, because, at the present time, looking to the position of traders and the travelling public and the whole condition of railway service in this country, if we are to make any concessions at all they should be made in the realm of necessary and urgent work. Nobody will suggest that this provision at Gleneagles is of that character. It provides for what is in Scotland, and I am sure elsewhere, a very desirable sport, but it is not entitled to be considered alongside of the very grave needs of traders and the travelling public engaged in the pursuit of the industry and commerce on which the country depends. As far as I can find out there is nothing to prevent this expenditure being ranked by the Caledonian Railway Company—which is part of one of the two great amalgamations touching Scotland—as the condition arising under Section 58 of the Railways Act in the fixing of rates and fares so as to give effect to the requirements of the Act as regards the net revenue of 1913. Up to the present time we have had no information on that point. I am sure whoever speaks on behalf of this promotion will recognise that these are considerations on which the Scottish people and others are entitled to have information. For that reason and particularly because this is undeniably in the nature of luxury expenditure, I beg to second the Amendment.


In order to emphasise that this is not a party question, and that Members on both sides of the House will use their own judgment, regardless of party, I rise at once to join issue with my hon. Friends who have moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill. They are not only acting within their rights, but are carrying out a long-established practice in this House, and one which we must jealously safeguard, namely, availing ourselves of the opportunity given to any opponent of a Bill, to ask Parliament not to confer powers on a company or corporation if it can be shown, entirely apart from the merits of the particular Bill, that that company or corporation has failed to discharge its obligations. Therefore I do not think any supporter of this Bill is entitled to complain about the objections which have been raised, because this is obviously and naturally the opportunity for doing so. I would, however, make two observations on the opposition to the Bill. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that the question of third-class sleepers is not peculiar to the Caledonian Railway Company, and therefore you have indicated that however big a sinner the Caledonian Company may be—as a company—in this respect, it is no worse than the other sinners of railway companies in all parts of the country.

I am prevented from developing the argument in support of my hon. Friend's objection on that point, but it is equally applicable to the case of the week-end tickets. I myself take a very strong view on that subject, and I think one of the things that the railway companies, and especially the Scottish railway companies, should take note of, is the unfair position in which the members of the travelling public are placed with regard to week-end tickets. The obvious disadvantages of the present arrangement will occur to Members of this House when they consider that if the House rose at four o'clock on Friday or even if it rose on Thursday night, yet they would be unable to avail themselves of these week-end tickets unless they remained in London until late on Friday night. That is a matter which I should like to see dealt with in another way. The only point I want to make is that the Caledonian Company could not alter it even if they desired to do so, and that is important to bear in mind. They are only part of a great amalgamation, and even one amalgamation itself could not do it. The whole point turns on whether, even if we defeated this Bill, we, could accomplish the object which we have in view, and it is because it will be obvious to all hon. Members that even the defeat of this Bill could not do that, that I am asking the House not to agree to its rejection.


It draws attention to the matter.


Yes, and that is the advantage of the Debate, that attention has been drawn to it. When we come to the question of luxury travelling, let us examine it free from all cant. A railway company, it is alleged, must not provide a special train for the benefit of golfers. It is suggested that a railway company are going outside their province in either owning a golf course or making special facilities for the benefit of golfers.


I am not averse to any railway company running special trains for golfers or football supporters, but I take it as beyond the function of a railway company to acquire and own, at this time, either a golf course or a hotel that is merely to be kept for the use of those who go to the golf course to golf.


That is somewhat different from my hon. Friend's first argument. I was going to point out this, that a railway company derive their revenue, and the men whom I represent get their wages, from the more traffic that the railway company can carry, and therefore I am not at all going to quarrel with them for providing golf specials or football specials. It was a jolly good thing to get a number of special trains to Wembley last Saturday. They provided revenue for them, and whether it be to a football match, a cricket match, or a golf match, or whether it be revenue for providing for the masses or the classes, makes no difference; they are still discharging their functions as caterers for the travelling public. It might reasonably be argued otherwise, that they have no right to own a hotel. I wonder how many Members of this House really know the kind of business that railway companies, by the very nature of things, are compelled to engage in. It might be argued, I say, that they are not entitled to own a hotel or to come to this House for power to buy a hotel, but they would be able to prove conclusively that it is to their advantage, as a railway company, to do so. My hon. Friend says this is contrary to the Railways Act.


No. I made no such statement. I asked the promoter of the Bill, whoever he may be, whether this is to rank under the Sub-section of the Act which I quoted. It is in no way contrary to the Act.


The point which my hon. Friend raised is whether that Section of the Act which deals with the rates would be applicable to this, and how it would be argued as coming within its scope for the purpose of charges. I am sure that no promoter of the Bill could answer that. If I were in charge of the Bill, there is only one answer I could give, and it would be this, that it would be inconceivable that the present Rates Tribunal, or any Rates Tribunal, should decide that a particular rate should be put on the remainder of the travelling public, if it was due, and it was shown to be due, exclusively to this particular Act. We have got to apply common sense. We know very well the kind of thing that was argued when the particular Section in question was debated in the House, and we also know the kind of argument that governs the Rates Tribunal, how they are influenced, and how they arrive at their decisions. I put it to my hon. Friend that it is rather stretching his imagination to say that the rates in Scotland are going to be adversely affected, or the Rates Tribunal influenced, by a deficit or otherwise on Gleneagles. I would, however, rather come to the other point. My hon. Friend made a complaint about the Caledonian Company not having given the public the benefit of the reduction in railway fares, but he was unaware, obviously, of the fact that the reduction is an exact pro rata reduction to that which took place in England.


Oh, no.


Do not let it be assumed for a moment that I am arguing that the rates are either low enough or too low. That is not my point, and I do not want to be misunderstood in that in the least, but I am pointing out that, so far as the Caledonian Company are concerned, if they are sinners in this respect, they are sinning not only with all the Scottish companies, but with the English and Welsh companies as well.


The Scottish railways have not reduced their fares in any way, because in pre-War times the Scottish travelling public had from the railway companies a fare of less than 1d. per mile, but since the War, and since the revision of the fares in England, the railway companies in Scotland have kept the fares at the figure to which they were raised when they put on the 50 per cent. and then an additional 25 per cent.


That is exactly what I was endeavouring to show, namely, that the result to-day is not due to the Caledonian Company alone. There is a general equality for England and Scotland, but the Scottish rates were lower. I have got to take some responsibility for that, of course.


And we have got to suffer!


When I argued before the railway companies that the Scottish railwaymen were entitled to the same conditions as the English railwaymen, obviously I could not put that up to them and also say they must have a lower rate for the Scottish passenger, and the English passenger must not get the benefit. You cannot have it both ways. I am stating the facts, and the facts are that, rightly or wrongly, we went in for standardisation, and, for good or evil, it carried with it the very thing that the hon. Member has mentioned. That cannot be disputed. I would only point out this—I am not going to enter into the question of the Buchanan Street Station, because I want to see a number of stations both in England and Scotland improved. I want to see a large amount of the reserves that were allocated for that purpose used for the purpose for which they were intended, but I want to point out to my hon. Friend—and he knows the fact perfectly well—that the Caledonian Railway went a long way to endeavour to meet the objections to this Bill. He knows that there are several hundreds, I believe nearly a thousand, men at this moment employed at Gleneagles. Is it intended that we should hinder them? There was a dispute there. The Caledonian Railway Company were in no way responsible for that unfortunate dispute. Following a block on this Bill, a satisfactory settlement was arrived at and that grievance was removed. If this Bill is rejected tonight—and I notice my hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) coming in, and I congratulate him on his success—if this Bill is rejected to-night the fact remains that none of these grievances could be remedied—none of them! The net effect would be an injury and probably the lose of work to a large number already employed. There may be difficulties that ought to be argued out in Committee, and which will be so argued out. But my hon. Friends can understand the deduction I make, when I join issue with them, and propose to support the Second Reading of this Bill.


As a supporter of this Bill, let me say that the general case has been so fairly put by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down that it is not necessary for me to cover the ground again. In relation to the speeches of the hon. Members who moved the rejection of the Bill, let me say that the question of the expenditure of capital on this undertaking, so far as Parliament is concerned, is plain. It was authorised in 1913 by Parliament, as expenditure not only in loans, but in the actual construction. The hotel was being built when the work had to be suspended owing to the War. The object of this Measure is to enable the company to complete the building. I do not think anybody can say that it is not in the interests of the railway company and its revenues that this work should be completed, or that its revenues will not be enhanced by completion. That is the whole object of the Bill, and of the Caledonian Railway Company in desiring to carry the work to completion.

To the second place, I should like to say there are no powers to acquire land compulsorily from anyone sought in this Bill. No body or interest can possibly be injured by the carrying out of the works which it is sought to authorise by the Bill. In the third place, in respect to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), he has not correctly interpreted the effect of the Act of 1921 with regard to the result to the public interest of expenditure of this character. If the result of this expenditure is to be to enhance the undertaking which will increase the revenue of the company, and thereby assist the company, or makes it better able to earn a surplus, a percentage of that surplus is going towards the reduction of the rates. The case, therefore, does not arise which he suggests. The Clause of the Act of 1921 to which he refers is a Clause under which the whole discretion with regard to giving effect to capital expenditure is left to the discretion of the tribunal who are, by statute, to settle the rates from time to time, and it is only so far as they consider it reasonable that any allowance is to be made in respect of capital.

9.0 P.M.

I do not want to enter into a legal argument upon a Clause which probably will come before the tribunal, but it is, I think, perfectly clear that it is only so far as the discretion of the tribunal goes that expenditure, considered to be reasonable, will be allowed to rank as capital expenditure. I agree that it would be a misfortune for the revenue of the company if this work were to be stopped at the moment. I also agree that it would be a misfortune for the workmen, who would be thrown out of employment. I should like to remind hon. Members connected with the Labour party that, in a sense, this is just the kind of thing that I understood they were pleading for last week, when they were asking for provision to be made in times like this for as many people as possible to be employed so as to prevent the increase of unemployment. This is a typical case. This is work that is authorised by Parliament. Can any hon. Members above the Gangway suggest a time at which this work would be more appropriately done than the present? I also, in conclusion, say that I am entirely in accord with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that no possible effect for good can be produced by rejecting this Measure. None of the grievances will be remedied—not one! I do not complain at all of the opportunity being taken to raise the questions that have been raised. I do not take any objection to that at all. If it were a question of having some of the things carried out, probably I should be found voting with them, but I cannot go the length of saying that because there are some things we want, we are not going to pass a Measure to complete the development of this undertaking, when I know perfectly well it would not advance the cause of these other objects to reject the Measure.


I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I say that as yet there has been no case made out by the promoters of this Bill. The question which the House has to consider is not one which is complex or in any way confused. It is a simple question which any hon. Member can solve for himself by an understanding of the facts, and the facts are very easily discernable, particularly by those who know something of the local situation. I would submit that one of the most cogent arguments against the acceptance of this Bill has been suggested by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, for he asks—and quite properly—if the Government had undertaken works of this kind, would hon. Members on these benches have opposed such a project.


I did not say that.


I understood the hon. Member to suggest that the Government might undertake work which would involve the employment of a large body of men at present unemployed.


I do not know whether it is very material to the argument, but my point was that the principle which is being acted upon by the railway company might have been that of the Government, and I did not suggest whether the work was to carried out by the Government or by the company.


Then may I submit the point in my own way and suggest that if the Government, in pursuance of its intention to provide work for unemployed men, had suggested a scheme for the employment of unemployed persons which was, in the opinion of this House, unremunerative and unproductive, it would have been strenuously opposed? It is precisely because we believe that this work is of such a character that we offer our opposition on this occasion. The hon. Member below the Gangway has submitted that the revenues of this company would be increased in consequence of the construction of a hotel and golf course at Gleneagles. That shows, if I may say so, an appalling lack of knowledge of the situation at Gleneagles. Gleneagles has been famous in Scotland for some years as a golf course. It attracts a fairly large number of visitors from Glasgow and Edinburgh who, in the main, do not desire to reside at Gleneagles, but who make haste to return to their native cities immediately the game is over, and the provision of a hotel there will not attract visitors from the surrounding district, though it may induce some of us to go to Scotland for a brief period of rest at Gleneagles. But there are in Scotland a large number of smaller hotels, golf courses and hydropathic establishments, and what has been the fate of those establishments It is well known that at Moffat and I think Peebles and Strathpeffer—certainly at some of these establishments in Scotland—there have been financial difficulties of an acute kind. In the case of Moffat, it cannot be disputed that the famous Moffat. Hydro has passed from one hand to another, and has proceeded on its course until now it is in the hands of a syndicate who do not really know what to do with the place, very largely because of the absence of these desirable Southerners, who, it is alleged, spend all the money they earn in England in the wilds of Scotland. I submit that the facts relating to the existing establishments make it appear as if the establishment of a new hotel at Gleneagles is hardly calculated to be remunerative.

Let me turn to the actual facts of the case as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). May I submit that his case has not yet been answered? He referred to the station at Buchanan Street. I think he ventured to describe it as somewhat archaic. That is a very mild term to use about Buchanan Street Station, a wooden, tumble-down erection, a terminus associated with one of the most famous railway lines in this country in a main throughfare, a station which has been the subject of very much adverse comment and jocularity in Glasgow for many years. It is true the Caledonian Railway Company are threatening to construct a new station, but their threats have never come to anything tangible, and now they propose to construct a palatial station and hotel at Gleneagles, over 60 miles away in the wilds of the midlands, only for the purpose of enabling tourists to recuperate, when a place like Glasgow demands the construction of a decent station in the heart of the city. Moreover, if the Caledonian Railway Company proposes to expend capital in further enterprise, then we who know something of the needs of the situation as between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the Midlands of Scotland, might suggest the reconstruction of tie underground railway. To say the least, it is a positive scandal that there should exist in Glasgow at the present time an underground railway with a service by no means consistent with the needs of the community.


Is this underground railway under the same company?


Yes. I wish to confine myself to the Caledonian Railway Company's works. This Bill, I submit, is not by any means consistent with the needs of the community in Glasgow. Moreover, for many years now—certainly for the last 17 or 18 years, since I have been associated with the trade union movement in Glasgow—we, have been complaining about the workmen's trains which are in the possession of this particular company. We have gone in deputation to the company. We have sometimes, I am afraid, threatened the company, but all to no avail, for they have been adamant, and the condition of workmen's trains on the Caledonian Railway to-day is just as bad as it was 16 or 17 years ago. I sumbit that if this company is to be allowed to sink capital they should remedy the existing state of things. May I submit that the question of the railwaymen's conditions and wages is hardly relative to the question under review. I yield to no man in my desire to maintain the comparatively decent conditions which railwaymen are fortunate enough to have, but I would suggest very respectfully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that railwaymen might be better employed earning wages for useful and productive purposes instead of conveying more or less empty trains in particular railway lines for the benefit of a few wealthy golfers. It will be noted that on this particular line to Gleneagles, both from Glasgow and Edinburgh, there are very few workmen's trains and the special trains are intended to convey the middle-class golfers. Therefore, I submit, that the railwaymen have nothing to gain by being engaged in such an unproductive enterprise.

The case has been argued out by my hon. Friend, and I submit that this House has to consider whether the Caledonian Railway Company and its associated lines, having a monopoly as it has, is entitled to sink capital in unproductive enterprises. Hon. Gentlemen opposite frequently complain of the proposals which come from these benches with regard to the production of work for unemployed persons and they contend quite wrongly that we wish to spend money on digging holes and filling them up again. We argue quite properly in this instance that the use of capital should be solely devoted to producing something useful and necessary for the community, and I am amazed that hon. Members are thinking of supporting a Bill of this character which will lead to nothing productive or tangible, and will only be the means of providing a few more games of golf for middle-class business men in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and a few jaded tourists who are seeking relief from their excessive energy in the South of England. I hope this Bill will be considered from the point of view of what is best for the nation.


It is seldom that I have an opportunity of saying a word in this House, and on this occasion I find myself in that very pleasant position of being entirely in accord with the opinion which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). In this matter I am in a position of impartiality. I have no shares in this railway company, but I have the advantage of knowing Buchanan Street railway station quite well, and I know equally well Gleneagles golf course and the country round about it. While I sympathise with the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill in many ways, I am not opposed to this Bill. If there were third-class sleepers to Scotland, I would gladly use them, provided that the trains were not so long that they would stretch out to Willesden.

There has been no real fundamental argument against this Bill which would warrant its rejection by the House. What is the main question that determines the case one way or another? It is whether it comes properly within the business of a railway company to make a golf course or not from the point of view of furtherance of its traffic. Anybody who knows the business of a railway company, knows perfectly well that part of its legitimate business is to make traffic to increase its traffic receipts, and perfectly rightly, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, to give employment to the railway men as well. From this point of view of railway traffic, it is clear that it is a perfectly legitimate and necessary and proper thing, if a company finds its traffic is increased by having an hotel at this, that, or the other town for it to build that hotel. If a railway company thinks that its traffic will be increased by the construction of a golf course, it is perfectly proper for it to make a golf course, and if the company have not such powers it is only right that they should be given the powers required to do this.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down gave a long description of how badly the different hydropathic and other establishments have managed their businesses. The test, in the first place, is whether it is a proper thing for the railway companies to do? The House might very well consider whether hon. Members opposite and others know the company's business better than the company's officials as to whether they will make a profit by the adventure or not. If I were asked with whom I would like to trust my money if I had any to invest, I would sooner it was dealt with by the officials of the company than by those hon. Members who have spoken against this Bill. I am a little surprised at what the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said. I think he questioned the wisdom of the company in spending their capital in this way, but I do not think that any new authorised capital depends on this business and there is no new authorisation of capital under this Bill at all. If any capital is required it has already been authorised but not issued. This part of the case anyhow has really been met very largely by what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said. When all is said and done if it comes to a real increase one way or the other in the capital it would be almost negligible.


There is no reference to discretion on the part of the Rates Tribunal. There was a definite expenditure undertaken in 1913 and it seems to me that part of this expenditure would rank in that category.


I will leave it between the right hon. Gentleman, who is a greater authority than I am on this question, and the hon. Member himself, but I will beg to differ from him on the subject.

Then again the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill made a distinction between investments of money by the company direct in a concern of this kind and investment through a subsidiary Gleneagles Company. I do not think there will be any difference whatever in the financial results. If it did not receive dividends, or had to pay a call, or whatever it was, it would come out of its revenues just as much as would a direct loss by the company itself. When the hon. Member who has just spoken dealt with the question of hydropathic establishments and how they fail and the ill-results from them, I do not think he mentioned Turnberry.


I did not.


Perhaps he was careful not to mention Turnberry, which I think is one of the courses supported by a railway company.


In the case of Turn-berry it is on the main railway line of the Glasgow and South Western Railway, in the vicinity of a very large number of coast towns which attract a large number of visitors. That is entirely different from this case.


And Gleneagles is on the main railway line between Edinburgh or Glasgow by the Caledonian route and Perth and attracts a large number of visitors to the golf course in summer or to Carsbreck in winter, and no one can say that that sort of venture has an ill-success when a golf course is attached. The main fundamental fact, however, is whether it is a right and proper thing for a railway company to engage in enterprise which can properly increase its traffic. I think the answer clearly is "Yes." The only other specific point is whether the railway company is so foolish in its judgment over this that we as Members of this House ought to protect it against the consequence of its own folly. What would be the judgment of the business community if we were to say to this railway company, "You are engaging in a thing which is undoubtedly going to cause you a loss, and we really must prevent your doing this in your own interest." They would say that they were much better judges of what was in their interest.


Occasionally, they are not.


Occasionally not; there are always mistakes, but he knows as well as I do that probably on the whole they know their business best, and if they do, on the whole, that is the broad principle by which we should judge. I would be the first to wish that Buchanan Street railway station might be changed. I agree it is not the architectural pride of Glasgow, and I trust that whether it is a joy or not it will not last for ever. At the same time, we are more likely to have it changed and put right if we allow the company to do things which, in their own judgment, will increase and not diminish their profits. I know Gleneagles quite well, and again I join issue with the hon. Member who has just spoken. In principle it is not a question at all of the sort of traffic that is carried on the line, whether a great number of people to a football match or a less number to a golf course. The last time I was at Gleneagles golf course it was not a question of jaded tourists from England or day trippers from Glasgow. I think the hon. Member said "middle-class merchants." What happened was that of the two classes of people I saw there from personal experience one was a wealthy American tourist, and I was perfectly delighted to see him spending his money in Gleneagles. He told me that the one thing that prevented him being anchored to Gleneagles during his holiday was the absence of an hotel built there.


He could have had an hotel at Auchterarder.


The hon. Gentleman does not know it as well as I do. I have stayed there, and it would take some time to get to Gleneagles from there. We should both be content to stay at Auchterarder, but I am talking of the psychology of an American who wants to step out of the hotel door on to the links. On the same day there was a competition of the barbers from Glasgow. There were either special coaches attached to the train or a special train, and the whole of the links was nearly full that day. I do not know how the Members for Glasgow got their hair cut on that day in Glasgow. Some of them, as an hon. Member suggests, do not shave in Glasgow, I know. Perhaps it may have been the day on which they do not shave. The whole links was full of barbers. A great many of them would have given a good many strokes either to the hon. Gentleman or to me, because some were uncommon good players. It is all very well too to talk of employment on unproductive work. It all turns on what is unproductive work. Surely no healthy amusement is unproductive. No one would want to shut down every cinema because it is unproductive. Amusement of that kind, whether for the barbers of Glasgow or others, cannot be as simply classed as that. When I was there I saw a large number of men employed who were really getting employment which I was told they would not otherwise get, and which stood them in good stead in time of great need. I do not call a good day's amusement in the open air for all classes who can go there on cheap trains unproductive, and on that ground I do not think the argument is valid.

I have no brief for the Caledonian, and I have tried quite impartially to take the case on its merits. I think this well within the business of the railway company, and I think they are best able to judge what will increase their traffic than we who, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Derby, are not railway specialists. Surely it gives a great deal of beautiful open air life in one of the finest parts of Scotland to all classes of the population, and can be made to serve more. For these reasons I hope most heartily that this Bill will pass, and that the House will give it a Second Reading.


I first heard of this Bill by a communication from Perth from some crofters who anticipate difficulties arising on the question of whether or not provisions will be made for them as to removal from quarters where they are now situated. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) seems to speak specially for the Caledonian Company directors. That strikes me as rather a peculiar situation from the point of view that we have found that same right hon. Gentleman specially identified with the recognition of railway directors in the handing over of very substantial sums of money granted by the Government in recognition of their services. I do feel that, not only from the point of view of those who are resident in Glasgow, and are represented by their own Members here to-day, but also from the standpoint of Dundee, this is a favourable opportunity for entering a special protest against the fact that the Caledonian Railway Company have so long ignored the interests of their regular passengers in regard to Buchanan Street Station. It has been a subject of comment for years that so much money has been laid out on this particular place known as Gleneagles Station. It was not, in the ordinary way, a place that the Caledonian Railway might have been expected to fasten upon as particularly likely to attract large bodies of people, and I do not think it has attracted very many. There are numbers who frequent the place, but when you come to study the very beautiful station which they have erected at considerable expense, and its attractions for comparatively a passing few, as compared with the steady demands of the regular travelling public between Dundee and Glasgow, and Perth and Glasgow, you see that for years that same monument to the discredit of the Caledonian Railway Company has stood without any alteration.

Even in the district of Dundee, where the Caledonian is linked up in a joint concern with the Dundee and Arbroath Joint Railway, requests have been made for some facilities for the general body of workers—even a modern sort of platform arrangement, which could be erected at comparatively little expense, to meet the demands of ship workers in that quarter; but we find it frankly put forward to us, on behalf of the company, that it would be a great expense even to give such a reasonable facility. Surely, when we come to face such expenditure as is proceeding in connection with this undertaking at Gleneagles, we are bound to take this opportunity of supporting the right hon. Gentleman who has faced the question and laid these disadvantages under which we labour frankly before the House, and when we find intervening with very considerable skill and remarkable diplomacy the right hon. Gentleman who tried to balance himself between the right hon. Gentleman at the front of him and the hon. Member behind him as to how he would treat that expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who specially represents the organised workers on the railways, admits that the management of the companies are sinners. He says it is no use picking out one section and endeavouring to lay upon it the whole onus of responsibility for their sins of commission and omission. You must simply take it as an accepted fact that they are sinners in one complete bunch, and you can do nothing else with them than say, "Amen, so let it be."

To me and, I think, to others outside this House, that is exceedingly interesting, because I daresay many have paid for some years special attention to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in his handling of many questions which involve difficulties, to say the least of it, between the ownership of the railways and the men to whom he made some special reference this evening. He said that, as the traffic increases, so the men receive the benefit. I shall be glad to hear from any branch of the National Union of Railwaymen in this country that they have found the management of the railways respond in the way the right hon. Gentleman has stated. I do not think so. I feel that it is all the more reason why we should oppose this Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is acting as its sponser. We have to recognise the fact that the railway companies all along have been an exceedingly difficult agency with which to grapple when we have endeavoured to urge improvements and requirements of the kind which have been indicated from the Front Bench this evening, and I should certainly expect that, logically, anyone in this House who is identified with the working-class movement, and especially the working-class movement associated with the railways, would be with us and for us all the way on a question of this kind.

It has been said that, supposing you do oppose this Measure, you cannot get the things you are speaking about. The right hon. Gentleman referred to moneys having already been allocated for the improvement of stations, and he himself felt that he would like to see an improvement, not only in Buchanan Street Station, but in other stations in the country. We might have had the advantage of some information as to what steps he has taken to approach the organised owners of the railway companies, and to urge that at least they should make some little departure from the path of wrong-doing, and start on the path of rectitude for once; but that was left a blank. No doubt, when someone else on some other occasion seeks to make the necessary intervention, the right hon. Gentleman will find it feasible to enter in and act on behalf of the management of the railways. As regards the question of unemployment, the work has been going on for years. In fact, I do not suppose that it is very far from actual completion, and it is light and airy talk for anyone, especially from the Liberal Benches, to urge the question of employment when, from the benches on this side of the Gangway, the issues of unemployment have been urged in very special fashion, and particularly on Friday last. It is no use introducing a point of this kind on such an issue as this, because, in reality, what we have to do with is a powerful railway company; and if it be said, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby did say, that they cannot make the necessary exceptions in regard to week-end tickets apart from those with whom they are associated, here at any rate it is within their power to operate separately in regard to the outlay of money for such an undertaking as this, and to carry forward its extension to such a degree that it is expanding over a large part of the territory in that quarter. We do not find any allusion yet to the satisfaction that is required by those whom I mentioned at the outset, namely, the crofters, who are certainly wanting to know how they are to be situated in the carrying through of these arrangements. I certainly feel this is one of those occasions in the House of Commons when we have those powerful agencies in the country that are in the habit of rushing things by the subtle initial method of reaching not simply one side of the House but both sides of the House to gain their purposes, and that is the particular moment for organised labour to pay special attention to the circumstances which are prevalent in this matter to-night.


It is most interesting to me to observe that the organised opposition above the Gangway have at last undertaken a new class of work, namely, to be so concerned with the profits of railway companies, and to see that the companies do not lose any money. The facts are very simple. In 1913 the Caledonian Railway Company received powers from this House to invest money in this golf course and hotel, which was being built by a small company. During the War this was stopped, and after the War the company could not finance itself, and the Caledonian Railway Company advanced the money for the completion of the hotel and the golf course. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) asked about one station which was going to be built. It must be a long time since he was there, because the station at Gleneagles was completed long ago. Gleneagles is a junction on the main line between Glasgow and Aberdeen. The district is being opened up. If there is one thing that is wanted in country districts, both in Scotland and in England, it is to open up the districts. Apart from the profits which the railway company will get out of the hotel and the golf course, you will have brought to the district other people who will assist the inhabitants, make life more pleasant for them and open up the district, and not only that but there will be the building of houses for the purpose of supplying the needs of people about the hotel. It is work of a productive and not an unproductive nature owing the fact that the Caledonian Railway Company have advanced so much money. It is well within the province of a railway company to carry on such a business. Looking to the situation of the golf course and the hotel, looking to the fact that it is a junction, and that the Caledonian Railway Company are going to carry out this work and complete it, and that it will be productive of good to the district, I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.


I feel that the House this evening is within its rights to say in what direction railway development is going to take place. That is the only reason why, throughout the whole of the railway development period during the last century, it was always maintained by all parties that railways were more than merely private businesses, that they were public utilities under the control of Parliament, and if they required or asked for new development the direction in which these developments should take place remained at the discretion of the Parliament of the day. I feel that this function of Parliament is being exercised to-night, and it seems very curious that, with one or two exceptions, the opinions of the Scottish Members seem to be mainly all on one side. I am not against the golf course at Gleneagles. I have enjoyed being there before, and I hope to be there again, but that is another proposition from the question that we are being asked to face. We are not being asked to finance a golf course, or to allow the railway company to finance a golf course, which is in being, nor to provide moneys for the railway stations—and the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Hutchison) questioned the hon. Member for Linlithgow in saying the station had been built. He inferred that it had been there previously. It is true that there was a station there previously, but when this project was initiated, about 1912, the whole of the station was remodelled, and it is absolutely a new station. With regard to another point raised by an hon. Member opposite, who compared this hotel venture with the experience of another Scottish company in Ayrshire, it came as a surprise to me, because the hon. Member obviously was familiar with golf courses in Scotland.

The characteristic distinction between Turnberry as a commercial venture and an inland course such as Gleneagles is that Turnberry is available for 12 months in the year, and Gleneagles, on account of the climate and the soil, cannot be available for more than four or five months at the outside. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is not very much more than that. Speaking from my personal experience, the traffic at Gleneagles is practically nothing at all during the winter months. I think that point ought to be kept in mind. As to catering for Glasgow barbers, or even for American visitors, I do not think that is the prime function of a railway company. If we are going to exercise any power over the project and the presen Bill at all, it is to tell railway companies generally, and the Caledonian Railway Company in this particular insance, that first things ought to come first and that there are many others things in their system that are crying out for attention far more than the one they have put forward on this occasion. It has been said that the stoppage of this project would create unemployment. I hardly think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), is very familiar with the project, or he would not have claimed that, it is presently engaging over 1,000 workpeople. No one has attempted in the least to put forward a case for the Measure, and those who have casually dropped in as its supporters have made out no case. They have contended that the companies know their own business. I think there is hardly a county in Scotland that is not strewn with the derelicts of railway companies. You actually have this particular company owning a stretch of line, running from Ayrshire into Lanarkshire, over which, during the whole time of its existence, only one train—the train that carried the directors for the opening—has ever passed. No use was ever made of that railway, until some of the rails and the ironwork of some of the bridges were shipped across to France during the War. The same thing is true of many other parts, and when one considers that projects such as this, which are now lying derelict in Scotland, passed not only the general managers of the railway companies in question but also eluded the vigilance of the Opposition in this House at that time, one must confess it is the duty of the Opposition in the present House of Commons—and it is not all on one side of the House to-night—to insist on a proper case being made out for this proposal, such as can stand examination and criticism.

There are things I think which ought to come before this. I do not wish to hark on that outstanding shame, as it has been called, of the so-called Buchanan Street Station, in Glasgow, which is not much better than a set of wooden sheds run together, which get a little whitewash and paint about once in every five years. When one compares that place, for instance, with the beautiful new station that was built at Gleneagles, the question of priority arises immediately. I think there are two points in the Caledonian Railway system far more deserving of attention than the project they are putting forward in this Bill. One is connected with the underground system owned by the company, and running east and west through Glasgow. That underground system is still in the position in which some of the London undergrounds were about 30 or 40 years ago. It is still run by steam locomotives, and, so far as employment is concerned, a project for the electrification of that part of the underground system owned by the Caledonian Railway Company would provide far more employment than 400 Gleneagles hotels. So far as increasing the traffic is concerned, a re-arrangement, and a going back, even to pre-War conditions in regard to workmen's fares on the same company's system, would provide far more traffic than this project. I am not in favour of this Bill, and I intend to vote against it. It is not that I am against this scheme as a development of railway enterprise. I am against it because I think there are at least 100 other points in the railway system of Scotland that deserve priority of attention before the one we are considering to-night.


I would not have attempted to address the House this evening had it not been for the references by some hon. Members opposite to those wicked Southeners who sometimes go north of the Tweed.


You are not a wicked man.


As one who has played on very many golf courses in Scotland, and who knows most of the leading golf courses in that, country, I say, without a shadow of hesitation in regard to the observations of an hon. Member opposite, who said that there was no parallel between the golf course at Turnberry and that at Cruden. Bay, which is owned by the Great Northern of Scotland Railway Company, there is an exact parallel between the course at Gleneagles and those two particular courses. I have been to both of them in the month of February, which is a winter month, and one finds these hotels are practically empty at that time of the year. Therefore I think the argument the hon. Member used, that Gleneagles will only be used for four or five months in the year—which I do not think is correct—is not a very fair one, and cannot be substantiated. That is not the point which I rose to put before the House.

I have spoken to some of the leading golfing professionals on this matter, and every one of them tell me that Gleneagles is the finest course on which they have ever played. I say, without hesitation, that there are literally hundreds of southern golfers, and people from all over the country, who are only waiting for this hotel to be built to flock there, and thus provide considerable revenue for the Caledonian Railway. Therefore I say that this matter is one quite apart from whether it is our business, or the question of the railway directors. It will bring a considerable revenue to the Caledonian Railway, and will provide such a profitable transaction for them that it will produce revenue which will enable the schemes outlined on the benches opposite to be expedited much more quickly than by opposing this Bill.

10.0 P.M.


I intend to go into the Lobby in favour of the Bill. I rather congratulate the last speaker, because if he be going to go to Gleneagles, or up to Scotland, then, so far as his party is concerned, that will be about the only visit to Scotland they will have. My reason for supporting the Bill is because I think that to defeat this scheme now would be foolish in the extreme. If this Bill had been brought before us at a time when the Gleneagles scheme was originally started, and before one penny piece had been expended upon it, I should have gone into the Lobby against the scheme being started at all. I think, originally, it was never a good scheme, nor one on which a railway should enter. My point is that so much capital has now been expended on it; that you have now built a railway station; and that you have expended considerable sums of money in the development of the place, that it would be foolish to stop now, in the midst of the scheme, and so waste the whole of your previous expenditure. That is my main point. I think now it has gone so far that it would be wrong to stop it without full development. For my part, I disagree with my hon. Friends. After all, the golf course is open more than five months of the year. I have watched working people go there at any time of the year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Working people!"] Yes. Working people, unless there are one or two politicians.


You do not call them working people.


I was just going to add that when I looked at you. That is no reason why we should stop it. This means that you have 500 or 600 men—I think 1,000 men is an exaggeration—at least 600 men are employed there. If you stop this scheme, those 600 men are going to be dismissed. It may be all very well to tell them that your reason for having them dismissed was that you wanted a new station at Buchanan Street, but that would not find work for the 600 men dismissed. It may be that your reasons are logical in the extreme, but my point for the moment is that to stop this scheme, after all the capital has been expended on it and after development has taken place there, would be foolish and not right at all. May I say I have been challenged for blocking this Bill originally? It is perfectly true I did that, for other reasons. It was because the contract for plumbing work was given to a contractor who refused to carry out the Fair Wages Clause to the men employed. I thought I was entitled, until that was done, to block the Bill. The company have decided to grant these wages and I withdrew the block from the Bill. That is the whole history of my blocking the Bill. It was what I was perfectly entitled to do. Happily, on behalf of certain of my constituents, I succeeded; I usually do. Apart from that, I hope this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division and that the Bill will be allowed to pass.


Among the many extraordinary arguments in support of this Bill I can place as an easy first the argument used by the last speaker. A fortnight ago he was quite prepared to kill this Bill and the company and everybody connected with it, because some plumbers did not get the district rate of wages, but, his plumbers having got the district rate of wages, or having been promised them, the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) suddenly becomes aware of the fact that it would be suicidal to stop this Gleneagles experiment because of the extraordinary amount of capital that has already been sunk in it. That argument did not appear to affect him a fortnight ago, but he has had a miraculous conversion since. A fortnight ago the amount of capital sunk in the Gleneagles experiment did not appear to him to be a very conclusive reason and that, I think, is a miraculous and extraordinary conversion for an experienced politician of his years to make. Another extraordinary reason adduced to-night in support of this Bill was by the hon. Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) who said that the railway companies ought to know their business better than their critics on this side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Some Members appears to endorse that view. The present state of railway development in this country; the site of Buchanan Street Station; the underground railway in Glasgow belonging to the Caledonian Railway Company; the railway system put down by the directors, which only carried one train except the train that opened the railway; a waste of stations; stations built and never used—the present railway system in Scotland is a standing monument of inefficiency and stupidity and not a testimonial to business acumen or ability on the part of railway directors.

As a matter of fact, there is no department of capitalist enterprise in this country that shows up so badly as our railway system in Scotland. I do not think it is a strong argument in favour of this expenditure at Gleneagles that the wise men who have made such a fool of our railway system in the past should be in favour of the experiment. I call the attention of the House to the fact that the argument used by the mover and chiefly by the Seconder of the rejection of the Bill has not been faced by the supporters of it—the argument that this expenditure can be included in the total expenditure of the company when they go to the Rates Tribunal as a reason why there should not be a reduction of rates. I personally have no objection whatever to the opening of the Gleneagles station and the Caledonian Railway Company taking over the station and running the golf course and hotel, but I do feel they should have run it as a separate business. They should not have been allowed to include this capital expenditure in extraordinary expenditure which they will be allowed to deduct before there can be a reduction in frieghts or fares. I also object to the Bill for reasons many of which have been adduced by hon. Members on this side. There are many urgent necessary expenditures in the interests of trade, of commerce and of the travelling public, which the Caledonian Railway Company ought to be compelled to undertake before they proceed with their Gleneagles' experiment. The week-end railway fare has been referred to. If you buy your ticket at 4.30 in London you cannot get a week-end ticket, although nineteen-twentieths of the time is spent on the railway during the period that the week-end ticket operates. Yet you get no reduction. Workmen's trains are a scandal and a disgrace. They are like horse boxes. They are ugly, they are dirty, they are foul, and everybody who knows anything about them knows that is true. Buchanan Street railway station is a thing almost unthinkable; it is a scandal. The question is whether the Caledonian Railway Company should be allowed to have a slum station and go in for luxury expenditure elsewhere, when the Buchanan Street station might be replaced by a decent station. For these reasons I trust my hon. Friends will go to a Division, so that we shall, at any rate, record a protest, the best protest we know how to make., against the continuance of this extraordinary state of affairs on one of our leading Scottish railways.


The last speaker has condemned in a wholesale way those who manage Scottish railways. We are led to believe from the words which he uttered that Scottish people are not capable of managing their own railways. My experience of Scotsmen is that whenever they come down South, and certainly in London, they are quite able to look after themselves, and invariably very successful in any enterprise in which they take part. I strongly support this Measure for two main reasons. The first is that it is a very good sign to see that at last railway companies are beginning to wake up and show some degree of enterprise, and in that respect we who live in the South have an example set to us by those who live in Scotland, for it is essential that railway companies in England as well as Scotland should do something to increase their revenues, because by getting extra trade we shall eventually be able to have further reductions in the freights charged by railway companies which to-day are bearing so heavily on trade and commerce.

There cannot be any harm in the railway companies endeavouring to get some profit out of those who are going to frequent places for pleasure. I have heard one hon. Member say that Gleneagles is frequented only by barbers and such like people from Glasgow. If so, why should not the railway company get some money out of the barbers? I was also glad to hear that they get some money out of the American tourist. That is a very good thing. I would like to see more enterprise shown by railway companies in this country in the direction of catering for any sport so as to get extra revenue. I also support this Bill because I presume it is finding work for some people who otherwise would be out of employment. We have been told by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that altogether 1,000 people are employed at Gleneagles. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Some hon. Members say only 400 or 500, but even that number is very useful, and if there are 400 or 500 people employed on that site, in preparing the golf course or constructing the hotel or the railway station or on the main line, there must be as many more employed in factories in different parts of the country in making equipment for the hotel, the station and the railway. For these reasons, I support the Measure, and hope that hon. Members opposite will withdraw their opposition.

Captain HAY

In previous Parliaments, owing to the smallness of the party on these benches, we were precluded from intensive criticism of railway companies in general and this railway company in particular. Now the time has come when we have the will and the opportunity to show those companies that, while they have carried things with a high hand in the past, we have now the chance to review their general conduct and put our views before the House. The hon. Member who has just spoken remarked that we seemed to argue that Scottish people were not capable of managing their own railways. The Scottish people would be capable of managing their own railways if they were allowed to do so, but, of course, the Scottish people do not manage their own railways; the Scottish railways are managed by railway companies, which may represent the Scottish people or may not, but which are first and foremost machines for grinding out dividends. We are opposed to this Bill on many grounds. One of the grounds is a general ground, namely, that the Scottish people wish to mark, as occasion arises, their dissatisfaction with this particular railway company.

I must refer again to the Buchanan Street Station. If the company is sincere in its Bill and in the statement that this expansion at Gleneagles would employ men, I would ask what better means could the company have of employing workmen of all grades than in building a proper station at Buchanan Street? The company is still using an old wooden structure which was erected many years ago. That building must be repainted sometimes. At present it is dangerous and unsightly. Another hon. Member has mentioned that the company's underground railway, which runs across the city from east to west, is not carried on as it might be, and that it is both expensive and dirty. If this company wishes to go in for expansion and improvement, there are all kinds of work waiting to be done. There is a great deal of repainting required both on stations and bridges; there is a great deal of refitting along the line that is needed. There are numberless opportunities for the company to employ men of all trades and all grades. They ought to go ahead with such enterprises before they enter on an expansion which might be good enough after long years of peace, but which at present is quite unnecessary.

We wish to take this chance of putting forward these general criticisms of this particular railway company. We know quite well that it may be some time before we have another chance. I take it that a railway company ought to be primarily a public utility, but this company is a public utility, not primarily, but secondly and thirdly. It has not shown itself anxious to find out the public taste and to meet it. I need not refer again to the workmen's trains, beyond saying that it ought to be impossible and illegal for any railway company to trot out as workmen's trains the old ramshackle wagons which this company trots out. There is no reason why we should have much feeling or sympathy for the Scottish railway companies in general, or for this one in particular, for we are subject to all kinds of petty tyrannies regarding tickets and return tickets, the validity of return tickets for 12-mile journeys or over, and so one. You are liable to be pounced on by the company at all times, and then you find that the ticket for which you have paid good money is invalid, and that you are called upon to pay again. I think that is a perfectly good point and I wish to make it clear. I remember, after spending about four years in the Army, coming home to my own country, a comparative stranger—I had been abroad for some years prior to entering the Army—and taking a return ticket from one place to another. I used one half of the ticket on the day of purchase, spent a day at this place and proceeded to make the return journey with the return half of the ticket on the third day, only to be told that it was no good. I put it to any reasonable, fair-minded man that I should have been warned on buying the ticket that I must, so to speak, consume the ticket within a fixed time—[Laughter]—I am now speaking about consumption in the economic sense—or, if it is a better way of putting it, I will say consume the service represented by the ticket on the day of purchase and the day following. It was a great hardship and, though I have waited long, now at last I find I have a chance of bringing it forward before the railway companies in general. These are petty tyrannies which may pass very well for a time, but if one waits long enough a chance will come round enabling one to make a protest. I say about this particular railway company, what I might say about any of the railway companies in Scotland, that they are not set up as a public service, but they are set up to grind out dividends, and if, in the process of doing so, the public should be served to some degree, we are, expected to fall down and worship the companies. We refuse to do so, and it is with the greatest pleasure that I stand here to-night to try to incite, if you like, or invite, hon. Members to vote against this particular Bill. By doing so we shall compel the railway companies of this country more and more to take note of the fact that they have been set up to serve the public and that the public have not been set up to serve them. For these reasons, and many more which I leave to other hon. Members to express, I will have much pleasure in going into the Division Lobby against this Bill.


I have been in the House a great many years and this is the first time I have had an opportunity of hearing Scotsmen tell the House how miserably they perform those duties and carry out those undertakings which they have under their own control and which they have hitherto managed to their own apparent satisfaction. Now, it would seem, according to the confessions which we have heard to-night, they are really in a very different way from that which they have hitherto claimed to be. I go to Scotland every year and I hope I may be allowed to go many more years.


In national costume?


I am pleased to see that Scotsmen are going to have a good time, because they are no longer to be left to the control of their own Scottish railway directors, of whom they think so little and complain so much, but they are going to belong to the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. That is very different from the past, when we in this House have been governed by Scotsmen, when we have had them as our Ministers and controllers, when we have had them to exact taxes from us, and latterly when we have had them to dictate to us from the other benches how we ought to behave, by showing us that the louder the voice the better the reason. Now we are going to show them, by putting a little British blood into the Scottish railways, how to play golf, how to conduct their railways, how to give them first-class service, how to give them sleeping cars for all classes, and how properly to do things generally. Previously, it has been the Scotsman above the Englishman, and the Englishman has been a very poor soul, having to bear the brunt of all the Scottish humours and all the Scottish whisky, but we are now going to put it the other way. The London, Midland, and Scottish Railway are going to show the railways how to conduct themselves, and one wonders why those hon. Members who have spoken have not remembered that we are going to put a little British blood in their veins, and a little British and Welsh generosity. I heard an hon. Member talking about a return ticket. I never knew there were any return tickets in Scotland. My recollection of being up in the North was that a man came into the station and asked for a ticket to London, and when asked "Single or return?" he replied, "Return be damned!" He was not going back to Scotland.

We are discussing a Bill in which the Caledonian Railway is only part of a great system in which you are going to have the benefit of English votes, English principles, and English generosity. The holders of the Caledonian Railway Stock are trying to get the better of the other railways, and to get as much money out of the Britisher as they possibly can, and when everybody else has agreed on the principle of the amalgamation of the various railway companies, the only person who has not agreed is a Scotsman, and many days are now being exploited in order that one Scottish holder of Caledonian Stock may get a bit more money out of the poor, unfortunate Britisher. That is all very well in its way, but I cannot understand why you should object to this Bill, which says we are going to improve you and to show you how you can do things in an enjoyable way. The best part of it is the fact that what you are doing is only part of the fact that you are going to become angels in the future, because instead of being Scotsmen you will have a lot of English and Welsh blood in your veins.


After the humorous after-dinner speech to which we have just listened—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—I used the word in the very best sense. It was the humour to which I referred, and not the question of the dinner. After the speech to which we have just listened, I think we might really get back to the real facts of this Bill. The main point of this Debate, I think, is this. It has been suggested by many hon. Members, especially the hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate, that a lot of money was to be spent on the hotel and on the railway station, etc., but the fact has been lost sight of that practically all this money has been spent, and that all the railway company are endeavouring to do is to come into the breach and endeavour to have this project completed. As long ago as 1913, the Caledonian Railway Company got powers to assist this project, and it was only as a result of the War, the fact that men were taken away to other trades, and the company was unfortunately unable to complete it, that the venture was stopped. The result now is that, owing to financial difficulties, the Caledonian Railway Company have had to take the whole burden of this matter on their backs and complete it. If that were not done, what would the result be? Simply that all the capital spent on this project would be wasted, and surely my Scottish Friends would be the last in the world to see any bawbees thrown about uselessly. I have listened to most of the speeches this evening in connection with this Bill, and I must say from the other side I have heard hardly one speech which has really given effective answer against the Bill. Indeed, I have heard many speeches which have only driven me further to the conclusion that the Bill is one that ought to have the support of the whole House, in order to enable the Caledonian Railway Company to carry out a scheme which is looked upon with favour by most of the people who live in the surrounding district. I myself live within not many miles of Gleneagles, and I can assure the House that not only is this a money-making project for the railway company, but it is one which will tend to enhance the whole of that district, and give quite a lot of employment there.


I rise to oppose this Bill, and I would like to call attention to several cases of lack of facilities, which, I think, the Caledonian Railway Company had much better have supplied before endeavouring to waste money in the wilderness of Perthshire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] After all, Perthshire is as yet a wilderness with a very little economic or social importance compared with the congested and crowded areas of the county of Dumbarton or the county of Lanark. I would suggest that the Caledonian Railway Company would be better advised if, before they expend money at Gleneagles in giving beautiful surroundings and excellent facilities for playing golf, they would pull down and reconstruct on modern lines, with the more recent amenities for domestic life, the blocks which they have provided in the past for their railway servants in the northern part of the borough of Motherwell. That is a much more necessary thing than to provide for the well-to-do people who proceed from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Gleneagles. They are rarely, I think, seen making their way to Gleneagles. There are in the industrial areas of Scotland, those people who are engaged in producing the wealth that has made Lanarkshire what it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Those people who have made Lanarkshire what it is, under private enterprise! After all Lanarkshire is a rich region, though its architectural features need serious attention and remedy. The second thing which I would suggest to the Caledonian Railway Company that they might do would be to widen, in fact to double-track, part of the line which lies between, say, Law Junction and through to Larbert in the one direction, and to Glasgow in the other. The Borough of Motherwell stands at what is probably the most important junction on the Caledonian Railway system. Hereabouts is one congested area which very much needs double tracking, and that would provide very much more labour, and labour from the locality, which would enable those concerned to dispose of more unemployed, and put them on to useful work. That is the second suggestion for a through line and a blue line.

The hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) intervened in this Debate. If I remember correctly, he has for a number of years been associated with Spiers and Pond, who have built not only a number of white elephants in places I have, not visited, but a particularly had elephant in the place where I was brought up—Buxton, which will share with Gleneagles the notoriety involved. That is a useless affair that they are putting up there—the proposed improvement—whereas the improvements they might make in the town which I represent in Parliament would assist in wealth production, and also in the circulation of the commodities produced. Another thing I would like to suggest to them is—and this perhaps would meet with the sympathetic consideration of the director of the Pullman Company—I am speaking of sleeping saloons for third-class passengers—


The hon. Member was perhaps not present at the beginning of the proceedings, when I ruled that this was a matter affecting, not one company but all, and therefore was not in order.


I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was going to make a suggestion that the Caledonian Railway Company might lead the way to better things. As that also is, perhaps, out of order, I had better get back and suggest still another improvement. That is that they should try to do something to improve the atmosphere in the low level station at the Central Station, Gasgow. That is one of the most appalling places into which anyone could be precipitated. Its facilities for bringing in and taking out passengers are of exactly the opposite standard of civilisation to that which due notices in the top part of that station which is one of the finest stations, with one or two reservations, to be found in the country. I remember when I first went to Scotland that I noticed on the Caledonian Railway that no seats were provided for the old people whilst waiting for the trains. I would suggest that on the high level seating accommodation must be provided for invalids and old people. When we come to the station at the top end of what is generally considered to be one of the finest and most handsome streets in the British Isles we find what is scarcely a fitting conclusion to that feast of architectural glory which one has seen in making one's way from St. Enoch to Buchanan Street, because there is still to be found a timber structure which has been there from 1847 to the present day and it is time it was rebuilt.

Another station, which is one of the gloomiest in the country, is the station at Perth. Perth needs bringing into line with Carstairs, Wemyss Bay, and Aberdeen, and it is a much more necessary thing to bring Perthshire into line with the rest of the country than to be running up hotels and providing golf courses at Gleneagles. There are other improvements that might be made in various directions. For instance, the Caledonian Railway Company is, I believe, partly responsible for the maintenance of the bridge which runs out of Carlisle Station northwards, and which is one of the most atrocious bottle-necks to be found on any railway line in the country, and I think that is a place where they might very well provide additional facilities.

Then there is another stretch of line for which this railway company is partly responsible, to which they have shunted some of the carriages which must have been on the very earliest line from Garnkirk to Kirkintilloch. It is part of the Caledonian system, and antedates the line running between Manchester and Liverpool. I suggest to the Caledonian Railway Company that before they spend money on Gleneagles, they should spend a certain amount in assisting their colleagues of the Glasgow, Barhead, and Kilmarnock joint service in providing modern carriages on that part of the line that runs down from Lugton to Beith. There is probably no place in Ireland where such archaic rolling stock survives as that which is being used between Lugton and Beith. I have travelled on many railway lines this year in Europe and I have not seen—no, not even in Russia after many years of war—anything that is so backward as some of the rolling-stock provided by the Caledonian Railway Company. Therefore, I would suggest that we should give to the Caledonian Railway Company tonight a lesson which would teach them for the future that before they provide facilities for those people who are not usually employed on useful work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] I expected that some hon. Members opposite would say "Question!" One can scarcely expect them to do otherwise, but I would suggest that it is much more necessary to provide good housing accommodation for the railwaymen in Motherwell than weekend accommodation for railway shareholders and directors at Gleneagles. Those are the main reasons which I desire to state upon this occasion. If the Bill should by any chance proceed further, then some of us who represent Scottish constituencies will have a great deal to say upon these matters at a later stage.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 40.

Division No. 121.] AYES. [7.46 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Barnston, Major Harry Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) Brass, Captain W.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Becker, Harry Brassey, Sir Leonard
Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Briggs, Harold
Apsley, Lord Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield) Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Bruford, R.
Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) Berry, Sir George Buckingham, Sir H.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Betterton, Henry B. Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Birchall, Major J. Dearman Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Banks, Mitchell Blundell, F. N. Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Bonwick, A. Butcher, Sir John George
Barnett, Major Richard W. Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.) Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Butt, Sir Alfred Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hewett, Sir J. P. Remer, J. R.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Reynolds, W. G. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hiley, Sir Ernest Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Chapman, Sir S. Hillary, A. E. Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Clarke, Sir E. C. Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)
Churchman, Sir Arthur Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Clayton, G. C. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hood, Sir Joseph Robertson-Despencer, Major (lsl'gt'n W)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Hopkins, John W. W. Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Houfton, John Plowright Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Cope, Major William Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Hurd, Percy A. Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Sandon, Lord
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) Jarrett, G. W. S. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) Jephcott, A. R. Shepperson, E. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Shipwright, Captain D.
Daizlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Darblshire, C. W. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Simpson, J. Hope
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. King, Captain Henry Douglas Sinclair, Sir A.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Singleton, J. E.
Dawson, Sir Philip Lamb, J. Q. Skelton, A. N.
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Doyle, N. Grattan Linfield, F. C. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Edmonds, G. Lorimer, H. D. Sparkes, H. W.
Ednam, Viscount Lougher, L. Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Ellis, R. G. Lumley, L. R. Stanley, Lord
England, Lieut.-Colonel A. McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) Strauss, Edward Anthony
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Manville, Edward Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Falconer, J. Margesson, H. D. R. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford) Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Foot, Isaac Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Ford, Patrick Johnston Merger, Colonel H. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Forestier-Walker, L. Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Titchfield, Marquess of
Furness, G. J. Molloy, Major L. G. S. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Galbraith, J. F. W. Molson, Major John Elsdale Tubbs, S. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John Morden, Col. W. Grant Wallace, Captain E.
Gates, Percy Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Waring, Major Walter
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Murchison, C. K. Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Gilbert, James Daniel Murray, John (Leeds, West) Wells, S. R.
Gray, Frank (Oxford) Nall, Major Joseph Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Newson, Sir Percy Wilson White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Gretton, Colonel John Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Whitla, Sir William
Grigg, Sir Edward Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Guthrie, Thomas Mauie Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Winterton, Earl
Gwynne, Rupert S. Paget, T. G. Wise, Frederick
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Parker, Owen (Kettering) Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Penny, Frederick George Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Halstead, Major D. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Perring, William George Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Peto, Basil E. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Hancock, John George Phillipps, Vivian Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pielou, D. P. Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Harbord, Arthur Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)
Harris, Percy A. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Harvey, Major S. E. Price, E. G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hawke, John Anthony Pringle, W. M. R. Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Privett, F. J. Gibbs.
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Raine, W
Adams, D. Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Cairns, John Duncan, C.
Buchanan, G. Cape, Thomas Gosling, Harry
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) M'Entee, V. L. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Greenall, T. McLaren, Andrew Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) March, S. Thornton, M.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) Morrison, R, C. (Tottenham, N.) Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Hayday, Arthur Muir, John W. Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) Nichol, Robert Weir, L. M.
Irving, Dan O'Grady, Captain James Wheatley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Royce, William Stapleton White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
John, William (Rhondda, West) Sexton, James Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Shaw, Thomas (Preston) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Shinwell, Emanuel Wright, W.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) Simpson, J. Hope
Leach, W. Snell, Harry TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lowth, T. Snowden, Philip Mr. Newbold and Mr. Barker.

Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 122.] AYES. [10.54 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Harbord, Arthur Pielou, D. P.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Hawke, John Anthony Price, E. G.
Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Rae, Sir Henry N.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.) Raine, W.
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) Rees, Sir Beddoe
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Remer, J. R.
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Hennessy, Major J. H. G. Reynolds, W. G. W.
Barnett, Major Richard W. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Barnston, Major Harry Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) Hinds, John Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'nW)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield) Hood, Sir Joseph Rose, Frank H.
Berkeley, Captain Reginald Hopkins, John W. W. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Berry, Sir George Houfton, John Plowright Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Betterton, Henry B. Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)
Blundell, F. N. Hudson, Capt. A. Shepperson, E. W.
Bonwick, A. Hurd, Percy A. Shipwright, Captain D.
Bowdler, W. A. Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.
Brass, Captain W. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Sinclair, Sir A.
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Jarrett, G. W. S. Singleton, J. E.
Bruford, R. Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Skelton, A. N.
Buchanan, G. Jephcott, A. R. Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Stanley, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Chapman, Sir S. Kenyon, Barnet Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Clarry, Reginald George King, Captain Henry Douglas Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Clayton, G. C. Leach, W. Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Lort-Williams, J. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Lougher, L. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Titchfield, Marquess of
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) Lumley, L. R. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Tubbs, S. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Waring, Major Walter
Edmonds, G. Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) Wells, S. R.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A. Margesson, H. D. R. Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Entwistle, Major C. F. Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) Millar, J. D. Whitla, Sir William
Foot, Isaac Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Ford, Patrick Johnston Molloy, Major L. G. S. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th, S.)
Forestier-Walker, L. Morden, Col. W. Grant Wintringham, Margaret
Furness, G. J. Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Wise, Frederick
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Murchison, C. K. Wolmer, Viscount
Gray, Frank (Oxford) Murray, John (Leeds, West) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Nall, Major Joseph Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Oman, Sir Charles William C. Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Halstead, Major D. Parker, Owen (Kettering) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry Mr. Falconer and Mr. W.
Hancock, John George Perring, William George Hutchison.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Phillipps, Vivian
Adams, D. Groves, T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Hartshorn, Vernon Scrymgeour, E.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) Sexton, James
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hayday, Arthur Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Brotherton, J. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Shinwell, Emanuel
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Buxton, Charles (Accrington) John, William (Rhondda, West) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Cape, Thomas Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Chapple, W. A. Lansbury, George Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. M'Entee, V. L. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Duncan, C. McLaren, Andrew
Ede, James Chuter Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gosling, Harry Newbold, J. T. W. Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Nichol, Robert Johnston.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) O'Grady, Captain James

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Forward to