HC Deb 16 June 1924 vol 174 cc1855-83

I beg to move in page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word "London" to the word "there" in line 10.

These words are not really operative words: they ate merely in the nature of a preamble. The suggestion conveyed by them is that the Bill shall not be effective until some authority is constituted, which authority at the present moment is entirely in the air. This Amendment is moved by me as a supporter of the Bill as a whole, although there are points in it which I do not like. I move the Amendment for two reasons. The first is that a recital of this kind is of no possible use to the object of the Bill, and, in the second place, it may possibly at some future date cause difficulties if you get cases arising under this Section which may be brought before the Courts. The object of the recital is to commit another Parliament to some future course of action. No doubt every party in the House has been guilty of some mistake of that kind, and I need only refer to the historic case of the Act passed in 1911 at the instance of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite dealing with the constitution of another place, which they expressly mentioned was to be only temporary until something else was done. That something else has never yet been done. I hope the Government will do what I venture most respectfully to suggest as an improvement in this form of legislation and will strike out unnecessary words which may possibly lead to complications in the future.


I beg to second the Amendment.


I accept the Amendment.


I desire to make it clear why my name is associated with this particular Amendment. The reasons are not those which animate the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. We would have preferred that the words declaring the intention of Parliament to deal with the problem of local govern- ment in Greater London should have been there, but we were faced with the difficulty that the only way to get a definite time limit for the operation of the Bill was to take out these words and put them in a Clause at the end of the Measure. Hon. Members will see that later on I have put down an Amendment to Clause 16 with that object. I desire to make it quite clear that some of us on these benches are supporting the Amendment to take out these words, not because we are anxious to take them out—although as a matter of fact they are of very little value, for they are merely a pious expression of opinion, or, as the President of the Board of Trade would call them, a "religious exercise"—but we desire to take them out with the deliberate purpose later on of putting in a new Sub-section which will put a definite limit of three years to the operation of the Bill. Some hon. Members, no doubt, are supporting this Amendment for different reasons, and I therefore desire to make it perfectly clear that what we wish to do is to put a definite time limit on this Bill so that this or some other Government will be compelled to make arrangements for dealing with the general question of local government organisation in London.


I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the speech to which we have just listened. There is no object whatsoever in having these words in the Bill. A Parliamentary Bill should be confined to the purpose for which it has been brought in, and if this Amendment had not been accepted I should have certainly voted for it, because, as I view them, the words are intended to commit the Government in some way. I agree that one Parliament cannot commit another. This at any rate, is an attempt to commit a future Government to deal with the question of local government in Greater London. This is a matter which has been discussed for a good number of years, and there are many people in all quarters of the House who, I think, will agree that any proposal to commit the House to a grandiose or unnecessary scheme should be met with unqualified opposition.


We now know where we stand. We appreciate the desire to eliminate these important words, which are the only justification for this very exceptional kind of legislation. It has been pointed out several times that a Bill of this nature would not be tolerated in any other part of the country except London. Other parts regulate their own traffic, and the only justification the Minister of Transport has put forward for this particular Bill has been that the chaotic condition of London government, owing to the fact that the area of London is not analogous to the area affected by the traffic problem, made it necessary for the Government to become responsible for what was really a relic of the last Government, and entirely against the democratic professions of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. If these particular words are eliminated it will be very difficult to reform London government, and hon. Members opposite know that to be the case, for when we set up a Government Department with a horde of officials and a complete organisation to deal with a problem of this kind, they would create a vested interest which will oppose any new scheme. The Ministry of Transport was condemned to extinction nearly three years ago. Its main work during the last two years has been taken from it, but this Bill undoubtedly is an attempt to reestablish it as a permanent institution. We know what officials are. You cannot blame them, but once they get a "cushy" job, they are very anxious to keep it. Once a Government Department appoints a large number of officials, they will make it their business to find very good reasons why it should not be abolished. With great respect to hon. Members opposite, this is a kind of work that is essentially municipal in character, and that all over the country is left either to county councils or to municipalities, and the only excuse that the President of the Board of Trade put forward for this exceptional kind of legislation on the Second Reading of the Bill was the difficulty of pushing through Parliament at this stage a real reform of London government. Now these magic words that were to justify exceptional legislation are to be eliminated.

I understand—and I hope the Minister of Transport will make it clear—that he is going to accept an Amendment from the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) making this a temporary Measure, and limiting its operation to three years. It is most unfortunate that he did not utilise the ingenuity of a Government Department to insert a, date and, at the same time, retain these words, because one knows that these temporary Measures have a way of being renewed from year to year. We have found that in reference to the Poor Law emergency legislation, which for about four years has been renewed, and I am afraid that, with all the force of an established new Department behind it, very good reasons will be found in three years' time for renewing this Measure. It will want a very strong force of public opinion to carry through these essential reforms, because this is not the only institution of this kind that is being or has been created owing to the chaotic condition of London government. We have a Water Board, a Metropolitan Asylums Board, a Port of London Authority, we are going to have an electricity authority, and now we are going to have this Ministry of Transport clothed with all these powers to interfere with the ramifications of London government. I shall be very reluctant to vote for this Amendment, but if it be really essential that it should be accepted, in order to ensure that the Bill should he made temporary in character, we may have to give way. I think a grave responsibility rests with the Minister for putting these words in the Bill, with all his knowledge, and then, on pressure, having to accept their deletion. I think we want some further explanation than a mere formal standing at the Box and accepting this Amendment without explanation.


This is not the first time I have heard the speech that has just been delivered. It is interesting to look forward to what will happen in three years' time. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) evidently believes that the London traffic problem will be solved in three years' time, and that there will be no necessity for a Bill like this, but nobody who knows anything at all about the history of the last 25 years would suggest anything of that kind. It is necessary to have these traffic Clauses now, until the Greater London scheme comes along, but that Greater London scheme has been discussed for 25 years and has never come along yet, and it will not have come in three years' time. I cannot understand how the Minister takes up his present position. He is always being bullied by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). Every time the hon. Member for South Hackney holds up the stick, the Minister gives way. The Minister supported this Clause as it is in Committee, and we supported him in doing so, but the reason why he accepts its deletion now is to make it possible to accept, a limiting Amendment at a later stage of the Bill. I do not know how the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) came to be identified with this particular Amendment, because, if these words are deleted now, the three years' limitation can go in, and then, in three years' time, because the Bill is going to die, and London traffic cannot be left in a chaotic condition, there will be a demand for something to be done with the Greater London scheme, and the hon. Member for Watford, who does not want the Greater London scheme, has done the very thing to open the sluice gates by moving this Amendment. I am afraid I cannot congratulate him.


I have nothing whatever to do with any suggestion of putting a time limit in the Bill.


The hon. Member does not realise yet. what he is doing. These words being in, they prevent the three years' limitation being moved, and he proposes to delete them. I shall be interested to see how the hon. Member's constituents at Watford three years hence regard this particular Amendment that he has moved.


On a point of Order. May I ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I understand that t he present Amendment is moved, and is accepted by the Minister, on the ground that it is the impression of some hon. Members that, unless these words were removed, it would be impossible hereafter to put a limit to the operation of the Bill. May I ask whether that really can be so, and whether it can possibly be out of order, if you state in Clause 1 that you are proposing to make provision in view of there not at present being a satisfactory scheme for London government, to say that your Bill shall come to an end at the end of three years?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young)

I have already intimated that the Amendment in relation to the limitation of three years should be, moved on Clause 16. Therefore, I do not think there is anything with or without this Amendment to prevent the limiting Amendment being moved at a later stage.


The Majority Report of Lord Ullswater's Commission stated that in matters of transport and certain other matters it was not desirable that any particular territorial authority should have jurisdiction, but that a special authority should be set up to deal with the four questions which the Commission found, after prolonged inquiry, were matters which might be dealt with by a Central Board, namely, housing and town planning, transport, and two other subjects which were dealt with in their Report.


Surely there was no Majority Report of the Royal Commission? There were 10 members appointed, and the Report to which the hon. Member refers was signed by four members only, and the other four, two having resigned, in two separate Reports, accepted the principle of Greater London.


I am not going to discuss that question with the hon. Member. I am only going to say that when the Report had to be written there were four who did agree upon this question, and two others disagreed with the two other members. [Interruption.] I have something very pungent to say about that matter, if necessary, and the methods whereby one of the Commissioners cross-examined with a particular view be held, because I was subjected to that cross-examination—[An HON. MEMBER: "You had a rough time!"]—On the contrary—which proceeded from the fact that a certain member of the Commission produced certain confidential documents. I think, therefore, hon. Members had better let that chapter drop. What I want to call attention to is the findings of the Majority. They said: We have already, in paragraph 46, stated the views of the London County Council with regard to this question. The opinions of the outside authorities are sum- marised in paragraphs 118 to 122, and the various alternative schemes are set forth in paragraphs 126 to 182. Although the Council in their case, as put before us, claimed transport as a service proper to be assigned to the new central authority proposed by them"— that was, their worthy selves- they admitted in their evidence the impracticability of this solution of the problem so long as the local authorities themselves operate transport in competition with other undertakers. That is to say, the Council proposed in this scheme to run their own trams, and run them in opposition to other means of transport. Another objection to municipalising transport powers in London is that the regulation of traffic is largely a matter of police; and the police of London, except in the City, is in the hands of Your Majesty's Government. The local authorities appear to acquiesce in the maintenance of that system. There is a further general opinion that any centralised powers in relation to transport should extend to a wider area than that of Greater London. We are therefore of opinion that the proposed central authority is not a suitable body for the purpose of transport control. That is the definite opinion of the majority, that is, the four out of the eight who were unanimous, and, as I say, two others quarrelled with the remainder. Therefore, I say that is a substantial reason for not interposing words of this character, which seek to give the go-by to the findings of that Commission, which sat for an interminable time, and took infinite pains to arrive at a solution. I am glad to think that the Minister of Transport will accept the omission of these words, which I think mischievous.


I am exceedingly glad the Minister of Transport has accepted this Amendment, because he knows thoroughly well there are local authorities outside who view this scheme with the greatest possible apprehension. It has already been said in reference to the Commission that any idea of such extension of local government powers is not justified by the evidence put before them. Therefore, I am exceedingly glad the Minister has seen fit to withdraw these words, which might foreshadow some extension of these powers which, so far as the county I have the honour to represent is concerned, would be most strongly opposed.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr P. HARRIS:

On page 1, line 10, leave out the words from "districts" to end of Clause, and insert instead thereof the words, each administrative county council. wholly or partly in the Metropolitan police area, in connection with the exercise and performance of the powers and duties in relation to traffic within the area described in the First. Schedule (hereinafter referred to as 'the London Traffic Area'), shall be the traffic authority for their area, and each such council shall be required to set up a statutory committee to advise as to the regulation of traffic within their area, each of such committees to be known as the statutory traffic committee, and for the purpose of giving advice and assistance to such committees a Secretary of State may appoint a representative of the Metropolitan police to serve on each of such committees. (2) In order to co-ordinate the regulation of traffic within the London Traffic Area a joint committee shall be set up to give advice and assistance to the respective county councils within the area, five to represent the London County Council, two each to the administrative counties of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey and Essex, and one shall be representative of the Metropolitan police appointed by a Secretary of State.


This Amendment is out of order, because it is quite incomplete. It would require a great many other provisions.


I beg to move, in page 1, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words, "of the City of London and Metropolitan police districts," and to insert instead thereof the words, "described in the First Schedule to this Act."

10.0 P.M.

This Amendment must be taken in conjunction with the Amendment to add a Schedule to the Bill, and it is the intention of these two Amendments to alter the area over which this Bill shall extend. Some of us representing what are generally known as the Home Counties feel that it would be better to make the area a larger one, so as to extend it in order to cover, roughly speaking, what I may call the country routes of the London omnibus companies, at any rate, where there is any large amount of omnibus traffic from London, and those places outside London which are particularly congested, and where there are sometimes difficulties in the way of traffic. I hope, again on this occasion, the Government will accept this Amendment. I do net want to say very much about it beyond this, that I move it especially at the request of the Local Government authorities for the County of Hertfordshire, and with the distinct and definite approval and consent of, I believe, the greater part, if not all, of the other local authorities responsible for the wider area, except those parts which are covered by the counties of Buckinghamshire and Berkshire. I do not know whether anything is going to be said or what attitude the Minister may take with reference to that. But that, at any rate, is a comparatively small part of the proposed larger area concerned. May I quote one example, which, I hope, will be a difficulty overcome in the future by a by-pass road, and that is the congestion and general block of the traffic passing through Watford and a number of places beyond, which is very bad indeed. There are several places that would come within the larger area, which might be materially dealt with by the better provisions in this Bill.


I beg to second the Amendment.

A great deal of attention and a very great deal of care have been given to this Bill, first by the late Government, and also by the present Government. A most important part of the Bill is the Schedule of those districts which have to be included. It was carried in Committee that the police area should be the area covered. It will stultify the Bill if that be carried. Every single district in the original First Schedule was thought out. If the police area alone be chosen, the docks and other avenues from the East End of London will be entirely shut out. Therefore I hope the Government will see their way to allowing the First Schedule on the Amendment Paper to be carried. There is no particular magic about the police area in London. It was set up many years ago under very different conditions, and there is no scientific reason why this should be confined to that area. The minds of the advisers of the last Government and the present Government having been directed to this subject and, having considered the First Schedule, I do earnestly hope that those who want to make this, at any rate, a preliminary attempt to settle the London traffic problem, will agree to that Schedule. There is no party question in it, or any question of combine or of anything of that sort, but it has been a thought-out scheme, and, therefore, I earnestly hope the Minister will accept it. I hope also that those opponents who do not believe in the Bill as a whole will give it, at any rate, a fair chance. There seems to be no question of principle involved.

Colonel ASHLEY

I sincerely hope that the House will accept this Amendment, and that the Minister of Transport will see his way to agree to it. In my opinion if this is not carried, and if the area over which the control is exercised is confined to the Metropolitan Police area and the City of London, from 50 to 75 per cent. of the usefulness of this Bill will be done away with. Unless we take a big view of this question of London traffic, and unless we go to a 20 to 25 miles radios from Charing Cross, we shall not be able to deal with the vast question of suburban traffic, and the approaches to London, which, to me, are almost more important than the question of the traffic in the streets of London itself. There are great improvements to be made outside the Metropolitan area, for there is what is more or less virgin ground on which to work. Here, in the centre of London, the expense is prohibitive in making great improvements. Many of these may well take place in the suburbs.

May I put it to the House, that it should support this Amendment, because in my opinion transportation is the basic industry of civilisation. On our means of transportation, and all that it implies, depends our economic and our social life, and on transportation depends the whole of the solving of the housing problem. Unless we are able, by better means of transport, to take our population out from the centres of the big towns, to house them outside and to, bring them back daily to their work, we shall never make really any great step in advance. Therefore, if we go about this matter in a niggardly spirit, and unless we take the whole thing in view, you will largely retard your housing schemes, which all parties in this House want to see solved at the present time.

To come down to concrete facts, I dare say some hon. Members here will possibly be thinking of getting some fresh air at Ascot to-morrow. Some of them may feel that they may like to go down by road. In past years there has been considerable criticism of the traffic arrangements. There are four authorities under whose supervision these arrangements are attended to between the centre of London and Ascot. There is the Metropolitan police. Then you have the Chief Constible of Surrey; then the Chief Constable of Berkshire, and again the Metropolitan police. If you are going to pass this Bill with only the Metropolitan police area in it, and your coordination stops at that, the confusion to which I have referred will still run; but if you take up a 25 miles, that would include Ascot and the country thereabouts. That is one instance. If you stick to the Metropolitan police area, you exclude the whole of the suburban districts, which include towns like Windsor, Watford, Farnborough, and so on. I hope and trust for the sake, not only of the general traffic, but for the sake of the housing which is all important, that the House will agree to the Amendment.


It seems to me that a well-defined recognised area like that of the Metropolitan police area that everybody knows should be the working area of an authority of this character. I should prefer that area for many reasons. This is a temporary Measure. We are assured that it will only be of a temporary character, and I am prepared to admit that I am looking forward to the time w hen municipal authority will be exercised in the jurisdiction that is now in the hands of the Minister temporarily. It seems to me that when the other municipal authority comes to be established the proper area for its activity will be the Metropolitan police district. I shall be surprised if any hon. Members, who have supported this 25 miles area, will then be prepared to extend the greater London authority to anything like so far as the 25 miles suggested, although this might be a very good argument for doing so. I think it is much more likely that the inevitable extension of the greater London authority will not go beyond the Metropolitan police district. It does, therefore, seem to me desirable that the decision come to in Committee to limit the functions of this Bill to the present well-known, well-defined, and easily worked Metropolitan police district is a decision which the House should stand by. Therefore, I hope the Amendment will be rejected.


It might be desirable for hon. Members to take a few very necessary tours round about outer London in order that when they are thinking of speaking or voting upon this question they may just exactly see the chaotic state of London at the moment. The late Minister of Transport speaks very feelingly about Dartford. I have a certain amount of sympathy with him, because it would take the wisdom of Solomon to define exactly what was erratic driving on these roads. To come, however, to the real point, the Metropolitan police area takes in places like Erith on the one hand and Bexley Heath on the other. Similarly in regard to the area mentioned by the late Minister of Transport. I have only been to see the Hunt Cup once in my life, and my party and I got there 20 minutes after the race had started. We set out at 11 o'clock in the morning from Charing Cross to go down by road. If for that reason only I would support the idea that one authority should replace all the vexatious interferences with development. I feel sure that if we could have a map provided, and put up in the tea-room, giving in simple outline the proposed development of the traffic roads leading into London it would help a good many Members of this House to under stand what a baffling problem, what a jig-saw puzzle, London really is in this matter


I think it right to say that the County Council of Berkshire and the Corporation of Windsor are very strongly opposed to being included in the Schedule of this Bill. The circumstances and conditions of Windsor and the parish of Winkfield are very different from the suburban conditions of the North, East and South of London. The case for the schedule in respect of the Metropolitan police area is based very largely on the suburban character of the 25-mile radius, but the area. in the West, which is included, is very different from the area in other directions. The question of the Ascot traffic has been mentioned. How has it been regulated? The nearest point to Windsor in the Metropolitan Police area is Staines. There the traffic control is divided, and the Metropolitan police, the Windsor police, and the Berkshire police have adopted a perfectly workable arrangement of the traffic, and there is no confusion of the motor traffic, so that part passes from Staines to the North-West and the rest through Egham, Englefield Green and Virginia, Water. No single authority, however powerful, could make any better arrangement. We in Windsor and Berkshire are very reluctant to be included in any grandiose scheme under the control of a London authority.

If this proposal be agreed to, the result will be the setting up of a dual authority and an undue interference with the rights of local authorities. It seems to me to be a bad thing to introduce that principle of interference with the existing rights of local authority, and the result will be that you will find the authorities of large cities throughout the country pointing to the precedent set up in London, in an endeavour to obtain control over traffic to a much larger extent. On the ground that at the present time the traffic is well managed, and that what is proposed would set up a system of dual control and interfere with the rights of local authorities, I shall oppose this Amendment.


I think the last speaker is confusing the direction of local traffic with the arrangements and general scheme as to what traffic should use roads in relation to their width and the character of the traffic. No one will deny that the conditions of motor traffic are such that the problem is now necessarily carried further out than was ever before contemplated. St. Albans, which has been mentioned, is outside the Metropolitan police district, but it is within the 25-mile radius. At St. Albans—and this is only an illustration of what is going on all around—there are lines of omnibuses at intervals of seven or 10 minutes travelling over rural roads, and this is also the case at places like Epsom, Leatherhead, Dorking, and so on. Indeed, it is only by the beneficient intervention of Providence that I am here to-night, having regard to the way in which omnibus, char-è-bane and other big traffic goes along the rural lanes of Surrey, and really it is no longer a question of local interest. This Bill is called the London Traffic Bill. but really an Amendment of its Title is needed in order to indicate its real object, which is to regulate this new form of traffic over such an area round London that the roads may be rendered sufficiently safe. I wonder if my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) has contemplated the fact that by coming into this area he will probably get 75 per cent. grants from the Ministry of Transport for widening his roads? If the Berkshire County Council will wake up and consider the possibility of getting 75 per cent. of its expenditure in making large arterial and other roads, and for widening main roads, I think it will be disposed to agree to come into this scheme, which, I think, will leave the actual direction of the traffic in the hands of the present authorities. It would only have the effect of prescribing the roads, possibly, and giving such control as is necessary.

Once more I refer to this much-abused Report of the Royal Commission on London Government. Paragraph 267 of this Report says: There was (i) a consensus of opinion that the limits proposed by the Advisory Committee of 1920, namely, 'the existing Metropolitan and City police areas or any extension thereof,' were too restricted; (ii) a considerable variation in the precise limits proposed as an alternative; and (iii) what we interpreted as a general feeling, not always clearly expressed in evidence, that any attempt to deal on special lines with a Metropolitan traffic area apart from the rest of Great Britain was open to criticism. The first of these findings was that the police area was too restricted, and, therefore, they determined—and this is founded on the evidence which was given on behalf of several country councils and supported by local authorities—that the area of 25 miles from Charing Cross was the proper one, and that we ought not to confine ourselves merely to boundaries which were prescribed for totally different purposes, and which, so far as police are concerned, would, I venture to repeat, not be interfered with. Therefore, I hope that, if we are going to make an effective attempt to deal with the great question of motor traffic, extending, as it does, so much further than the old police district of London, we shall consent to restore this 25-mile area to the Schedule.


I hope it may he possible for us to consider these questions without relying with too much exclusive- ness upon one of the Reports of the Royal Commission on London Government. After all, that was an exceedingly inconclusive Report, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when he appointed the Commission, made it a qualification that they should not have any great experience of London government, because that might have biased them. Such a Commission, with the greatest respect in the world, does not appear to me to be entitled to be held up as altogether conclusive on these complicated matters. The area which was proposed in the original Bill, and which, I understand, is now proposed again, is an area which corresponds to no general local government area. I am not one of those who believe that the Metropolitan Police District is necessarily adequate to certain services of Greater London government. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken thinks the Metropolitan Police District itself is much too large for, say, county government affecting that area, and the thing I want to be clear about is what do the Government regard as a reasonable area for the government of greater London, because this area which the House is now fixing is bound to have intimate relation to any area which may be fixed for the future government of greater London so far as large-scale services are concerned. I believe all the reasoning of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is equally applicable to other large-scale services of municipal government in greater London. I believe if there is a case for this area as a traffic area it must follow logically and rationally that there is a similar case for a town planning area of at least the same magnitude.


Hear, hear!


It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman now to applaud me, but if hon. Members will read his evidence before the Royal Commission as to the difficulties of which he has himself told us, they will find that he had very different ideas as to the general question of the proper area for local government in greater London.


If the hon. Member had really studied my evidence, he would see that town planning and housing was put by me in the same category as transport.


Let the right hon. Gentleman have credit for that grace. If he puts transport, town planning and housing into an area corresponding with the first Schedule of the Bill as it was introduced, how can he reasonably argue at the same time that the education of the people whom you allow to live in that common area must not be by a municipal authority covering the same area and that water, main drainage and electricity should not be in the same area? Why this special virtue of transport, housing and town planning? When you have included those municipal services in a common area of this magnitude you are bound, unless you are going to regard local government as an aggregation of disconnected things, which you cannot, to agree that the related local government services must be administered by an authority covering a, similar area. That is the weakness of the position which is now being taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. He will remember that weakness when we come to discuss the area for the local authority to deal with the large scale services of greater London. I want to know from the Government, what area do they regard as appropriate for general municipal government in greater London? I have this in mind, that if now we fix this area under the Bill—the London traffic area—then when it comes to fixing the general municipal area the Government of the time will say that the traffic area is greater than the municipal area and therefore you cannot have traffic powers for the new greater London municipality. This is a real point of consideration on the principle that we are now discussing, and I wish the Government to enlighten us upon it, because 25 miles is a big area and the House ought to have some information.

If we take out the definition of the area as it now stands in the Bill, which is the Metropolitan and City police districts, we get another curious situation. Then there will be within the same Bill actually two areas of administration, in a Bill which presumably is intended to simplify things. So far as omnibus licensing is concerned, and so far as the scheduling of approved routes is concerned, the area will be the Metropolitan and City police districts [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think so. If you examine Clauses 6 and 7 the authorities there are the licensing authorities of the Metropolitan and City police districts, and therefore all the part of the proposed area outside the Metropolitan police district will be a different area for certain purposes as set out by the Bill. Therefore it appears to me that the Bill is setting up two areas, one where all the powers of the Bill will be operative within the Metropolitan and City police district, and the 25-mile radius, an area where I cannot see that any effective powers are going to be in operation at all. I hope the Minister will assure the House, for the sake of hon. Members representing constituencies outside the proposed area, that there is to be no idea, as adumbrated by the right hon. Member opposite, that if you are a district in the area there is to be a 75 per cent. grant, and that if you are not in the area you do not get that grant. We cannot have the administration of Government grants on that basis. I did not know that there was a 75 per cent. grant; I thought 50 per cent. was the maximum. I hope that in the distribution of grants there will be equality of treatment between local authorities inside and outside the area.

I am aiming at getting a common local government area. The tendency is that we are getting a different area for every different service, and the consequence is that the problem of dealing with the Greater London Government is in a state of chaos. I should like to know from the Government, or from the President of the Board of Trade, who spoke with some effect when the Bill was previously before the House, what is the Government view as to the proper London area. If they think that a 25 miles' radius is the proper area for a Greater London authority, there is something to be said for making the 25 miles' area the area for this Bill, but if they argue subsequently that the general area should be something else, then there is objection to the House passing this area now.


The question of the future Government of London does not arise on this Bill.


I cannot go into all these matters with my hon. Friend now. For the moment, I am concerned with the congestion of traffic in the London streets, and, therefore, I hope the hon. Member will support me in this, because I do not think we are going to get rid of the congestion on the London streets unless we have this Amendment in the Bill. With regard to the eastward extension beyond the Metropolitan police area, the case is very strong. The Metropolitan police area does not include Dartford, Northfleet or Gravesend on the south side of the river, or Tilbury on the north side. The Dartford and Bexley tramways have a physical connection with the London tramway system, and run out as far as Horns Cross on the Gravesend road. The exclusion of this district would withdraw from the purview of the Advisory Committee the construction of the suggested tunnel under these lower reaches of the Thames. With regard to new arterial roads, unless the London traffic area is extended beyond the limits of the Metropolitan police area the Advisory Committee will he unable properly to consider the question of the improvement of the approaches by road to London. That is a question which lies at the heart of many traffic difficulties.

Take some of the new arterial roads under construction. Twenty-two miles of the new Southend road lie almost entirely outside the Metropolitan police area, as does the whole of the new Purfleet-Tilbury road. The Barnet and Watford by-passes, which will greatly facilitate the approach to London from the north-west, both start well outside the Metropolitan police area. In the same way, the Farnborough and Orpington by-passes, going southwards, emerge at a point on the Hastings road outside the Metropolitan police area. The improvements on the Folkestone road between Farningham and Wrotham are entirely outside the area. The Metropolitan police area does not even extend to Swanley Junction. The great reconstruction of the old Watling Street between Dartford and Chatham, which will enormously improve traffic conditions on the road to Dover, lies entirely outside the Metropolitan police area. Some hon. Members do not realise that you cannot get the inside right unless you get the outside right. We must not have the powers limited merely against the inside authorities if we are to succeed. I would appeal to hon. Members once more to help us to pass this Bill as rapidly as possible, so that it may be put into force without delay, and I hope that this Amendment will be carried unanimously.


I have not been convinced by hon. Members or by the Minister of Transport in favour of this very large extension. We had a very detailed discussion in Committee and deliberately decided that the practical and proper thing to do was to limit the working of this Bill to a well known area, the Metropolitan police area. A very important argument is that the administration of the Act will be largely in the hands of the Metropolitan police. They are to take a very active part in carrying out the Act. Outside the Metropolitan police district you come into direct contact with the police under the county authorities, and under the new organisation they will have to take directions from two different masters. The county police outside the Metropolitan area will have to carry out instructions from the First Commissioner and the Minister of Transport on the one hand, and on the other hand from the county councils. I am informed that the County Councils' Association have almost unanimously declared against so many counties being brought within the purview of this Bill. This Bill is going to take the administration from the county council in the counties of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Berks, Buckingham, Hertford and Surrey.

Colonel ASHLEY

They all agree except Berkshire.


I have no doubt that the influence of my right hon. Friend has had a considerable effect, but he was very careful to exclude his own constituency, the New Forest Division of Hampshire, and the hon. Member for Chatham was also careful to exclude that borough and they showed great knowledge of what they were doing in this matter. We heard with great interest the revelation of what has been going on behind the scenes by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield). He gave us an insight into what is going on. He said that unless these counties come under the purview of the Ministry of Transport they might not get the advantage of their contributions to the main roads.


To the improvements.


If that is the position it would be very interesting. If my hon. Friends from Scotland, Wales, or Yorkshire want to get assistance for their arterial roads, and the widening of streets, are we to understand that they have to hand over the roads to the tender mercies of the Minister of Transport? I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport has been so modest.

Mr. GOSLING indicated dissent.


I understand that the Minister has repudiated his fellow conspirator the right hon. Member for Ealing, and that this bribe is not to be received. So you do not get even that advantage. I cannot understand the modesty of the Ministry. Why stop at the artificial boundary of a 25-miles limit? Everybody knows that to-clay motor coaches go as far as Brighton and Hastings. Within a day it is quite easy to travel by motor coach within a 50-miles radius of London. One of the most congested roads from London is the Portsmouth road. It is largely occupied by traffic to Bournemouth. The boundary proposed is entirely artificial. You can make a case for the Metropolitan police area, owing to the chaotic condition of London government. But the same conditions do not apply to areas 25 miles from London. There you have schemes of local government carefully thought out by the local councils, and there is neither friction nor difficulty. No effective case has been made out for the extension of this Bill to a 25-mile radius which would not equally apply to an area 50, 75 or 100 miles from the centre of London. For these reasons I hope that the House will endorse the deliberate decision of the Committee and confine the Bill to the Metropolitan police area.


If a mere Scotsman may be allowed to intervene—


They all come to London.


And glad they are to get back again, not merely because of the congestion of traffic in London, but because of other things. I understand that the Amendment referred to has been accepted. Seeing that it has been moved by a private Member and not by the Government, and that it is contingent upon what appears a page and a half later on in the Order Paper, where reference is made to the places which it is proposed shall be included within the area, I would like to ask the Members responsible for the Amendment, and the Minister, whether they have the authority of the districts which are scheduled to be included within the new transport area? As far as I am aware, this is the first time that there has been acceptance of a private Member's Amendment which will impose such a revolutionary change upon the administration of certain districts. [Laughter.] It is evident that the word "revolutionary" causes the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) some amusement. Let me say "such reactionary proposals." The whole tendency of this Bill is reactionary in the extreme; the whole tenour of it is anti-social. It proposes to place in the hands of a combine the travelling facilities, not only of the people within London, but of the people who will come from all the areas mentioned in the schedule.

Viscount CURZON

Would you make the same remark about the Greater London area as well?


We cannot all afford to go about in fast motor-cars, and I would point out to the Noble Lord that what he mentions is quite a different question. Mr. Speaker has already said that certain statements would be out of order, and, consequently, I do not propose to follow the bad example of the Noble Lord. What I am really concerned about, however, is that we, as Members of Parliament from all parts of the United Kingdom, should be asked to agree with the Minister in the acceptance of a private Member's Amendment which seeks to include all these districts in an area to he supervised by a certain Committee. Where counties or boroughs or parishes or townships are sought to be brought into a particular area or under the authority of a particular Committee, they have a right to be heard if they object to such inclusion. I am astounded that the Minister with his bland manner should advance to the Box and, having read a few sentences from a paper which conveyed no information on the Debate which had gone on previously on this Amendment, should accept the Amendment.


I do not know it the hon. Member was present when I introduced this Amendment, but I specially mentioned that it was moved, not merely with the concurrence of but at the request of some of the authorities and with the concurrence of all of them except those to which I referred, namely, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire.


I am glad to have that assurance, but it is remarkable that the assurance should have been conveyed to, a private Member and not to the Government. We should be quite clear as to, what we are doing. I do not desire that any hardship should be imposed upon counties or boroughs or upon the people residing in them with regard to traffic, but we should have an assurance that these people desire to be brought in, and. the hon. Member states that only some of these authorities desire it. [H. MEMBERS: "All except two."] Even two have a right to be excluded, and they should not be brought in against their will. [Interruption.] I am not concerned with the views of other hon. Members. I am advocating my own views, and I am not going to impose tyranny on anyone. I submitted to five years' tyranny in this House from the Coalition Government and the Tory Government, and I am having no more of it. As this Amendment presupposes the acceptance of the schedule contingent upon it, I want an assurance that the people residing in these districts will have an opportunity of stating their case if they object to inclusion in the new area. The House should not persist in any desire to place these people or any other section of the community at the tender mercies of the combine


I am glad that the hon. Member is now beginning to take an interest in this Bill.


Why "now"?


Had the hon. Member studied the Bill previously, he would know that the proposal contained in this Amendment was part of the original Bill, and that the original Bill was made up mainly by agreement and the great bulk of the places named in the Schedule were placed there by agree- ment—the overwhelming majority of them. The only point of substance which the hon. Member made was as to whether anybody should be left out who disagreed. You could not possibly make up that Schedule unless you brought in those who disagreed, more particularly when they are in such a small minority. We would not have had this Bill bad it not been that it was the outcome of arrangements, and the Schedule which it is now proposed to put in is one which was in the original Bill. It was slipped out in Committee, I think by accident, because most of those who helped it out are now helping it in.


On a point of Order. The Amendment that has now been accepted was defeated in Committee, and I was surely within my rights in wanting to know whether assurances had been received from those districts.

Viscount CURZON

I hope the House will not be impressed by what I can only describe as the "dog in the manger" attitude of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) and the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). Had the proposal been to constitute the London County Council as traffic authority and to give it an area of 50 miles, they would have jumped at it. The London Metropolitan police district was fixed. I believe, some 80 years ago. Surely we have progressed even in the minds of the reactionary Members for South Hackney and Bethnal Green, and surely they have grown up a little bit since 90 years ago. The House would be wise to pass this Amendment, which seeks to keep pace with modern conditions.

The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith), who I am sorry is not here—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here now"]—in a speech on the Committee stage of this Bill—it is to be found in column 226 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—Said it was not unusual for one man to have to carry as many as six licences between here and Guildford. Omnibuses, he said, had to carry as many as six licences between Windsor and Slough. If it is proposed to cover a larger area that form, of course, will remain. It is much better to have one licensing authority. There are a good many reasons why this Bill should go through, but not nearly enough notice has been taken of what I think is the most important point urged by the Minister of. Transport, namely, the Tilbury Tunnel. One of the great schemes for relieving London traffic is to keep the through traffic outside London. That can only be effectively done by constructing such schemes as that of the Tilbury Tunnel and by circular roads, portions of Metropolitan police are if they were carried out. In the case of Windsor, we have one of the most congested arteries of traffic to be found near London, with the possible exception of Colnbrook. I would submit to him that he would be wise not to persist in his opposition to its being included in this scheme, as it may possibly eventually give a sew bridge over the Thames near Eton, or provide for the great necessity of repairing the existing bridge at Datchet. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his opposition to this Clause.

11.0 P.M.


The suggestion of the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), that those Members who represent London would, if this had been a county council scheme, have offered no objection whatever to the 50-mile radius, does not apply to me. I represent some portion of the County of Buckingham, and, so far as I know, and I have spoken in nearly every place to which this proposal applies, I can find no person there in favour of it, and neither can I find that any authority has consented to it, for they all prefer to be kept outside. I am certain that any suggestion of bribery in the way of building bridges or giving additional grants for main roads will not affect the authorities in Buckinghamshire in their desire not to be included in this Bill. Among the parts of Buckinghamshire proposed to be included are Chalfont St. Peter and Chalfont St. Giles and the rural district of Amersham, and when I think of these terribly congested districts and the awful amount of traffic to be controlled I do not wonder they do not desire to be brought within the Bill. I also find that the Minister of Transport has power to prescribe the conditions subject to which at times horses, cattle, sheep or other animals may be led or driven through the streets, and I find in the definition Clause that the expression "street" or "road" includes any highway or bridge carrying a highway, lane, footway, square or alley through which a passage can be obtained. Therefore the Minister of Transport may at his discretion prescribe the time at which cattle may be led through these congested districts—the time at which they may come out of a farmyard to go down a green lane. The authorities in these parts desire under no circumstances whatever to be brought within this Bill. On the other side we find there are hon. Members who are anxious to extend the area from time to time. The Minister of Transport said the other day that he would have nothing to do with this Bill unless he had power to bring all authorities under it, but surely there is no reason why these outlying districts should be brought within the scope of the Bill. Certainly, as far as the local authorities of this country are concerned, they view with the utmost dismay these encroachments upon their powers by a central authority. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the parish pump?"] The hon. Member may talk about the parish pump, but

local authorities are particularly jealous of their areas. I live in a county which probably has the finest roads in the country. It is, indeed, said that motorists have declared that they only get one bump and that is when they cross the county border. On behalf of that portion of the county of Buckingham which is proposed to be included, I protest against their inclusion without their consent, which consent I know they have not given.

Several hon. Members rose—


It would, I think, be undesirable not to dispose of this Amendment. At Question Time I said we should move at about 11 o'clock that the further consideration of the Bill be adjourned. Therefore, I would ask the House now to proceed to a Division on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'of the City of London and Metropolitan Police' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 238.

Division No. 94.] AYES. [11.2 p.m.
Ackroyd, T. R. Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury) Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel
Aske, Sir Robert William Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Rea, W. Russell
Barclay, R. Noton Hindle, F. Rees, Capt. J. T, (Devon, Barnstaple)
Beckett, Sir Gervase Hobhouse, A. L. Remer, J. R.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston) Royle, C.
Birkett, W. N. Hopklnson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.
Black, J. W. Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland,Northn.) Savery, S. S.
Bonwick, A. Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton) Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) Simpson, J. Hope
Brass, Captain W. Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Briant, Frank Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Brunner, Sir J. Kay, Sir R. Newbaid Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Burman, J. B. Kenyon, Barnet Spero, Dr. G. E.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Lamb, J. Q. Stanley, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George Laverack, F. J. Starmer, Sir Charles
Cobb, Sir Cyril Lessing, E. Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Comyns-Carr, A. S. Loverseed, J. F. Stranger, Innes Harold
Costello, L. W. J. McCrae, Sir George Sunlight, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Dodds, S. R. Maden, H. Thornton, Maxwell R.
Eden, Captain Anthony Marks, Sir George CroySon Vivian, H.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Ward. G. (Leicester, Bosworth)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Mond, H. Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
England, Colonel A. Morris, R. H. Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)
Falconer, J. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Finney, V. H. Moulton, Major Fletcher Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)
Fletcher, Lieut.-Commander R. T. H. Murrell, Frank Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Foot, Isaac Naylor, T. E. Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent,Sevenoaks)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North) Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Willison, H.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Winfrey, Sir Richard
Gorman, William Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley) Wintringham, Margaret
Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Owen, Major G. Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetlard) Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Phillipps, Vivian TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Harris, John (Hackney, North) Pringle, W. M. R Mr. Keens and Mr. Athoil
Harris, Percy A. Raffety, F. W. Robertson.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Purcell, A. A.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Raine, W.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Alden, Percy Groves, T. Raynes, W. R.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Rentoul, G. S.
Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.) Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Richards, R.
Amman, Charles George Hardie, George D. Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Apsiey, Lord Harland, A. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ashiey, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Ritson, J.
Attlee, Major Clement R. Hastings, Sir Patrick Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Ayles, W. H. Hastings, Somerville (Reading) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Baker, Walter Haycock, A. W. Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burniey) Romeril, H. G.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex, Enfield) Royce, William Stapleton
Banton, G. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Barnes, A. Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Barnett, Major Richards W. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Hoffman, P. C. Scrymgeour, E.
Batey, Joseph Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Scurr, John
Becker, Harry Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.) Sexton, James
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W. Hudson, J. H. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston).
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Hughes, Collingwood Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Shepperson, E. W.
Blundell, F. N. Isaacs, G. A. Sherwood, George Henry
Bourne, Captain R. C. Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich) Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Briscoe, Captain Richard George Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Smillie, Robert
Brittain, Sir Harry Jewson, Dorothea Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Bromfield, William Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Buckingham, Sir H. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snell, Harry
Buckle, J. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.) Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Bullock, Captain M. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Spence, R.
Caine, Gordon Hall Kennedy, T. Spoor, B. G.
Cape, Thomas Kindersiey, Major G. M. Stamford, T. W.
Cassels, J. D. King, Captain Henry Douglas Steel, Samuel Strang
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prismth. S.) Lansbury, George Stephen, Campbell
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Lawson, John James. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Charleton, H. C. Leach, W. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Church, Major A. G. Lee, F. Sullivan, J.
Clarke, A. Lindley, F. W. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Climie, R. Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Cluse, W. S. Lunn, William Thurtle, E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. MacDonald, R. Tinker, John Joseph
Cockeriir, Brigadier-General G. K. McEntee, V. L. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Compton, Joseph Mackinder, W. Toole, J.
Cope, Major William Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Tout, W. J.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. McLean, Major A. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Cove, W. G. March, S. Varley, Frank B.
Crittall, V. G. Mariey, James Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton) Viant, S. P.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Maxton, James Warne, G. H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Meller, R. J. Warrender, Sir Victor
Dawson, Sir Philid Middleton, G. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otfey)
Dickson, T. Mills, J. E. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dixey, A. C. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dukes, C. Montague, Frederick Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Duncan, C. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Weir, L. M.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Morel, E. D. Wells, S. R.
Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellity) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North) Welsh, J. C.
Egan, W. H. Murray, Robert Westwood, J.
Elliot, Walter E. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.
Elveden, Viscount Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Whiteley, W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. O'Grady, Captain James Wignail, James
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Oliver, George Harold Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Forestier-Walker, L. Paling, W. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Palmer, E. T. Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)
Gates, Percy Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Pease, William Edwin Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas Pennefather, Sir John Windsor, Walter
Gibbins, Joseph Penny, Frederick George Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wise, Sir Fredric
Gillett, George M. Perring, William George Wright, W.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John Perry, S. F. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gosling, Harry Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome) Phillipson, Mabel TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Ponsonby, Arthur Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Potts, John S. Kennedy.
Greenall, T. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 16, leave out the word "Districts," and insert instead thereof the word "District."—[Mr. Gosling.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Gosling.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.