HC Deb 25 July 1933 vol 280 cc2502-14

Order for Third Reading read.

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

7.30 p.m.


I wish again to press the Minister on a point that I raised in the Debate last Tuesday in relation to the proposal to impose a charge upon passengers embarking or disembarking at certain piers. I assured the Parliamentary Secretary last week that these charges were not in existence to-day and they have not been in existence, so far as I can remember, during all the time that I have been travelling from any of these piers. During the week-end I questioned not only people who were in the habit of travelling but officials on various passenger vessels and at the different piers, and they cannot remember any charge being made at some of the piers mentioned in the Schedules, four of which I specified on Tuesday. Objections were invited to items in the Bill and I was informed very definitely that the objections had been met. I was informed that the traders had agreed to the charges. Those who are in the habit of using the piers as passengers were not asked if they had any objections to make and if the traders answered for the travelling public, they did a thing that they had no right to do. The piers at Largs, Wemyss Bay, Gourock and Fairlie are open piers and the railway company are seeking power to impose a maximum charge of 2d. upon any passenger going upon any vessel at any of these piers and 2d. when he alights from the boat on his return home.

I wish to know whether the railway company intend to put this into operation at any time in the very near future. I have been informed that, if they wish to impose these charges, the matter will not come before the House again as we shall already have granted them the power, and all that will be necessary for them will be to get the sanction of the Tribunal. I wish to get an assurance from the Minister that the rights of the travelling public will be safeguarded by him as Minister of Transport, just as the traders rights were protected when they were allowed to appear before the Commissioners who examined the Bill. The traders are organised. They can be represented by counsel and, no doubt, they were represented by the best legal minds that they could engage to state their case when they were alleging objections to the Bill. But the travelling public are not organised. They know nothing of this charge. To many to whom I mentioned it came as a surprise. One or two piermasters to whom I spoke did not realise that this was in the Bill at all. They did not know that such a charge was intended to be made or that powers were being asked for. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that the scores of thousands o people who travel weekly to the Clydeside resorts will not be mulcted in pier dues and that they will enjoy the same rights and privileges that they have hitherto enjoyed and are enjoying at present.

May I be allowed to remove a misapprehension regarding some figures which I quoted a week ago. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport made the following statement: I am not quite sure that he did not rather mislead the House—quite unintentionally, I am certain—by comparing the ordinary fares at the present time with the pre-War excursion fares.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1933; col. 1776, Vol. 280.] The fares that I quoted were not excursion fares but the ordinary fares in existence in pre-War times, and they are borne out by a statement sent me by the Minister himself including a table of pre-War charges as compared with post-War charges. I hope, therefore, the Minister will agree that I was not misleading the House intentionally or unintentionally. Unless we get a satisfactory assurance from the Minister or from someone who has a right to speak on behalf of the company that these charges are not likely to be put into operation, I shall oppose the Third reading.

7.40 p.m.


My hon. Friend has done a service in raising this point, which is of importance to a great number of people in the west of Scotland and which must have escaped their notice. I do not want to block the Bill. There are some provisions to which we have no objection, but we view with some concern the proposal to impose these pier dues. In certain cases this might be an extreme hardship. Many people now travel daily from Dunoon to Greenock, and in the course of the summer there are many who live in Greenock who work at Dunoon and other coastal resorts. To penalise them to the extent of 4d. per day for pier dues would be totally unfair and unjustifiable. I have not yet heard a real argument why this charge should be made. It may be argued that the piers do not pay, but, if that is the case, the loss should not be made good by levying a charge on the people who have to use them day by day. It is a very keen hardship on trippers, but I am not so much concerned about them as I am about those who have to travel to earn their livelihood. I trust that the railway company will not force this through the House. It has only got to this stage because the people do not know about it. The company will not get the full 4d. because there is the cost of collection. They will have to erect turnstiles and employ labour to collect the money and at least a fourth of the impost will be swallowed up in working expenses. The railway company is entitled to credit for affording access to certain of the beauty places in Scotland by means of cheap railway fares, but this new power that they seek would be a terrible hardship and, in these days of so-called progress, this is a thoroughly reactionary step and I trust that they will not proceed with it.

7.45 p.m.


I want to make my protest against this Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland, and also the Minister of Transport, when have been worrying about greater facilities for the Western Isles, have given the reply that they have no power over the ships which sail from the Firth of Clyde to the Outer Hebrides. This is an instance in which we have some influence. As has been pointed out on several occasions here, every other manner of transport all over the mainland has benefited by man's ingenuity, but the Outer Hebrides and those who are dependent upon these ships have not benefited. I do not know what fares the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) quoted, but I can quote fares which existed pre-War in regard to which there can be no denial. I have taken my wife and family down to Rothesay and have returned for 2s.—five of a family. That is impossible now because innumerable restrictions have been put on which did not exist when my family were young. They ran about the boat and escaped being required to pay. That sort of thing was recognised. [HON. MEMBERS:" Laughter!"] Hon. Members may laugh, but if that had not been the case—and this is the serious part about it—children like my own would not have got down the Firth of Clyde. We did not get sufficient money, and there was a laxity then. It was recognised. To-day all that has gone. There has been a tightening up. There is no doubt that the railway companies, like every other company which owns ships which go round the Western Isles or the Firth of Clyde, are in a favoured position compared with what they were before the War.

I wish to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the fact that the engineers and firemen on those boats are working excessive hours. They are out with the control of our union, otherwise they would not have obtained their jobs. The union have to be lax in order that our men may get jobs on those boats in spite of the long hours which have to be worked and the miserable wages which are paid. All the men on board ship are working under very bad conditions. The Secretary of State should now use his influence with the individuals promoting this Bill. They have no right to keep scooping the pool without giving any concessions. We are giving them a concession here by allowing the Bill to go through. If we were as harsh and as determined about our business as they are about theirs, we should not allow the Bill to go through, but would hold it up. We could systematically organise ourselves as Members of the House to thwart the passage of any Bill which the railway company brought before the House. That is the privilege of a Member of Parliament nowadays. But we have at no time set out in any organised fashion to hold up any work of the railway companies, and on this occasion we are not appealing for our individual selves. We are appealing on behalf of the poor folk, the working classes who are up against it.

I have had many visitors to see me from the West of Scotland, and they have been appalled, not at the poverty in London but at the affluence which they saw in the South of England. They say that the people here in England have no knowledge of the terrible poverty which exists in the West of Scotland. It is because of that poverty problem that we are appealing to the railway companies to put forward a hand to try and help in these difficult times. They should come and go with us, as we try to come and go with them on every occasion. I hope that in making this appeal the Secretary of State for Scotland will not turn a deaf ear and say that he is getting used to us, as if the only way to get any concession is when we hold up the House and have a scene. I hope that it is not going to be said by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the only way we can get a, concession is when we hold up the business of the House. I hope that it does not come to that, and that we shall be able to obtain concessions when we put forward facts which are irrefutable.

The Secretary of State for Scotland should view the matter from the point of view of the interest of the entire community instead of viewing it from the point of view of the shareholders of the railway companies. He should view it from the point of view of the good of Scotland; of the good of the West of Scotland in abnormal circumstances. I hope that he will say to the company that the Scottish Labour Members threatened to hold up the Bill. It is only the Scottish Labour Members who stand up for the working-class, although hon. Members opposite may say that that is only rubbish and that one would think that there are only a few individuals who represent the working-class. How is it that if we do not raise questions here, no Tories ever raise questions on behalf of the working-class. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will weigh well what he is to say and will not come here with his mind made up before he has heard our point of view; the point of view, not of the shareholders or of the railway company or of the shipping interests. but of the people who are to be affected—the working-class. It is for them that we on these benches speak.

7.55 p.m.


Speaking as a director of the railway company, and as it is the Third Reading of the Bill which is now being considered, I ask the House to allow me to explain the real position. I think that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Members who have just addressed the House on this particular question. It is suggested that these are new charges. These piers and quays were constructed years ago by the then railway companies. They were all constructed under Acts of Parliament, which, I believe, in every single case give charging. powers for the use of the piers and quays for the purpose of landing and embarking. The proposal in the Bill is purely and simply to co-ordinate the powers which at present exist. In some cases these powers give the right to charge 3d. for landing and 3d. for embarking, and in other cases ld. As this Bill was being introduced for other purposes, it was thought that it would also be desirable to simplify and coordinate the charges at the piers and quays.

If the House thought fit to reject the Bill on the question of these charges, it would not alter the charging powers which at present exist, and which, in many cases, are considerably higher than is proposed by the Bill. We have these charging powers now. We have not had to use them. I hope that there is no probability of their being used. In the immediate future, I do not think there is any probability of exercising the powers granted to us under the Bill. In these circumstances, I think that the proposal to co-ordinate the charges which are in operation on the different piers and quays is a desirable one, and one which the House should, agree to pass. If we desired to put into operation the powers which we have at present, or which we shall have under the Bill if it passes, we should have to go to the Railway and Canal Commission to get their approval, and in those circumstances I really think that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) is under a misapprehension in thinking that there will be any damage done to the people in his constituency.


The hon. Member has stated that these charges are already in existence. Can he inform me why it is that the agents of the railway company cannot evidently find the Statutes which they promised to send me. They have sent me charges for two piers which I did not mention, but not for the four piers about which I was protesting just now. They have not yet sent me the number of the Statute so that I can look the matter up for myself, and substantiate it in this House. I have searched all the afternoon and have not been able to find any Statutes relating to the four piers which I mentioned which give the powers which the hon. Member says are already in existence.

7.58 p.m.


As I know something about the locality with which we are dealing here, it is only fair that the House should be informed upon one point, that the charging of dues for the landing and embarking of passengers is no mean thing on the Clyde. No doubt it has not been exercised by the railway companies on any of the piers which are owned by them although, as the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden) pointed out, they have the power at the present time to make these charges, indeed to make higher charges per passenger than those proposed to be authorised by this Bill.


A definite assertion has been made by the hon. Member, and I am certain that he has no desire to mislead the House. If he is so certain that these charges, heavier than the charges proposed in the Bill, are already in existence and that it is within the power of the railway company to enforce them, will he quote the Statutes which gives those powers?


If the hon. Member had listened he would have heard that 1 was merely reiterating what has been said by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester, who is a director of the company. He has stated, I have no doubt on authoritative information, that in the case of some piers the present charging powers are in excess of those in the Bill. Be that as it may, the charging of dues for passengers landing and embarking on the Clyde is nothing new. With the exception of the railway piers, I believe that a similar charge is in operation on all the piers on the Clyde. Those piers are either privately owned or are owned by the towns in which they are situated. For the purposes of the upkeep of the pier a charge is made. The railway piers have been constructed by the railway company but up till now the company has not seen fit to make any charge for the use of the piers towards their maintenance. It seems to me only fair that the railway company should have power to make a charge towards the upkeep of the piers, just as much as any town-owned or privately-owned pier at which the railway companies steamers land or embark passengers.

It is in the interests of the travelling public that these piers should be kept in a proper and efficient state of repair. Considering that the railway companies have to meet enormous expenses in the way of wages, etc., it is only fair that they should have the power to make a charge if they think it necessary to do so. There is sufficient safeguard in the Bill, because the railway company cannot impose these charges until they have the authority of the Railway and Canal Commission. Anybody interested can appear before the Railway and Canal Commission and oppose any application for power to charge dues that the railway company may choose to make. When this question was before us on a previous occasion I raised another point, which I will repeat now, that this Bill had been carefully considered by the Commissioners under the private legislation procedure that we have in Scotland, which is similar to the procedure on a Private Bill in this House relating to England. IF anyone had wished to oppose the. Bill they could have done so. It is idle for the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) to say that people cannot oppose. The interests who can oppose are the town councils of the towns concerned, who wish to get people to their towns. They could appear before the Commissioners and oppose the Bill, but they did not do so. The right to charge the dues having been approved by the Commissioners, I think this House should be slow to turn down a Bill that has been so approved.

8.5 p.m.


I can well understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and others. I can understand their indignation that any higher charge should be put upon the travelling public. I can especially sympathise with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), although I gathered that his family could no longer avail themselves of the privileges which they appear to have had in the past. I would also observe that o the hon. Member himself managed to get down more cheaply than other people, because even in the cheapest excursion days when the return fare. was 2s. 6c1. he appears to have managed it for 2s. It is natural that his feelings should be outraged by any increase in these charges. I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member for Govan in what I said the other night. I see now that he was dealing with ordinary figures and not the excursion figures.

In regard to the point he has brought up to-night he has been answered by my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden) who represents the railway company, and by the last speaker. I do not think the hon. Member need be in the least alarmed as to the situation. The Bill clearly lays down in Clause 4 (2) that: Notwithstanding the provisions of the section of this Order whereof the marginal note is Maximum rates and charges' the rates dues and charges which the Company may levy at the Company's harbours in Scotland after the date of this Order shall not unless varied in accordance with the provisions of this section exceed the rates dues and charges in operation immediately before the date of this Order … In. Clause 4 (3) it is provided that The Commissioners shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any complaint or application that may be brought before them by a competent authority involving the legality of the rates dues and charges or any of them in operation at any time at any of the Company's harbours in Scotland to which they relate and to hear and determine any application by a competent authority made at any time not less than twelve months after the date of this Order for variation of the rates dues and charges or any of them in operation at the date of such application at any of the Company's harbours in Scotland. … It would appear therefore that the new rate authorised by the Order cannot be put into operation by the company within a period of 12 months from the date of the order, and then only after the consent of the Commissioners has been obtained, which would not be granted without an opportunity having been given to interested parties to be heard on any application. In these circumstances I do not think that there is any serious grievance entailed by the putting into execution of these charges, seeing that the travelling public will have ample opportunity of stating their objections to the proposed charges. I cannot see that the travelling public or anybody else has any real grievance.

The company, as has been stated. already has power to charge rates on certain piers. I am not particularly acquainted with the Clyde, but I see that on Fairlie Pier the company has the right to charge a rate of 3d., on Gourock Pier 1d., and on Wemyss Bay Pier 3d. The object of the Bill is to standardise the charges for all the Company's piers if it should be deemed necessary so to do so by the company. I think therefore that as the travelling public has the power of ob- jection and as the rates cannot be put into execution except with the sanction of the Commissioners, there is no real objection to the passage of the Bill.

8.10 p.m.


At the Central Railway Station, Glasgow, there used to be a charge of 3d. to get on to the platform.


The charge is 3d. at Queen Street.


The charge was 3d. at the Central Station until we raised the question here, and it has now been reduced to id. That shows what the railway companies do. They are not a philanthropic institution. If it was not for the power that we have here they would still fleece the poor working class in Glasgow as they did when the poor folk had more money to work for than they have now. Therefore we ask that they should reduce the charges on the piers in keeping with the reduction that they gave to us when the charge for the admission to the platform at the Central Station was reduced from 3d. to ld.

8.11 p.m.


Will the Minister be good enough to send me the Statutes to which he has referred, giving power to make charges in respect of Fairlie Pier, Gourock Pier and Wemyss Bay Pier? I have been trying to get the Statutes and I was told that I could get them. If I had been assured on this point earlier there need have been no opposition. I am pleased to have the guarantee given to me by the Minister with regard to the 12 months period and the appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission, but in view of the way that the matter has been handled by the railway company's agent I shall divide against the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I do not know who gave the guarantee to the hon. Member that he would be supplied with the Statutes which give the right to the railway company to charge these dues, but I will endeavour to satisfy the hon. Member.


Has the hon. Member looked at the Acts set forth in pages 7 and 8 of the Bill?

Question put," That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 34.

Division No.290. AYES [8.13. p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Guy, J. C. Morrison Pybus, Percy John
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Hales, Harold K. Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zeti'nd) Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Alien, Lt.-Col J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Harbord, Arthur Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Asks, Sir Robert William Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Ramsbotham, Herwald
Atholl, Duchess of HellgerS, Captain F. F. A. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Reid, David D. (County Down)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Holdsworth, Herbert Ramer, John R.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Hornby, Frank Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Horsbrugh, Florence Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ruggles-Brice, Colonel E. A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Runge, Norah Cecil
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Birchail, Major Sir John Dearman Hurd, Sir Percy Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Blladell, James James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Boulton, W. W. Jamieson, Douglas Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Danner, Barnett Salt, Edward W.
Briant, Frank Joel, Dudley J. Barnet Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Savery, Samuel Servington
Broadbent, Colonel John Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Scone, Lord
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Seiley, Harry R.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Browne, Captain A. C. Kerr, Hamilton W. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Kimball, Lawrence Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Burnett, John George Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm Levy, Thomas Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Lewis, Oswald Skelton, Archibald Noel
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Liddell, Walter S. Slater, John
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Christie, James Archibald Mabane, William Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Clarke, Frank MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Clarry, Reginald George MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Clayton, Sir Christopher McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Smith, R. W. (WI-din & Klnc'dine, C.)
Colfox, Major William Philip McKie, John Hamilton Smithers, Waldron
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Somervell, Donald Bradley
Cooke, Douglas Magnay, Thomas Somerville, Annesley A. (wlndeor)
Copeland, Ida Maitland, Adam Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Marlalieu, Edward Lancelot Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Cowan, D. M. Mander, Geoffrey le M. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Crooke, J. Smedley Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Spens, William Patrick
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Marsden, Commander Arthur Stevenson, James
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Stewart, J. H. (Fria, E.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Milne, Charles Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Dalkeith, Earl of Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Summersby, Charles H.
Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Mansell, Rt, Hon. Sir B. Eyres Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Denville, Alfred Morgan, Robert H. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Dickie, John P. Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Thorp, Linton Theodore
Doran, Edward Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Dower, Captain A. V. G. Morrison, William Shaphard Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Moss, Captain H. J. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Muirhead, Major A. J. Ward, Irene Mary Bewlek (Wallsend)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Nall, Sir Joseph Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Wells, Sydney Richard
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Normand, Wilfrid Guild White, Henry Graham
Fleming, Edward Lascelies North, Edward T. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Nunn, William Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Ford. Sir Patrick J. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Withers, Sir John James
Gibson, Charles Granville Owen, Major Goronwy Womersley, Walter James
Glossop, C. W. H. Pearson, William G. Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Goff, Sir Park Penny, Sir George Wragg, Herbert
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Perkins, Walter R. D. Young, Rt. Hon, Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.) Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Petherick, M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.) Pickering, Ernest H. Mr. Fielden and Mr. Somerset.
Grigg, Sir Edward Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Attlee, Clement Richard Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Mainwaring, William Henry
Banfield, John William Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Maxton, James
Batey, Joseph Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Milner, Major James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) John, William Moreing, Adrian C.
Buchanan, George. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Parkinson, John Allen
Cape, Thomas Lawson, John James Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Leckie, J. A. Thorne, William James
Cripps, Sir Stafford Leonard, William Tinker, John Joseph
Dagger, George Logan, David Gilbert Wallhead, Richard C.
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Macdonald, Gordon (Inca) Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Dobble, William McEntee, Valentine L. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Edwards, Charles Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Kirkwood.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Forward to