BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order).

HC Deb 03 March 1927 vol 203 cc675-722

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Mr. RAMSDEN

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."

I regret very much that it is not possible for me to support a Bill which is desired by the City and Corporation of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives. If it had been what is generally known as an omnibus Bill, even if it had contained these Clauses and perhaps others with which I do not agree, if there had been in it other Clauses which I considered were necessary in the best interest of the City, I should nevertheless have supported such a Bill. This is a Bill which deals with one specific object, and that is to permit the Corporation to run a very extensive service of motor vehicles even outside the boundaries of The City. It is also desired by one Clause of this Bill to allow the Corporation to let omnibuses for private hire. I oppose the Bill because I consider that this is a demand for an unnecessary extension of municipal trading and that it will interfere with private enterprise. I also oppose it because, from what I have seen of the private omnibus owners during the past few years, and particularly the past two or three years, they have not been fairly treated by the Corporation of Bradford, and I am afraid if the Corporation get the powers which they desire in this Bill, the position of these omnibus-owners will be made much more difficult.

I regret very much that on this occasion I have to differ from my colleagues who represent the City of Bradford. I regret in particular that I have to differ from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Gadie), who backed the Bill I am afraid, however, he cannot be a very enthusiastic supporter of this Measure because he made a speech in the city council in opposition to it, and whet the vote was taken, he was among those who voted against the Measure. I do not propose to read all of the speech which he made on that occasion, but I wish to give the House one or two points from it which show that, whatever his attitude may be now, he was opposed to the Bill at that time. I find from the official record of the proceedings of a special meeting of the city council held on Tuesday, 30th November, 1920, the hon. and gallant Member said— He formally objected to the Bill. He took it that the Lord Mayor did not want any amendments, and he desired therefore to state his opposition. I do not wish to read all the speech, but in the concluding passage he said— The Bill was seeking powers which they would never want; and they were endeavouring to run routes that would never pay. I regret, as I say, that we are not now in agreement on his question, but I appreciate the attitude which the hon. and gallant Member is taking up. I am sure he is acting from a high sense of duty to the city corporation of which he most certainly has been an honoured member. I have not had the honour of serving on the Bradford Corporation, and I feel myself in a position of greater freedom. I say quite frankly and without mincing words that this Bill is neither more nor less than a Socialistic Measure, and I intend to oppose it as much as I can Very important questions have to be deeded in this connection. One in particular is the question as to whether a corporation like this it to have the right to monopolise routes and to have privileges which are not granted to the owners of private vehicles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I hope hon. Members will not mind listening to what I have to say, and they will have an opportunity of replying to it.

The corporation in this Bill are seeking very extensive powers which would enable them to build up in time a great organisation. They refer in the Bill to certain specified routes on which they wish to have the power of running their vehicles, but the Bill is more far-reaching than the routes which are specified. If one examines it carefully, one will see that if they obtained these powers and had the consent of the local authorities and had a benevolent Minister of Transport to deal with, they could run practically all over the country. By using Clause 12, which refers to "adjacent districts," they could move from one town to the other and run North, South, East and West. In fact, it has struck me that if they obtained these privileges, we might see a service of Bradford omnibuses running down to London. They would probably start with the city of Wakefield, then probably Doncaster would become adjacent to Wakefield, and Retford would become adjacent to Doncaster, and so on right down to the Metropolis. It might be convenient for some of the Members for the City if we had a service of omnibuses to bring us down here and take us comfortably back to our own homes, but in spite of that consideration I feel very strongly that the proposal should be opposed because it is not for the public good. We have to consider the effect which this proposal is going to have on the omnibus systems already in existence. I feel very strongly that running in and around Bradford there is already a very good service of omnibuses. Perhaps there might have been better services, but I can tell the House the reason why the services are not better. The corporation which is seeking powers in this Bill have put so many obstacles in the way of the private omnibus-owners that they have not been able to give as good a service as they would like to give.

Considerable capital has been invested in these services by the people who are running them. They have made efforts to build up efficient services, and the services which they are running at present are generally admitted to be quite useful. The danger is that if the corporation are allowed to enter into competition with them these services might be destroyed. One of the routes which the corporation seeks to serve is between Bradford and Keighley. It is interesting to find that particular route incorporated in this Bill, because only a short time ago the corporation said that this route was already very well served by trains and omnibuses. I cannot understand why they now desire to run their own vehicles on it. An inquiry was held into a demand by certain people for an omnibus service between the two places I have named, and one of the reasons given by the corporation for refusing to grant a licence was that the service was already good enough. Not only have the City authorities made it very difficult for private enterprise to carry on an efficient service, but once they have given licences, they have not treated the private owners as well as they ought to have treated them.

There was a case some time ago of a certain omnibus company which wished to run a service, I believe, between Wakefield and the City of Bradford. They made their application in 1924; the application was refused, and an inquiry was held, on the demand of the applicants, by the Ministry of Transport. It was recommended that the licence should be issued. The corporation refused to do so, and at the end of 1924 the whole business had to be started over again. In 1925 the applicants went through the same process. They asked for a licence, and, on the licence being refused, they went to the Minister of Transport, and requested an inquiry. The efforts, even of the Minister were unavailing, and they had to apply to the High Court, and it was not until May, 1926, that the licence was granted. Even when the licences are granted, the position of these companies is very difficult.

The omnibuses that run into Bradford have to charge a higher fare than the trams or the Corporation vehicles, and it is interesting to note that the tramways are themselves their own licensing authority, which makes it very much easier to deal with their own problems. The outsiders have to go before a licensing committee, I think it is called, so that the private enterprise services are dealt with by one authority, and the vehicles owned by the Corporation are dealt with by themselves. The private enterprise vehicles are only allowed to stop at certain places, they have to run to a fixed time-table, and generally everything is done so that they shall not enter into competition with the trams. There is one rather curious thing that they do, which must certainly annoy people who happen to travel into Bradford on some of these cars, that is, instead of allowing them to proceed to the terminus in what would be a reasonable manner, they send them right round the town and make them take a journey of about a mile or mile and a-half in some cases, and they make them cross a number of roads which are unnecessary. I could cite one case where cars have to go through 11 different streets, and they pass nine different crossroads of four roads each. That is naturally an obstacle, and it is definitely and purposely placed in the way of the people who are trying to run these vehicles.

Mr. MACK1NDER

Will the hon. Gentleman give us a quotation of the 11 streets and the cross-roads in addition to the ordinary route?

Mr. RAMSDEN

Yes. The omnibuses coming in from the Shipley side and entering from Canal Road, completing the journey at Little Horton Lane, opposite the Prince's Theatre. They go to Foster Square, across Church Bank Bottom, Well Street, across Leeds Road, Vicar Lane, across Wakefield Road, Croft Street, across Nelson Street into Manchester Road, down Manchester Road into Victoria Square, up Morley Street into Chester Street, to Little Horton Lane. These obstacles make one believe that if this Bill became an Act of Par- liament, the position of the private omnibus owners would be very much more difficult than now, because the Bradford Corporation would have a still greater interest in doing away with their competitors. We must remember that it is very much easier for a public body to carry on an undertaking at a loss than for a private individual In the case of the Bradford Corporation, they would have the rates to fall back upon, but if a private company ran omnibuses into Bradford at a loss it would sooner or later be bound to come to an end. The Corporation would possibly try to drive this kind of traffic completely off the road. There is one other reason why I think it is just as well to encourage private enterprise in preference to municipal or national undertakings. During the general strike, in the month of May last year, we were practically, in the Bradford district, dependent on the omnibuses that were run by private enterprise, and if the people there had had to rely on the omnibuses and trams owned by the corporation and run by corporation employés, they would not have been able to move from one place to another. I consider that we ought to keep these things in mind when we find any public authority demanding such far-reaching powers as these.

There are other objectionable Clauses in the Bill. One is with regard to allowing omnibuses to be let out for private hire. That looks a pretty little Clause, which might escape the attention of some people, who might think the Corporation would probably not dc very much with it, but I am given to understand that under its definition of omnibuses in the Town Police Clauses Act, 1889, the Corporation would practically have unlimited scope in dealing with vehicles of any kind whatsoever. They could practically let out motor ears or motor cabs or anything of the kind, and, therefore, I consider that that is an objectionable Clause. I do not know what might happen if we had the Bradford Corporation allowing cars to be let out for private hire. Some people, on going down to see the Derby, might be considerably shocked by seeing one of the Bradford Corporation cars there bringing passengers down from the city. Many members of the Bradford Corporation no doubt would be very shocked indeed if they thought that anything of the kind would take place.

There is a considerable amount of opposition to this Bill, not only from people in Bradford itself, from such organisations as the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Trade, but from many of the outside authorities in the districts into which it is proposed to run services. I will not go through the whole of the list, but I will mention that the West Riding County Council is definitely opposing the Bill, and, after all, that council is one of the greatest public authorities that we have got in Yorkshire. I notice that the opposition of Leeds is not very active, and I have been wondering if there is not a very good reason for that. I understand that one Clause in the Bill is to the effect that the Bradford Corporation are going to take over a trolley car system from the Leeds Corporation, and as I believe that it is a fairly obsolete form of locomotion, it is more than probable that if Leeds is not very vocal in the matter, they have very good reasons for their silence. When the matter was discussed in the Bradford Council, the voting was 49 in favour of the Measure and 24 against. Among the 24, were all the members of the Conservative party present, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Bradford. There was also that rather farcical affair, a ratepayers' meeting, at which the majority of votes was presumed to be passed in favour of the Bill. I suppose that everyone here is quite aware of the value of ratepayers' meetings. There is no hall in the city of Bradford or in England that could hold all the ratepayers of that place. But there was one preliminary meeting, in connection with the ratepayers' meeting, which certainly afforded to me and others quite an amount of interest.

On the 7th January, I think it was, at the Thornbury tramway shed, a meeting was addressed by the manager of the tramways, and it lasted from 4.45 to 5 o'clock. This, I believe, was not in the tramway men's time, but in the corporation's time, so that I suppose that during this quarter of an hour the manager of the tramways would probably be giving these people a considerable amount of good advice. I should think that probably one thing he would tell them would be that if they went to the ratepayers' meeting, and anyone got up and asked if there were any corporation employes present, they were not to stand up. I understand that at one previous ratepayers' meeting, where something in connection with the City of Bradford was being discussed, there was some wide-awake individual opposed to the Measure who said: "Will all corporation employés present stand up," and there was a solid mass of them who did so. It was found necessary to adjourn the meeting to another place, with the result that the Bill was defeated. I think, probably, in this case they would be rather wiser. This Measure which they are proposing to-day is in definite opposition to a Resolution which was passed by the Council in 1923, which never has been rescinded, and which, I believe, is worth reading to the House. It is as follows: That the Council hereby affirms its opposition to the principle of direct trading, recognising that it is outside the legitimate functions of the corporation, and an injustice to the ratepayers with whom the corporation would compete. Those are exactly the reasons which urge me to move my Amendment this evening, and I do hope the House will reject this Bill, because it is a flagrant attempt to extend municipal trading at the expense of private enterprise and initiative.

Sir FRANCIS WATSON

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Bill is exceptional in character and Socialistic in effect. If I wanted any evidence of that, I would call attention to what has happened within the last day or two, when the Labour party held a party meeting, and passed a unanimous vote to support this Bill. I believe that is the first time in the records of this House that any party has held a meeting to support or oppose a private Bill. I am supporting this Amendment for several reasons which have been set out by my hon. Friend. I think in considering a Bill of this character we must consider, first, whether the powers asked for are such as this House would grant to any authority, and whether that authority is likely to exercise them fairly in the public interest. We have had many instances given in the speech of my hon. Friend which show quite distinctly that the Corporation of Bradford have not been prepared to act fairly and honestly with the powers which they have held. They have withheld licences on many occasions, and not until there has been mandamus from the High Court have they obeyed the decision of the Ministry. But in this Bill they are seeking to place themselves above the Ministry in many respects. At the present time, they do not bring their own omnibuses under the same conditions as are enforced upon the private omnibus owner, who, in the interest of the public, has to have a safety door in the rear of his vehicle for escape.

Nothing of that sort exists in the Corporation omnibuses, and every possible obstacle is placed in the way of the private omnibus owner in having to follow devious routes. Omnibuses coming from the outside are not allowed to pick up in the City unless the passenger has got a return ticket. Nothing of that sort exists with the Corporation omnibuses. If they were content to run within the boundaries of their own City, they could do as they liked about it, but they are seeking to go outside, and they are seeking for themselves privileges which they are not prepared to grant to those who want to travel within the City. They are also applying in this Bill for a number of routes, licences for which they have refused other applicants. That means that the Corporation can fix the fares to be charged upon those routes. They can make them so low that it is impossible for a private omnibus owner to make them pay, and they will make up the deficit out of the rates, until they have driven the private omnibus owner off the road. This Bill provides that this shall be part of the tramways account, and the ratepayers will never know whether any particular omnibus route is paying or not. I submit that that is not a thing which this House should countenance.

Mr. MacLAREN

What is the Watch Committee thinking about?

Sir F. WATSON

The Watch Committee have very little to do about it. The private omnibuses come under the Licensing and Hackney Carriages Committee, which has no jurisdiction over any Corporation vehicle, as the hon. Member very well knows. There is also a provision in this Bill to enable the Corporation to compete with the railways and carry goods and animals through the City. That is a most unfair thing in competition with railway companies, which pay rates and taxes, and have to pay rates to make up any deficit. Among the powers which are taken to go outside the City the Corporation are asking for power to widen bridges, and widen and improve roads. They may do as little of that as possible, but by offering a sop of that kind to local authorities they may be able to buy off any opposition to which otherwise they might be subjected. One of the routes it is proposed to take is across the moors, along a road which is considered dangerous for private vehicles, and the Corporation are asking power to run public omnibuses upon it. In the opinion of the Wharfedale District Council, from whom I have a communication, the road vas only meant for agricultural traffic, and is quite unfit for traffic of this kind. Who will have to pay for the upkeep of this road? The poor farmers and residents of that district, and not the wealthy Bradford Corporation. It is not a power which should be granted to extend 17 or 18 miles outside the City as the Bill proposes.

There is another provision in this Bill which is quite exceptional. I do not think it has ever been in a Bill before. It is that the Bradford Corporation seek under this Bill to obtain powers for an adjoining borough to run omnibuses and carry on an omnibus undertaking. I do not think that precedent ought to be created. We all knew that under the Borough Funds Act any municipal authority seeking to promote a Bill in Parliament must first obtain not only a clear majority of the borough council, but must also have it supported by a ratepayers' meeting. I do not hesitate to say that putting these powers in this Bill is simply a dodge to prevent Keighley having to carry a majority of its own council, and to put the matter before their ratepayers, who have never been consulted. I consider that sufficient has already been heard by the House to justify the proposal to have this Bill read a Second time upon this day six months.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE

It is quite true that I opposed this Bill strongly in the Council, but I come here to-night to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That seams a matter for laughter; I do not object in the slightest. There was once an expert witness who appeared before a Select Committee upstairs on a certain Bill, and said one thing. Then another Bill came up, and he turned the tables and spoke something else. The Chairman opened his eyes wide, and remarked: "You said something quite different last week?" The witness replied, "Yes." Then said the Chairman, "Are there two Mr. Martimus Smiths?" Here is a big corporation, and I represent the city, and I say it is my duty to come here and endeavour to further their interests. It may be that my hon. Friend will not like my present position, because hon. Members opposite, who are generally opposed to me, are to-night with me, but it is well to have a change sometimes. It shows that one is not hide-bound, and, moreover, this is a local Bill. I ask the House to send this Bill upstairs for the reason that hon. Members here cannot possibly have grasped all its details, and because it is very seldom the House refuses a Second Reading to a Bill of this kind, unless there is something in it to which the majority seriously object.

Objection has been taken to two matters dealt with in the Bill. One is the power which is sought to let omnibuses for private hire, and. I have the permission of the authority concerned to withdraw that Clause of the Bill, Clause 10. Apparently that is one of the chief things which has incited opposition to the Measure. The other point on which criticism has concentrated is is that we are asking for powers to run a long distance. Hon. Members will see that that is dealt with in Clause 3, lines 24 to 29. I agree that here we are asking for rather wide powers for a Corporation, and that we could, as the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) said, run to Doncaster races. Personally, I have never got there, because I had no money to put on; but if I were going to London perhaps it would be a convenience to me to go to Doncaster. In order to show the bona fides of the Bradford Corporation I am prepared to say on their behalf that the House can have a limit of 15 miles, if it so desires. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where from?"] Fifteen miles from the centre of the City. That carries us as far as Ilkley in one direction and Huddersfield in the other. It would include Leeds also, I am reminded, but Leeds have a very good service of their own.

What we propose in this Bill is to run services of omnibuses. I admit that we shall oppose private individuals in some cases. It has been said to-night that the private individual has so many obstacles put in his way that he cannot run omnibuses, but he is running them. He is running them from Keighley now, and the difficulty with the Bradford Corporation has been that this man gets his licence—up to a point. It was said he could not run within the City. There was a case in which we objected. What happened then? He appealed to the Minister of Transport; the licence was granted and the omnibuses are running.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)

A mandamus had to be obtained.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE

I opposed that particular form of obstruction on the Bradford Corporation, because I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with this House putting obstacles in the way of municipal enterprise. It may be said the trams in Bradford are obsolete. May be they are. I have an idea that before long we shall have to institute omnibus services on long tramway routes, and if that has to be done and the municipalities may not run the omnibuses, what will be the consequence? There is still a balance of £750,000 owing on the Bradford Corporation Tramways. [Interruption.] I know that £1,500,000 was spent, and £750,000 has been paid off, and that leaves £750,000. [Interruption.] Even if it were due to bad management, are we to throw the remaining £750,000 away? Will that assist us?

9.0 p.m.

We ask that these powers may be given to us, and we have taken care to introduce into the Bill a Clause which, I hope, will satisfy the Minister of Transport, in which it is stated that we are to get none of these powers without the approval of the Ministry. There can be no case there of having to apply for a mandamus. We are seeking sanction to run on eleven specified routes. Does any hon. Member say that we can discuss in this House whether we ought to be allowed to have five, six, seven or eight of these routes? We should want a map and a man with a pointer to show us where the omnibuses were to run. Those details can be discussed in Committee upstairs. The tribunal there is representative of all sections of this House. It weighs up everything after hearing counsel and after hearing the witnesses who are put in the box. I would say again that if, after I have offered to withdraw the two Clauses to which I have referred, the House does not pass the Bill, it will be putting the Bradford Corporation to serious expense. [Interruption.] Are the Bradford Corporation not to be allowed to bring forward any Bills at all? The next time they present the Bill, are we to say to them, "You ought not to have submitted the Bill at"? If the House is not going to take a broad view of this matter and leave the details for the Committee upstairs, we are going to kill local legislation.

Sir JOHN SIMON

May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a question? If I heard him rightly, he said that, so far as the specified routes were concerned, this Bill did not seek any powers to go through any other local body's area save with the permission of the Minister of Transport. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me where I can find that in the Bill?

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE

It is in Clause 3, where it says: Provided that the consent of a local authority shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether or not such consent has been unreasonably withheld shall he determined by the Minister of Transport.

Sir J. SIMON

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am asking about the specific routes.

Sir JOSEPH NALL

I think the specific routes to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred can be run over without consent. The Bill proposes that a number of routes, numbers one to should be run over with or without the consent of the Ministry, but that powers to run over the other routes should be with the consent of the Minister of Transport.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE

That may be. I am not going to argue that, because I have not got the time, and I did not anticipate the question; and I think even if the necessity for that consent is not already in the Bill I can say that it will be accepted. We have no desire to run without authority. I am going to remind the hon. Member for North Bradford that he is not correct in telling this House that we are seeking powers which no other local authority has obtained. It is quite true that you would not find any two Bills exactly alike, but there are already 16 different authorities who have been granted powers to run in other districts. May I point out that you cannot go into the details of precise objections in a discussion on the Floor of this House, and now that I have undertaken to withdraw these two Clauses, I think hon. Members have all the safeguards they require, and I hope they will agree to send this Bill to a Committee which will be an independent Tribunal. I claim that as a corporation we should he assisted as far as possible by the Government, and it has not been the practice ever since I became a Member of this House to turn down a Private Bill on the Second Reading because there are certain details in it with which hon. Members do not agree. For these reasons I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. PALIN

I would like to say at the outset that, in spite of what hon. Members opposite have said, I claim that this Bill is a much more modest one than the Bradford Corporation has ever put forward before in its history. It is certainly more modest than the 10 previous Bills which this House has approved of, and which have enabled the Bradford City Council to become the transport authority for the city. If the private omnibus owners, for whom the hon. Member for North Bradford has pleaded so eloquently, had been in this business for 25 years and we were trying to dispossess them without compensation, then there would he a case to put before the House. As a matter of fact, the boot is on the other leg. The Bradford Corporation have been the transport authority for a quarter of a century. Prior to that we could not get private enterprise to touch Bradford with a long pole so far as transport was concerned, and it was only when we laid down the lines at our own expense and leased them at such a, price as resulted in a deficit every year, which had to be made up out of the public purse, that we were able to get private enterprise to lay down a system of steam cars which ever since have been poisoning the atmosphere with sulphur, and when the top deck is open on a summer's day the clothes of the passengers are perforated with sparks from the chimney tops.

Since then the Corporation have developed a service which no private undertaking could have been persuaded to touch because Bradford is not a city in the accepted sense of the term, but a collection of villages banded together with a municipal character, with long spaces of unoccupied land in between the hamlets and villages. The only places where you can make such an undertaking a paying proposition is where there happens to be a density of population which insures a maximum amount of traffic. The Corporation have persevered under most discouraging circumstances, and have gradually induced the population to shift from the densely populated slums on to the hill-tops where there is pure air, and they have succeeded in making these paying routes. Immediately this has been done the omnibas undertakings come along and say, "There is money in this, and we ought to supplant the Corporation." I think this House is an assembly of Englishmen animated with a sense of justice, but there are a number of hon. Members opposite who will not give to a collection of citizens what they are quite ready to give to one citizen.

The hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Gadie) has correctly stated that all this has been done in Bradford at a cost of £1,500,000, and there is still £750,000 to repay. That, however, is not the whole of the tale. There is not only a liability for that;£750,000 to meet if the tramways have to shut up through this insane competition, but there is also the cost of the generating plant which amounts to £54,000, and there is also the cost of the rates. The motor omnibuses do not pay one single penny in rates to the City of Bradford. There is not a single one of the undertakings which are opposing this Bill through various organisations that pays anything to the rates of the City of Bradford. The tramways undertaking has to pay rates on their depots, lines and overhead equipment, and they also have to pay for the upkeep and paving of the roads as provided for under the Tram- ways Act of 1870. They have to maintain the paving between the lines and for another 18 inches on each side of the lines, and that is a very serious matter for the Bradford ratepayer to contemplate, because they have to pay all this for the omnibuses to run over without making any contribution. All the omnibuses pay for this privilege is a fee to the Road Fund. It would mean to the City of Bradford, if this insane omnibus competition goes to the point where some of ray hon. Friends opposite appear to desire it to go, the adding of from 2s. to 3s. in the pound to the rates of the City of Bradford. It is said that we are asking for powers which have never been granted before. I have here a list of various municipalities to the extent of 60 or 70 that have had similar powers granted to them. Therefore that is quite an inaccurate statement, and so many inaccurate statements have been made in regard to this Bill that that seems to me to constitute an excellent reason why it should be sent upstairs where all those statements may be investigated by a more or less impartial tribunal.

Above all, I am surprised to find gentlemen of the legal profession opposing the sending of this Bill upstairs, because that Committee is a most lucrative portion of the earnings of the legal profession. Not long ago a small urban district council of 17,000 inhabitants applied for powers to run six additional omnibuses. They got those powers to run outside their own area, powers which we are asking for under this Bill, and it cost that urban district authority £2,000 or nearly the price of two omnibuses, in order to obtain powers to run six, and consequently somebody must have done exceedingly well out of it. There are one or two other allegations Mat have been made against the Corporation. These are not only inaccurate, but I am surprised at their being made. It is, we are told, a very extraordinary thing for a party to pass a Resolution in favour of a Private Bill, but it is a most extraordinary thing for a Member of Parliament for a particular city to oppose the will of the majority of the ratepayers. If you challenge that, I may tell you that you dare not take a poll, and, therefore, you are bound to accept the decision of the city council—

Colonel WOODCOCK

It was not unanimous.

Mr. RAMSDEN

May I ask the hon. Member whether I am elected by the city council or by the electors of North Bradford?

Mr. PALIN

You are elected by approximately one-fourth of the citizens of Bradford.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

I would ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to address themselves to me. I have not been elected by anyone in Bradford.

Mr. PALIN

I am pleased to think, Sir, that you are elected by an even more enlightened community. With regard to the question of unfair treatment of omnibus owners, the only thing that has been alleged as unfair treatment is that the police, acting purely as police, not under the control of the city council, but under the control of a statutory committee charged with the interests of public safety, sought to divert the omnibuses so that they did not all run along one road, but were diverted so as to run over several roads, and give the pedestrian just a little bit of a chance. I should be very sorry to think that the Ministry of Transport resented the action of the Bradford City Council in seeking the guidance of the High Court in making the law clear as to whether it exceeded its powers or not in the Wakefield case. I think a city council, without showing any disrespect to the authority of the Minister, is quite entitled to go to the highest tribunail provided by the Legislature in order to have the law defined. In going to the High Court, we certainly only took the same course that private omnibus owners have taken from time to time—

Mr. ELLIS

The hon. Gentleman did not go there; he was fetched there.

Mr. PALIN

The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Ellis) is entitled to his little joke, but at any rate, whether we were fetched or whether we went voluntarily, we got me law defined, and we submitted to it. We have always been a law-abiding community. Neither the West Riding County Council or the Ministry of Transport can state any specific case in which the Bradford City Council has put itself in defiance of the established law of the land. As a matter of fact, the Corporation are not seeking unlimited powers. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford has made that quite clear. I would also say that this Bill does not contain any concealed Clause. I say that for the benefit of those who speak on behalf of the West Riding County Council. I cannot understand how the County Council gets this obsession, that, every time a municipal corporation comes to Parliament for powers to do something for its own ratepayers, it is the thin end of the wedge to secure a further extension of its boundaries. There is nothing of that kind in this Bill at all.

I am afraid that hon. Members opposite, in stating the opposition of the West Riding County Council, did not quite state it accurately. I am informed that the decision to oppose the Bill was only adopted by the Law and Parliamentary Committee of that body by a majority of one vote, and I do not think it has been submitted to the full meeting of the West Riding County Council for confirmation until this day. The House, therefore, will take the opposition of the West Riding County Council for what it is worth. The West Riding County Council, as a road authority, has always been treated with the greatest possible respect, and cannot deny that the Bradford Corporation has always carried out its obligations to them.

This is, perhaps, rather a bigger question than that. I admit that a big financial question is involved in this case. The tramways; of the country, which are supposed to be on their trial, are supposed to be obsolete, and so on, have something like £75,000,000 of public money invested in them. There is still something like £37,000,000 to repay. They contribute a very considerable sum in relief of rates, as well as in payment of rates. They carried last year 2½ times as many passengers as the whole of the railways in the country. Therefore, from the national point of view, a very serious financial question is involved. You cannot wipe out the whole of this capital, you cannot wipe out this very important transport industry, unless you place the Treasury and one or two other public Departments, including the Ministry of Transport, in a very difficult position.

I quite anticipate that we may have some opposition from the representatives of railway companies. I think they are entitled to offer opposition. I am sur- prised, however, that they hay not offered opposition to the extension of private omnibuses, and am rather astonished that they should wake up so late and offer strenuous opposition to municipal omnibuses after the private omnibuses have stolen all their traffic and made their position so difficult. They are in the same position as the municipal tramways, and they are certainly entitled to consideration, but I think that a sufficient ease has been made out in favour of this Bill going upstairs for further consideration. I feel that, if this type of opposition is to be maintained against public authorities putting forward Bills of this character, it is going to be a very serious question in regard to local legislation.

We have done our utmost, through the medium of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford, to meet possible objections. It is not a fact that the public authorities in the areas where we propose to operate these omnibuses are in opposition to us. The majority are with us. I only know of three that are definitely against us, and, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) may claim to speak for the whole of his Division in opposition to this Bill, we have in our possession, at any rate, from four very considerable centres in his constituency, whole-hearted support for this Bill. At any rate, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to be a good trade unionist, to give us a chance to let his own people show what they can do, and exercise their craft upstairs, so that we may get a Bill which will not only be for the convenience of the people of Bradford, but will confer, as I believe it a very considerable benefit upon his own constituents and upon the West Riding of Yorkshire generally.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

I have heard the earlier stages of this Bill, but there was not quite unanimity on the opposite side of the House, and I suppose that the association of my name with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) will, in the minds of many, conjure up a new sort of coalition. I am content to believe that there are Members of this House who cannot always be wrong. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead happens to do the right thing to-night by association with me, it will be something to his credit. I submit that the discussion in connection with this Bill raises a much wider issue than that of the Bradford Corporation. I not only put down an Amendment with regard to this Bill, but I put down a similar Amendment with regard to a number of other Bills. Therefore, it is not a question, merely, of Bradford and Newcastle Corporation so far as I am concerned.

I am raising definitely, specifically, and making no apology for it, the direct and special interest of the railways. There ought to be no need to apologise for that. Any Member on this side of the House who finds himself the particular and special representative of a body of men, not only would be entitled to safeguard their interests, but it would be his duty to do so, but only consistently with that interest and not interfering with or being subordinated to the interests of the community as a whole. It is only with that limited qualification that I speak. Last Monday there was a Debate in this House censuring very strongly the Government for its action in connection with the Washington Convention. An argument was then cited, with which I entirely associate myself, that the Government were making it difficult for employers in this country to compete because of the unfair conditions of our competitors. That is not only our case, but it is a case we are compelled to meet frequently from the employers themselves. In precisely the same way, in the same connection, and applying the same principle, I want that argument to be kept in mind in connection with a point I raise so far as the railwaymen are concerned. When demanding what every Member on this side believes in—a fair, equitable standard living wage for the railwaymen—it is not alone the argument of the railway companies we are compelled to meet but also that raised by the employers: look at the position of our competitors and compare their position with yours. I am sorry to hear one observation of my hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin) because I associated myself entirely with his speech. I think he was somewhat unfair in making the suggestion that this opposition, so far as the railway interests are concerned, is merely being limited to Bills at this particular stage. He must be aware that for the last three years, on every Private Bill and on every occasion when this question could be raised, I have raised it and represented it from that side.

Mr. PALIN

My point was that the Minister of Transport has held some scores of inquiries and on not one occasion has the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues ever given any evidence with regard to private omnibuses. They have no need to come here for powers.

Mr. TH0MAS

That is exactly what I was afraid of in drawing attention to my bon. Friend's speech. If he had limited his observations to his own knowledge, I certainly should not challenge him, but neither the Minister of Transport nor three of his predecessors would dare get up and make the statement which the hon. Member has made. Neither of them dare say it, because it is simply not true. Not only once but on dozens of occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors know, have joint deputations of railway trade unions waited on the Minister and pleaded. I go further and say that, prior to the introduction of the Budget last year, a joint deputation of, the whole of the railway companies and the railway trade unions waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the clear and specific point I am raising to-night.

Mr. PALIN

May I explain that I was referring more particularly to public inquiries. I am not the keeper of the Minister of Transport's conscience. I do not not know what you have done with him, but I know you have never appeared at any public inquiry which the Ministry of Transport has held.

Mr. TH0MAS

That is sufficient answer to show that nothing would be more absurd than for me to raise an opposition to a Corporation Bill. I am raising this same broad general principle that is involved in this Bill, whether it be a private interest or a municipality. Let me consider the situation. Why did this House insist, from the very inception of railways, that before any extended power of any sort or kind or any expenditure by a railway company of a capital kind, that this House had to authorise it? It was because, I submit, the railways at that stage were very largely a monopoly. Anyone who knows history knows it was a monopoly. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is so yet!"] That is what I want to draw the attention of the House to. Is there anyone on either side of the House, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman, who would pretend that the railways have a monopoly to-day? The hon. Gentleman said they had. I leave it at that, because I am sure he is alone in that observation. Let me see how far this is a monopoly. I dissociate myself entirely from the statement of the Seconder of the rejection that municipal undertakings fake their accounts.

Sir F. WATSON

I did not suggest that they faked their accounts. What I said was that their accounts are so kept that no one could say whether this Department was paying or not.

Mr. THOMAS

Is not that true of every undertaking? Could anyone say for the Great Western Railway or the Midland and Scottish that a particular branch was paying? It would be absurd to suggest it. You have to take an undertaking like that as a whole. The capital expenditure of the railways is roughly £1,200,000,000. Take the permanent way departments alone. To maintain the permanent way of the railway systems of the country involves an expenditure of £13,000,000 per annum. Can any private omnibus or private carrier suggest that it pays a solitary copper? Not one! That is the first point of the competitive interest that we have to make. Take the signalling departments. For maintenance and signalmen's wages £8,000,000 per annum are required. Do the roads provide a solitary copper? The policemen that you see at any road crossing do precisely the same work as the signalmen on tae railways. These people get clean away without any contribution whatever. That is point two. Then let me come to the question of the local rates. Is my hon. Friend aware that the railway companies' contributions to local rates amount to £8,000,000 per annum, and that there are 400 parishes in this country where 50 per cent. of the rates are paid by the railway companies? I have now put the case for the railway companies. I say that deliberately because it is my duty to look after the interests of my own men and to see if I cannot remove injustice. I have now submitted to the House what I believe to be one of the greatest injustices suffered by any corporate body in this country.

Let me look at it from the standpoint of Labour. No one will challenge the statement that eight hours a day is enough for a railwayman, and we have succeeded in establishing a 48-hours week. The Newcastle Bill that comes on next week deals with this same problem. The Newcastle Corporation has to compete with the London and North-Eastern Railway. Both competing with private interest who are paying less than 35s. per week to their motor drivers and working them 12, 13 and 14 hours a day. What is the good of pretending that this is fair competition? It is unfair competition. It is something that ought to be definitely challenged because it ought not to be allowed to continue. Every statement and figure I have given is a statement of the actual situation today. What is the moral I draw? First take the municipalities. Is there not something radically wrong with any method that compels a municipality to come to the House of Commons and spend £2,000 in order to get authority to spend £6,000 more, especially when it is remembered that the principle involved is one that could be settled and determined by some competent authority. Take the question from the standpoint of the railway companies. They have suffered and they are suffering to-day. It is wrong, because they are common carriers and are compelled to take everything that is handy to them, whereas the other people can pick and choose and take the cream of the traffic and put the heaviest burdens on the railway companies. That is an injustice to the railway companies and they ought to be relieved of it. The view of the railwaymen is that this is wrong and unfair and likely to degrade their conditions. What is the remedy? Surely with the number of applications and the varying demands of corporations and railway companies and private companies, this House of Commons should be relieved of this kind of discussion and all that is involved and the whole question should be considered by someone in authority.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is a matter which would involve general public legislation, and it cannot be discussed on a Private Bill.

Mr. THOMAS

I accept your ruling. I have put these broad, general principles to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe it was necessary to ventilate the whole question. It cannot stop where it is. I believe there is great injustice both to municipalities and to railway companies, and for all these reasons I hope, as the result of this discussion, the Government themselves will consider the whole question in the light I have indicated.

Mr. MACKINDER

I want to support the Bradford Corporation in this application both as a citizen of Bradford, as an ex-member of the Corporation and as Member of Parliament representing the Division through which at least five of the routes specified by the Corporation will run. The Mover of the rejection quoted the case of Wakefield and the whole history that we Bradfordians know of the Bradford Corporation trying to refuse to grant a licence to an omnibus company, knowing full well that if the company were allowed to run into the town, that was the beginning and the end of the success of the Bradford tram undertaking The members of the Council understood that once they allowed private enterprise to run on the streets and roads, built and paid for by the citizens of Bradford, without paying any cost for the running of their omnibuses, it would be the beginning of the end, because the Corporation would not have the opportunity they had had to run their trams, on which £1,500,000 have been expended. The Minister of Transport has created a position that any outside omnibus company has a right to run on the Bradford roads, without paying rent for the use of those roads. That is a position with which the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) agreed.

Mr. RAMSDEN

Does not the Bill suggest that omnibuses should be run into outside districts, outside the City boundaries, and do the Corporation propose to pay a rent for that?

Mr. MACKINDER

I was going to bring that in if the hon. Member had waited. I am trying to show the position which has been created by the Minister of Transport. He has definitely laid it down, or the Court at his instigation have laid it down, that the Bradford Corporation must allow private omnibus proprietors to run their vehicles into Bradford, without paying rent for the roads they are using, and yet when the municipality of Bradford asked for permission to run their omnibuses on the roads and highways of outside authorities without paying rent, it is wrong. That is the position. It is wrong for a municipality to dare to use other people's roads, yet it is quite right for private omnibus owners to use the Bradford roads. I cannot see where the logic of the hon. Member's statement comes in. He says that the Bradford Corporation dared to put down a time-table for a private omnibus company. Why should they not put down a time-table? There is a time-table for the Bradford municipal trams, and I suggest that any omnibus or tram company that has not a time-table is not worth calling a tram service or an omnibus service.

I would suggest to the hon. Member for North Bradford that nothing is gained by exaggerating or overstating a case. I learned very early in my trade union negotiations that it is fatal to overstate or exaggerate your case. The hon. Member says, with a grandiloquent air, that the 11 streets through which the omnibuses will have to go will mean a mile and a half extra to run. I know Bradford very well, I will not say how many years I have lived there, because hon. Members would know how old I am. I know the Bradford roads. I know that from Shipley to Bradford is 3½ miles. The hon. Member suggests that when the omnibuses have done their 3i miles, the Bradford Corporation puts on another mile and a half, to make things awkward. That is an exaggeration, and the hon. Member knows that it is an exaggeration.

Mr. RAMSDEN

I hope the hon. Member will be perfectly fair. What I said was that in some cases the authority compelled the private omnibus to go 1½ miles round the town before arriving at the termination and that there were cases where private omnibuses were compelled to go through a number of streets. I did not say that the distance through the streets that I enumerated was a mile or a mile and a half.

Mr. MACKINDER

At least two hon. Members besides myself understood the hon. Member to say what I have stated. He said that they were compelled to go through streets a distance of a mile or a mile and a half. It is not true. They have not to go a mile and a half. The hon. Member must excuse me if my understanding is at fault. His statement sounded like that, and that was the impression which he gave to the Members of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Yes!"] We will leave hon. Members to form their own conclusions of the hon. Member's statement. It is not done through sheer cussedness. I would remind the hon. Member that there is a duty to the citizens of Bradford and a duty to the traffic of Bradford. It is not very easy to find a route along the main roads of an important city like Bradford and to congest traffic already heavily congested. Bradford is not a small place; it has nearly 300,000 inhabitants. The traffic that ordinarily came through Bradford was quite sufficient for the roads of the city, to have made the omnibuses come by a devious route. When omnibuses are running into a city like Bradford and into the centre of the city it is almost impossible, with land at the very high price that it is in the centre, to get adequate parking accommodation. Have the private omnibus companies done anything to assist the municipality in getting parking accommodation, in return for the benefits that the City of Bradford are conferring upon these private omnibus undertakings? The people who are so anxious that private enterprise shall have full fling, should at least give some little consideration to the rights of the city.

The hon. Member who seconded the Motion in opposition to the Bill spoke about the Bradford Corporation having offered to widen roads, and he suggested that they would give a small amount. May I ask what the Private omnibus companies have given to the West Riding County Council for the extra cost which they have put on to the roads? Have they widened any roads? Does the hon. Member know that when Sheffield wanted to run omnibuses into the West Riding and they offered to widen roads and main bridges, the county council said: "It will cost you something. You are not going to use our roads unless you pay some extra money." The Sheffield Corporation said: "What will it cost?" They got an estimate of what it would cost from the county council, and then Sheffield said: "It is not worth while running omnibuses, if it will cost us all this amount." Nevertheless, a private firm comes along and, without asking, uses the same roads, does not widen the roads or the bridges, and does not pay anything, and the hon. Members who are supporting the opposition to the Bradford Corporation have not a word to say about the extra cost to the county council.

Colonel ASHLEY

I think the hon. Member forgets that these private companies pay very heavy motor taxation into the Road Fund.

Mr. MACKINDER

If the Minister of Transport is going to raise the question of motor taxation, I may retaliate and say that for many years I rode a motor bicycle and sidecar, and I know the amount of tax that I paid. I know that it would take more than 200 motor cycles and sidecars to do half the damage that one omnibus would do?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think this is getting a long way from Bradford.

Mr. MACKINDER

I am trying as far as possible to show reasons why the Minister of Transport and the hon. Member for North Bradford ought to be fair to the citizens of Bradford, and to give us in that city the same privileges to run omnibuses outside the municipality that they have given to private enterprise to run omnibuses inside the municipality. The Bradford Corporation look like losing about £75,000 a year as a result of omnibus competition, and as a result of the omnibuses taking traffic from the roads that we have built. The Corporation have to build the roads, and the Corporation tramways have to bear the cost of paving the roads on either side of the track, and then along comes somebody who has never paid a farthing towards the rates, and does not intend to do so, and they get through the Minister of Transport powers to run their omnibuses. I know that the Shipley Council and the Bingley Urban Council are anxious that the Bradford Corporation shall have the opportunity which they seek.

The hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Sir F. Watson) who has opposed the Second Reading said that the Corporation of Bradford is wanting benefits which it will not give to anybody else. That is not true. Bradford only wants to have advantages which it is prepared to give to any other municipality, as witness the Clause in the Bill which is going to allow Keighley to have running powers into Bradford. I regret that the opposition to the Bill is not based on any consideration for the good of the public. Bradford people have to pay these enormous sums, and the opportunity of getting the money is to be taken out of their hands. Our rates are high, and we have to pay for the tramway systems which are there. This House ought to look at this problem from the point of view of the common man in the street, the passengers who will he carried by these omnibuses and trams. The Bradford Corporation ought not to be flouted by the House of Commons in this way, when it is only seeking powers which other municipalities possess. I hope the House will pass the Second Reading of the Bill arid allow it to go to Committee, where these small differences can be thrashed out. The legal argument can be put, but the House ought not to go to the point of refusing the Bill a Second Reading.

Sir J. SIMON

I entirely agree that the House ought not to decline a Second Reading to a Bill of this sort, unless there is some large question at the basis of the Bill on which at this stage the House can come to a fair conclusion. I would not oppose the Second Reading merely because some one of the local authorities in the area I represent holds an adverse view to it, but I think it is right that their point of view should be shortly stated to the House. It has sometimes been distressing to me to learn that persons, who otherwise claim to be well educated, do not know exactly where Spen Valley is. The River Spen may nut be one of the largest and most picturesque rivers in the kingdom, but, like some other rivers in history, like the Barn of Bannock or the Rubicon, it is more famous in political than physical geography. My excuse for intervening is that the constituency I have the honour to represent, called by the beautiful name of Spen Valley, is, infact, a very important district of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The ancient capital is Cleckheaton. To Cleckheaton have been added other areas, and you may roughly define its boundary by saying that it is bounded by the satellite towns of Dewsbury, Bradford, Huddersfield and Leeds.

10.0 p.m.

I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) that the great Corporation of Bradford, and the citizens whom it tries to serve, have rights in this matter. So have other local authorities, and what I notice about this Bill is that it is merely a Bill to give power to the Bradford Corporation to run omnibuses outside the area of the Bradford Corporation. There may be cases where that can be justified, but surely it is an extremely strong order to introduce a Bill which provides that the Spen Borough local authority, the importance of which I am not in the least disposed to surrender to the Bradford Corporation, which has done its duty in the public interest in this matter, shall be completely disregarded and the House of Commons should be asked to affirm the principle that one local authority (A) is to be entitled to ask for powers to run its omnibuses in the area of local authority (B) without so much as asking its leave. I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Gadie) why he told the House that these powers could only be exercised by leave of the Minister of Transport. It is not so. It is a Bill to provide that the omnibuses of the Bradford Corporation shall be sent along the routes numbered 3 and 4, which run right through the Spen Valley and the adjoining towns, without so much as asking the leave of the Spen Borough authority and without any communication whatever with the Minister of Transport. I have not heard anyone suggest that the Spen Valley is not in this matter properly administered and reasonably served.

Mr. MacLAREN

Page 7, line 24.

Sir J. SIMON

I am afraid my hon. Friend was not here earlier when it was pointed out, what is very plain if he will only read it again, that line 24, page 7, only applies to the general claim to run over other routes. I am referring to routes Nos. 3 and 4, in reference to which this Bill very coolly proposes that the omnibuses of the Corporation of Bradford shall not only go outside the boundaries of the Corporation but shall invade neighbouring local authorities and go along a defined route without ever asking the leave of the other local autho- rities or the Minister of Transport. I am informed, and the information agrees with my own observations, that these routes are, as far as the local inhabitants are concerned, adequately served. The Spen borough local authority is, of course, a licensing authority and exercises, as I conceive it ought, in its own area the power to control the running of omnibuses. There are trams and omnibuses there, and I want to ask the House of Commons, in the interests of the Spen Borough Council, is there any real reason at all for treating this local authority in the area I represent as though they are to forfeit the right of exercising their judgment as to what in the interests of that locality should be the traffic arrangements and surrender the whole thing to the undoubtedly great, important and public-spirited Corporation of Bradford? I do not myself see any reason for it.

I listened with great sympathy to the appeal of the hon. Member for Newcastle West (Mr. Palin), but in this matter we must try and do justice all round. I am not in the least concerned with some abstract case about the exact limits of municipal trading. I am concerned with this particular Bill. This particular Bill, instead of being a Bill which gathers together a whole series of provisions, one or two of which may be disputable while the others might be approved, is a Bill which is simply for the purpose of authorising the Corporation of Bradford to go outside its own area and to invade the area which I represent, and I know that the Spen Borough Council have had three meetings on the subject, including a meeting which was specially called, to discuss it, and it is the unanimous view of the council that the provisions now made for motor transport are adequate, and that, if this authority is given, it could only mean the undue congestion of streets which are none too wide. But the House of Commons is solemnly asked to say that the Bradford Corporation is to be allowed to run this service outside their own area.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that all these things could be dealt with when the Bill reaches Committee stage, where all the parties who are concerned can be heard?

Sir J. SIMON

I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite appreciates that, so far as I am concerned, I am making the Spenborough ease heard now. Is there any good principle involved in the claims of local authority A to ask that they should get, in principle, approval for the view that they should run omnibuses over the area of local authority B? I have not heard a word said by those who are supporting the Bill for this case, and, on that simple ground, although I should be sorry to see any private Bill stopped at this stage if it had good in it, I would have thought there was abundant justification for challenging it. It is, in fact, only a special example of what is a far bigger and more difficult problem. If the rejection of this Bill did anything to bring the House of Commons up against the real problem, that will do a great deal more good than would be done by conceding to some particular authority—it may be a public-spirited authority and one which desires to do the right thing—privileges which are quite exceptional and which can only be granted on terms which deny the plainest justice to a neighbouring community.

Mr. J. HUDSON

The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has put forward a certain point of view, as a representative of one of the areas within his division, and that enables me to contrast it with another view which is held by the authority that I have the honour to represent. The Huddersfield Council is concerned with the running of omnibuses from Bradford to Huddersfield. The Huddersfield authority, indeed would have been glad to arrange for a service of its own, as I think the Minister of Transport recollects, right through from Huddersfield to Bradford. The position, as we see it in Huddersfield, is this. In the long run, the municipal services either to Bradford or to Huddersfield can have a very effective influence on behalf of the public in our areas in keeping fares at a point which will serve the general convenience of the public. I feel that, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) could have looked at it from the point of view of the people who live in Spenborough, rather than from the point of view of the abstract rights of the local authority in Spen- of their development. I am not quite borough, he might have come to the same view as is held by the Huddersfield municipal authority.

I also want to say something about what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has said regarding the railwaymen. I would agree that, if the railwaymen's case were really that which was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, it ought to weigh very considerably with us, and would weigh with us on these benches, but personally I do not think that the ease as he put it is really the railwaymen's case at all. The difficulty is that the railway companies at the present time are not giving to us the service, particularly in matters of local transport, that they ought to be giving. The other Sunday afternoon I wished to go from Huddersfield to Bradford, and arriving at Huddersfield from the south by 20 minutes to 2, I found I could not reach Bradford till after four in the afternoon; but, by using the municipal omnibus at Huddersfield, and by going along one of the routes referred to in this Bill, and ultimately using the Bradford municipal tramways, I was able to get to Bradford shortly after three o'clock. The railway companies have failed to keep pace with the times. They have been slow in electrifying their local routes; they are missing chances with regard to cheap tickets; they have allowed year after year to pass since the War without bringing in the facilities such as existed before the War, and municipalities or someone will have to take effective steps if the needs of the community are to be served. I see in this Bradford Bill a means whereby the railway companies may be spurred on to serve the interests of the community, and for that reason I cannot feel that it is at all in the interests of the railwaymen that we should put an obstacle in the way of the Bill. To do so, in the long run, will work out not in the interests of the railwaymen, but in the interests of omnibus companies who pay those very low rates of wages that my right hon. Friend referred to.

It is clear to me that the position with which the municipalities to-day are confronted is this, that the transport arrangements which in the past have been effective, through the use of tram- way cars, seem to have come to an end sure whether the figures I have collected would be entirely satisfactory, but they are the best I could obtain. I see that, taking the tramway cars of the country generally, there has been practically no increase in the total numbers of tramway cars that have been licensed by the transport authority. I got these figures from the Annual Report of the Department for which the Minister of Transport is responsible. They show that, in the last five years, there has been no increase whatever in the number of tramway cars running on the road, while motor transport has increased by leaps and bounds. The figures that I have collected from his Report indicate an increase of some 30 per cent. in general motor transport during that period. Unless the municipal authority is to have full freedom to develop the motor omnnibus, complementary to the tramcar, it is going to he placed at an exceedingly great disadvantage in the development of its service against the severe competition that the private companies are bringing to bear. In the long run, it will be to the disadvantage not only of the municipalities, but of the dwellers in the country areas, that this municipal development should be prevented.

I heard the other day from a very prominent authority in the West Riding that one of the reasons why he fears the the development foreshadowed in Bills like this is that, in the long run, the municipality will drive off the roads the private omnibus companies, and that the country areas then will be victims of the monopolies, that the municipalities will possess. I suggest that that argument leaves entirely out of account the fact that the omnibuses are used both by the dwellers in the county boroughs and the dwellers in the municipal boroughs and that if the municipal council were to drive up the price beyond what could be realised as the cost of production of the service, in the long run that municipal council would have very serious electoral difficulties within its own area. But as things are now, it is the omnibus services of the private companies that are developing, and these practically nobody can control—neither the dwellers in the county areas nor those in the municipal areas. It is for that reason that I hope the House vvi give favourable consideration to the Bill. I assure hon. Ambers that by so doing they will serve not only the interests of Bradford, but—I can speak for the whole of the municipal authority in the district that I represent—they will be serving also many other municipal authorities around the area of Bradford.

Sir R. HORNE

I think we shall all agree that the discussion has been both informing and interesting. While I disagree with the conclusion at which the last speaker arrived, with many of the views which he expressed I am in entire agreement. I have no knowledge of the local conditions of Bradford, nor am I able to take up such a position on this Bill as that of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I do not propose accordingly to touch upon any of those more intimate questions I would like, however, to say something on the general question, because I am sure that many Members who have listened to the Debate must have come to the conclusion that there is a very large question at issue, with regard to which the legislation of the country is in a state of confusion. The time will come when the House will require to look into this matter more closely and to, see whether more general devices can he obtained to better our procedure. I am led all the more to say that because of a report of the London and Home Counties Inquiry Committee, which came to the conclusion that, as things are now, nothing but inevitable war was going on between the various forms of transport, and that this was involving the country in the waste of enormous sums of money.

That view is greatly reinforced by a very lucid article by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) in a recent journal, where he points to the enormous waste which is brought upon the country now because of these competing forms of traffic—a waste which does not get any justification in the results that the country thereby obtains. I wish to speak on that particular theme in its application to the particular subject with which we are dealing. This is not the only Bill which is coming before the House asking for considerable powers of this kind. There are, indeed, 14 Bills of the same kind promoted by 14 different corporations or local authorities asking for the same kind of powers. This particular Bill, even in the narrow limits which one of the hon. Members for Bradford put upon its Clauses, would involve possible connections by omnibus between Bradford and such important towns as Leeds, Huddersfield, Wakefield and Dewsbury. As the House will readily appreciate, that must necessarily form a very severe competition or "inevitable war," if you choose to use that phrase.

Mr. PALIN

The competition of omnibuses is there already. The Bill would not increase competition in the least.

Sir R. HORNE

I think the hon. Member will agree that the competition will be emphasised particularly when the most recent omnibus owner if this Bill passes will be the municipality which has the rates behind it. That makes a great difference in the question of competition and I think the situation is only going to be confusion worse confounded, if you are to have internecine war in forms of transport between railway companies, private omnibus owners and a large variety of municipalities all running their own fleets of omnibuses. I think that is a situation which this House will not wish to arise, if it can be avoided, and in my view this is a matter which calls for close scrutiny and inquiry. I would add my voice to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) in asking the Minister of Transport to take this Debate very seriously into his consideration and see whether such an inquiry cannot be made to take place at an early date.

May I draw the attention of the House to one extraordinary anomaly which would follow upon the passing of Bills such as the present Bill? The railway companies are entitled by Act of Parliament to have rates imposed by the Rates Tribunal which will bring to the railway companies a revenue equal to that which they enjoyed in a particular year. Observe what the result would be. If you have competition between municipalities and railway companies with the result, let us say—and if the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) is right this would follow—that the railway companies are serious injured in their own traffic by what is done by the municipalities, the result will be that the rail- way companies will have less and the only method by which revenue can be raised to the figure which Parliament allows will be by imposing heavier rates. That is a very serious question because you are going to have, on the one hand, the municipality with the rates behind it, sanctioned by Parliament, and on the other a body which, by Statute, is entitled always to have its revenue made up to a particular figure. Is not that a ridiculous position in which to leave this great transport question? Observe the result upon the trade of the country.

Mr. HARDIE

Carry it a little further.

Sir R. HORNE

I will carry it further. Among the other powers sought by these Bills, there is one for the carrying of goods and merchandise. Observe what is going to happen under that system. It is going to leave only the heaviest material to be carried by the railways with the result that the very trades which are hardest hit by heavy rates, that is the heavy trades, will have to bear an additional burden. I would like to reinforce the argument which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby put before the House. He has not painted in any too lurid a light the burdens which the railway companies are suffering to-day, the disparate burdens, as compared with any other ratepayers and organisations in this country, and the picture of their fortunes as exhibited by the reports during the last, few weeks is a sufficient indication of the difficulties which they are having in meeting the obligations which at present press upon them. Accordingly, I suggest, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, that disaster to the Second Reading of this Bill would not be too high a price to pay to get the whole matter cleared up.

Colonel ASHLEY

The Debate this evening, of a very interesting character, has divided itself into two parts, one dealing with general principles as to what the relationship between road transport and railway transport should be, which, I submit, is in order on this Bill, and the other dealing with the merits of the Bill, which part of the Debate has been somewhat discursive. I want to say a few words, as is only right and proper, in deference to the two right hon. Gentlemen who have raised the question, with regard to the railway problem and road transport. No doubt that is a very difficult and insistent problem. It is one of those questions that come upon the country from time to time, and just as the advent of railways disorganised road transport and caused great unemployment and distress among those engaged in it 120 and 100 years ago, so now the wheel of fortune has been reversed, and roads are coming again into their own.

Mr. THOMAS

The wheel of misfortune!

Colonel ASHLEY

That depends on the angle from which you view it. The roads are coming more and more into their own again, and, naturally, the railway companies are feeling the effects of that competition. It is perfectly true that I have received deputations with reference to this question representing all interests in the railway world, and I may point out that the Government did take very important steps to redress what might be considered to be a grievance by imposing a very substantial increase in the taxation in the last Budget on the heavy vehicles which use the roads, so substantial an increase indeed that many serious and bitter complaints are reaching the Government that that taxation is too high. Then the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) comes here and complains that the railways are not being well treated and that the Government are doing nothing. I would point out to the House that we have done something, and probably we have done just about the right thing, as both sides are not satisfied with what we have done, but it is a problem that undoubtedly will have to be tackled sooner or later.

As the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has observed, we have now got three reports from the Committee which deals with the traffic problem of London, a problem that is very complex and very difficult to solve, dealing as it does with many material interests, many political interests, and many municipal interests. Whatever solution is offered by the Government will surely be opposed by large and important sections of the population. That does not mean that it will not be tackled, and it will have to be tackled, but it seems to me that co-ordination on these lines will have to be followed sooner or later by some authority, which will have to be set up not only for London, but, possibly, for the country as a whole. In this respect I must bear out the right hon. Member for Derby because he was attacked by, I think, the hon. Member for Newcastle West (Mr. Palin) and asked why, when the Minister of Transport held public inquiries, he did not appear and state the railway case for the railwaymen. The answer is perfectly simple. He had no locus standi at all. The only people who can appear are the applicant company and the responsible local authorities, and no representatives of the railways or other interests.

To come more particularly to the Bill which we are discussing, it is not usual for a Minister on a Private Bill to offer any definite advice to the House of Commons as to how it should deal with the Measure. It is his duty, very briefly, to outline what the position is, and what the usual custom is, and it is then for the House of Commons, in its discretion, either to give the Bill a Second Reading or not. As far as I understand this Bill at the present moment, the promoters, with the concessions or Amendments which they have offered, ask that they should be allowed to run on 11 specified routes, and, in addition, should be allowed, with the consent of the local authorities, and with the consent of the Minister of Transport of the day, to run 15 miles from the centre of the city of Bradford. They have offered to withdraw the Clause with enables them to let out vehicles on hire. Now the usual custom, as I understand the model Clauses, is to deal with it in three compartments. You usually allow a corporation to run inside its own area without any restriction. Outside the area you either allow it to have certain definite routes and/or allow it to run a certain distance from the centre of the town, with or without the consent of the Minister of Transport, and sometimes the Committee say it may run five miles from the centre of the town without any consent of the Minister of Transport, and at other times, they say it may run 10 miles, but with the consent of the Minister of Transport and the local authorities.

Having pointed out what the usual custom is—and the custom seems to be very varied—it is for the House to decide what they should do regarding the Second Reading. But I must point this out to the House—and, believe me, I do it not with any feeling of resentment against the Corporation of Bradford, but simply to state the case—the Corporation of Bradford the year before last refused definitely to allow any private omnibuses to run inside the city, even though those private omnibuses offered to run at a very considerably higher fare so as not to compete with the tramways. The corporation refused in any circumstances to allow them in, and thought it my duty, in order to see fair play between private and municipal services, to take it to the High Court and get a mandamus. Therefore, it is for the House, having heard the facts, to consider whether it should give a Second Reacting to this Bill.

Mr. FENBY

I have se'dom listened to a Debate on a private Bill which has kept so far away From the subject of the Measure. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport talked about or hinted at the traffic problem of the City of London. He had no contribution to make towards the traffic problem of Bradford, and its immediate neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir It. Horne) talked about the difficulties of railway companies and the competition that municipalities were offering. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would have liked to continue with suggestions for dealing with the whole problem, and that may be all right at the proper time, but it only points the moral of what I have said, that the discussion has kept away from the particular merits or demerits of this Bill. While the competition which railways are suffering from municipalities was discussed, nothing was said about the difficulties of municipalities because of the lack of enterprise of railway companies both at the present time and for a good many years back.

The Minister said that it is not his custom to give advice to the House on a private Bill. Putting the best interpretation on that remark as regards the present Bill, I think it means that there is a custom in this House that when a private Bill comes up it is usual for it to go to Committee upstairs in order to have the rights and wrongs of the question thrashed out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) spoke for a particular locality in his own constituency contiguous to Bradford, but surely the point he put is a purely local one, which should properly be dealt with in Committee and not here. It may be that the local point of view is quite an erroneous one. That can only be decided in Committee. We are dealing with a question of transport, and everybody knows, and no-one better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, that when the railways were first constructed certain local authorities contended—as some local authorities are doing to-night—that they had ample transport facilities without the railways. I know of one particular case, and no doubt instances could be multiplied, where a local authority appealed that a railway station should not be within a mile of their town, because already they had sufficient transport facilities.

With regard to the objections to the Bill, although I recognise it has a good deal of good in it, there are some parts of it which are open to criticism; but the proper place to deal with that is upstairs. Objection has been taken that the Bradford Corporation are asking powers to run outside the city boundary without the consent of the authorities through whose area they pass. Is that a new thing so far as this House is concerned? The Bill is seeking to establish no new principle with regard to that matter. I could give the House a list of Bills passed in 1925 giving the very provisions for which the Bradford Corporation are asking. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) is supporting the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill. I did not expect to see him in the Division Lobby opposing this Bill, because I would like to refer him to a speech which he made on Friday last dealing with a Bill which had certain proposals in it which he said did not touch completely the evil with which the Bill sought to deal, but nevertheless he stated that he thought the Bill should go upstairs in order that it might be improved. That is all I am asking the House to do now, because the proper place to deal with what is wrong with this Bill is in Committee upstairs.

Major HILLS

I can assure the House that I said nothing of the sort, and I do not know where the hon. Member gets his information.

Mr. FENBY

I was referring to a Bill which the hon. and gallant Gentleman supported on Friday, and therefore my statement is quite correct.

Major HILLS

Yes, but that Bill enshrined a most excellent principle.

Mr. FENBY

I wish to point out that the Labour party held a meeting and decided to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and I should have thought that the Conservative party and the Liberal party would have done the same thing. Do not let hon. Members opposite, Who may have tender consciences with regard to the intentions of the Labour party, trot out the bogy of Socialism with regard to this Bill, because it has not any Socialism in it. The critics of Socialism often assert that the evil of the Socialist theory is that it does away with the principle of competition. This Bill does nothing of the kind. This Bill simply lays down that a municipality is suffering from severe competition from an omnibus combine, and the Bill is asking that the corporation may have ample facilities to meet that competition, and that is the actual position. I can quite understand what are the interests of the railway companies represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, and other interests may come in who have not been seen or heard on this subject, but we are not now discussing the merits of this particular Bill. I ask hon. Members to take the Bill as they find it, because it introduces no new principle whatever. All the Measure asks is that the Bradford Corporation may have their own undertaking safeguarded by legislation in order to protect them against certain evils, and to give them certain powers to enable them to complete their transport arrangements. By rejecting this Bill hon. Members will do a very serious injury to the City of Brad- ford. We are not asking the House to accept this Bill as being right from the first word to the last, but we are asking that it should go to a Committee upstairs where the Minister of Transport and others will be able to see that justice is done to the various authorities who can show that they have a grievance under the Bill as it stands at present.

Mr. BALFOUR

I only intervene for a very few moments. I think that on the whole I thoroughly agree with and endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby), that, as a general guiding principle of this House, Private Bills ought to be sent upstairs for full consideration by a Committee, and I think it will be within the recollection of hon. Members that on many occasions I have put forward in this House a plea for sending Private Bills up to the Committees in order that their provisions might be fully explored. On more than one occasion, I have put forward such a plea when it was well known that I was personally and in a business capacity wholly opposed to the Measure in question. This, however, is one of the very few occasions during my fairly long experience of this House when a Bill has been presented to us that is capable of being judged by the House on its Second Reading—a Bill containing and dealing with only one simple issue, which is a matter of public policy that can be decided by the House on the Second Reading. In my judgment, for the reasons which have already been advanced and which I shall not repeat, I think it is the duty of the House on this occasion to decide as to this Bill on the Second Reading, without sending it up to a Committee, as there is no detail whatever for the consideration of a Committee beyond the principle elf public policy, which can be decided here and now in this House.

Mr. WILLIAM HIRST

As one of the representatives of the City of Bradford, whose Corporation are promoting this Bill, I desire to say a few words upon it. There is one point which I think we can reasonably put forward, and on which, perhaps, a wrong impression might have been obtained from the speech of the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) in moving the rejection of the Bill. The hon. Member tried to create the impresson, I think, when the House was not quite so full as it is now, that there was a division of opinion in the City of Bradford in regard to supporting this Bill. I think, however, the hon. Member will at least concede that every tribunal which has considered the Measure up to the present has at least recommended that it should come here for its Second Reading. When one analyses the representation in this House of the constituencies of Bradford, one finds that three of the four Members for the City constituencies are speaking and acting in support of the Measure, and that, surely is representative of the opinion of Bradford that they are desirous that this Bill should have a Second Reading. Moreover, the representation is by no means confined to one part of the House. We have a representative on these Benches, we have on the opposite side the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and we have below the Gangway my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby); and all of them are speaking with the mandate of their constituents that at least the Bill should have a Second Reading.

The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) started with the argument that at least a Private Bill, on its Second Reading, should usually be given the opportunity of receiving consideration in Committee, but he went on to suggest that there were special features about this Bill which made it possible to diagnose it easily to-night. I would say to the hon. Member that he will be committing a grave injustice on the great Corporation of Bradford if he does not allow this Bill to go upstairs and be further considered. I would suggest to him and to the House that at least the Bradford Corporation has a very honourable reputation. I think the Minister of Transport would be the first to admit that the Bradford Corporation, generally speaking, have at least promoted legislation that has been a credit to the city and to the community generally, and, in view of that reputation, I suggest that it would be an injustice to the Corporation if the House decided, by the Division which is now about to take place, that this Bill should not have a Second Read- ing. I suggest to the House that at least the reputation of the Bradford Corporation is such as to merit the support of this House in any legislation that the corporation may from time to time promote. A great injustice is going to be done. Financial interests have been from time to time mentioned. The Seconder mentioned the capital expenditure which has been involved and the debt which remains to be taken in hand by the city itself.

I have been privileged, along with the Mover of the Second Reading, to be a member of the Tramways Department of the Corporation for 10 years, and I do not think I am overstating the case when I suggest that the time is approaching when the tramways and their management are going to prove extremely difficult. Unless they are to be given fair play to meet the responsibilities of that great city and also outside the city, it seems to me that justice and fair play is not going to be meted out to our Corporation. May I suggest also that every municipality in the past has received some consideration by Act of Parliament which has made it possible for it to develop its tramway system up to the present point. In view of that consideration which has been given, is it too much to suggest that the time has come when this House, might be indulgent up to the point of allowing the Bill to go upstairs? I join with Members for the City of Bradford in asking that they will allow at least that to take place and not deny the possibility of the Bill being explored and the good points admitted and the bad rejected. Let the Bradford Corporation have the opportunity of not creating further debt and make it at least possible for the Department to improve its position and for the citizens generally to enjoy prosperity. I beg of Members to let the Corporation have this Second Reading, and they will find that fair play will be extended upstairs. We will seek to demand only justice, and that is what we ask from this House by the approval of the Second Reading.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 203.

Division No. 31.]	AYES.	[8.15 p.m.
Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel	Burton, Colonel H. W.	Eden, Captain Anthony
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Elliot, Major Walter E.
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Butt, Sir Alfred	Ellis, R. G.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.s.-M
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow. Centr'l)	Campbell, E. T.	Everard, W. Lindsay
Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Carver, Major W. H.	Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Apsley, Lord	Cassels, J. D.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. w.	Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Fermoy, Lord
Baldwin, Rt, Hon. Stanley	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Ford, Sir P. J.
Balniel, Lord	Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.)	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Foster, Sir Henry S.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Chapman, Sir S.	Fraser, Captain Ian
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Chilcott, Sir Warden	Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Christie, J. A.	Galbraith, J. F. W.
Bennett, A. J.	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Gates, Percy
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Berry, Sir George	Clarry, Reginald George	Glyn, Major R. G. C,
Bethel, A.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Gower, Sir Robert
Betterton, Henry B.	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Grace, John
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Boothby, R.J. G.	Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Grant, Sir J. A.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Cooper, A. Duff	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Cope, Major William	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Brass, Captain W.	Couper, J. B.	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Briggs, J. Harold	Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N )	Grentell, Edward C. (City of London)
Briscoe, Richard George	Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)	Grotrian, H. Brent
Brittain, Sir Harry	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Hall, Capt W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Hammersley, S. S.
Buckingham, Sir H.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)	Hanbury, C.
Bullock, Captain M.	Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Harland, A.
Burman, J. B.	Dixey, A. C.	Harrison, G. J. C.
Hartington, Marquess of	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Skelton, A. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Merriman, F. B.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Smithers, Waldron
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Soar. & Wh'by)	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Hills, Major John Waller	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G F. (Will'sden, E.)
Hilton, Cecil	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Storry-Deans, R.
Holland, Sir Arthur	Murchison, Sir Kenneth	Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Nelson, Sir Frank	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)	Neville, R. J.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Tasker, R. Inigo.
Hudson, Capt. A.U. M. (Hackney. N.)	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Huntingfield, Lord	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Hurd, Percy A.	Pennefather, Sir John	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hurst, Gerald B.	Penny, Frederick George	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Iliffe, Sir Edward M	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Waddington, R.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Wallace Captain D. E.
Jacob, A. E.	Phillpson, Mabel	Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W
Jephcott, A. R.	Ramsden, E.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)	Watts, Dr. T.
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Reid, D. D. (County Down)	Wells, S. R.
Little, Dr. E. Graham	Remer, J. R.	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairympie.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Remnant, Sir James	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Rice, Sir Frederick	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Loder, J. de V.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Looker, Herbert William	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Lougher, L.	Ropner, Major L.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Rye, F. G.	Withers, John James
Lumley, L. R.	Salmon, Major I.	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
MacIntyre, Ian	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
McLean, Major A.	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Wragg, Herbert
Macmillan, Captain H.	Sandon, Lord	Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Savery, S. S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie	Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.}
Malone, Major P. B.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Dennison, R.	Hirst. G. H.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Duncan, C.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Dunnico, H.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ammon, Charles George	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Forrest, W.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Baker, Walter	Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Gardner, J. P.	Jones, T. J. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Barnes, A.	George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd	Kelly, W. T.
Batey, Joseph	Gibbins, Joseph	Kennedy, T.
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Gillett, George M	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Bondfield, Margaret	Gosling, Harry	Kirkwood, D.
Briant, Frank	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lansbury, George
Broad, F. A.	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Lawrence, Susan
Bromley, J.	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Lawson, John James
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lee, F.
Buchanan, G.	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Lindley, F. W.
Cape, Thomas	Groves, T.	Livingstone, A. M.
Charleton, H. C.	Grundy, T. W.	Lowth, T.
Clowes, S.	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Lunn, William
Cluse, W. S.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R. (Aberavon)
Clynes, Right Hon. John R.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Mackinder, W.
Compton, Joseph	Hardie, George D.	MacLaren, Andrew
Connolly, M.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Cove, W. G.	Hayday, Arthur	MacNeill-Weir, L.
Crawfurd, H. E,	Hayes, John Henry	March, S.
Dalton, Hugh	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Maxton, James
Day, Colonel Harry	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)

Montague, Frederick	Sinclair, Major sir A. (Caithness)	Trevelyan, Rt Hon. C. P.
Morris, R. H.	Sitch, Charles H.	Varley, Frank B.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Siesser, Sir Henry H.	Wallhead, Richard C.
Mosley, Oswald	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Naylor, T. E.	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Oliver, George Harold	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Palin, John Henry	Snell, Harry	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	Wellock, Wilfred
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Spoor, Rt, Hon. Benjamin Charles	Welsh, J. C.
Ponsonby, Arthur	Stamford, T. W.	Westwood, J.
Potts, John S,	Stephen, Campbell	Whiteley, W.
Purcell, A. A.	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)	Wiggins, William Martin
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Sullivan, J.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Riley, Ben	Sutton, J. E.	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Ritson, J.	Taylor, R. A.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Rose, Frank H.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)	Windsor, Walter
Scrymgeour, E.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Scurr, John	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Sexton, James	Thurtle, Ernest	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Tinker, John Joseph	Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Fenby.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Townend, A. E.

Resolution agreed to.

Division No. 32.]	AYES.	[10.56 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Ammon, Charles George	Hirst, G. H.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Scurr, John
Baker, Walter	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Sexton, James
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Barnes, A.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Batey, Joseph	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Sitch, Charles H.
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Siesser, Sir Henry H.
Bondfield, Margaret	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Kelly, W. T.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Broad, F. A.	Kennedy, T.	Snell, Harry
Bromley, J.	Kirkwood, D.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Lansbury, George	Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Buchanan, G.	Lawrence, Susan	Stamford, T. W.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Lawson, John James	Stephen, Campbell
Cape, Thomas	Lee, F.	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Charleton, H. C.	Lindley, F. W.	Sullivan, J.
Cluse, W. S.	Livingstone, A. M.	Sutton, J. E.
Connolly, M.	Lowth, T	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Cove, W. G.	Lunn, William	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Dalton, Hugh	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Tinker, John Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry	Mackinder, W.	Townend, A. E.
Dennison, R.	MacLaren, Andrew	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Duncan, C.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Varley, Frank B.
Dunnico, H.	March, S.	Vlant, S. P.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Maxton, James	Wallhead, Richard C.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Fenby, T. D.	Montague, Frederick	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Morris, R. H.	Wellock, Wilfred
Gardner, J. P.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Welsh, J. C.
Gibbins, Joseph	Naylor, T. E.	Whiteley, W.
Gillett, George M.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Wiggins, William Martin
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Oliver, George Harold	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Groves, T.	Potts, John S.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grundy, T. W.	Rees, Sir Beddoe	Windsor, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Remer, J. R.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hardle, George D.	Riley, Ben	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ritson, J.	Lieut.-Colonel Gadie and Mr. Palin.
Hayes, John Henry	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel	Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.	Grace, John
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Colfox, Major William Phillips	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Cope, Major William	Grant, Sir J. A.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Couper, J. B.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Apsley, Lord	Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington. N.)	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Crawfurd, H. E.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Hammersley, S. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry
Bethel, A.	Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)	Harland, A.
Betterton, Henry B.	Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Harrison, G. J. C.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hartington, Marquees of
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Brass, Captain W.	Dixey, A. C.	Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Duckworth John	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Ellis, R. G	Hills, Major John Waller
Burman, J. B.	Erskine, Lord {Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Hilton, Cecil
Butt, Sir Alfred	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hohier, sir Gerald Fitzroy
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Campbell, E. T.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Carver, Major W. H.	Ford, Sir P. J.	Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Cassels, J. D.	Forestler-Walker, Sir L.	Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Forrest, W.	Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Fraser, Captain Ian	Huntingfield, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.	Hurd, Percy A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Gates, Percy	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Jacob, A. E.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Gower, Sir Robert	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Jephcott, A. R.	Penny, Frederick George	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Perkins, Colonel E. K,	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple]	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Knox, Sir Alfred	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Sugden Sir Wilfrid
Little, Dr. E. Graham	Philipson, Mabel	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Looker, Herbert William	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Tasker, R. Inigo.
Lougher, L.	Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Reid, D. D. (County Down)	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Lumley, L. R.	Rentoul, G. S.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Macmillan, Captain H.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Waddington, R.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Rye, F G.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Salmon, Major I.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Watts, Dr. T.
Margesson, Captain D.	Sandeman, A, Stewart	Wells, S. R.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Williams, A, M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Savery, S. S.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)	Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Moore, Sir Newton J.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph	Skelton, A. N.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Nelson, Sir Frank	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Wise, Sir Fredric
Neville, R. J.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)	Withers, John James
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Smithers, Waldron	Wragg, Herbert
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.{Ptrsf'ld.)	Somerville, A. A, (Windsor)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Stanley, Col. Hon.G.F.(Will'sden, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Mr. Ramsden and Sir Francis Watson.
Pennefather, Sir John	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill (By Order)—Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

c722
1. ADJOURNMENT. 18 words