§ Page 21, line 6, leave out (" twenty-seven ") and insert (" thirty ")
§ The Commons disagree with this Amendment:
§ Because they consider that the operation of the Bill should not be continued for so long a period.
362§ was a right for a private individual to put his carriage on a truck and run it on a railway. That is true, but it has all been done away with years ago. Does the noble and learned Lord put his dogcart on the Great Western Railway Company's luggage van, and go down to Buckinghamshire in that way? Of course he does not. The only result of rejecting these Amendments is to do away with any advantage that the Bill may possibly bring. There is no argument at all for the course the Government are taking. Whatever the House of Commons may do, that is no reason why your Lordships, having taken the common sense, business point of view, should assent to what the Government propose. I shall certainly disagree with the noble Lord's Motion, and I shall have the support of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
§ On Question, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments?
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 6.
361| CONTENTS. | ||
| Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Mayo, E. | Askwith, L. |
| Midleton, E. | Avebury, L. | |
| Parmoor, L. (L. President.) | On slow, E. | Crawshaw, L. |
| Portsmouth, E. | Denman, L. | |
| Devonshire, D. | Digby, L. | |
| Bertie of Thame, V. | Dynevor, L. | |
| Curzon of Kedleston, M. | Chaplin, V. | Erskine, L. |
| Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) | Chelmsford, V. | Gainford, L. |
| Chilston, V. | Harris, L. | |
| Salisbury, M. | Novar, V. | Hylton, L. |
| Peel, V. | Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.) | |
| Ancaster, E. | Younger of Leckie, V. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) |
| Balfour, E. | Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.] | |
| Bradford, E. | Ripon, L. Bp. | Olivier, L. |
| Chesterfield, E. | Rathcreedan, L. | |
| Clarendon, E. | Anslow, L. | Stanmore, L. (E. Galloway.) |
| De La Warr, E. [Teller.] | Arnold, L. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Kimberley, E. | Ashfield, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Malmesbury, E. | Ashton of Hyde, L. | Thomson, L. |
| Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) | ||
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Channing of Wellingborough, L. | Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.] |
| Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.] | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.) | Strachie, L. |
§ LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment, which deals with the period for which the measure is to be in operation.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Parmoor.)
§ VISCOUNT PEEL:My Lords, unfortunately I was not able to be present 363 during the early part of this discussion, but I strongly urge your Lordships to retain the Amendment of the six years. I do so for this reason, that this Bill has been put forward as an experiment and an effort to deal with the great problem of London traffic by a new system. As your Lordships further know, this Bill was introduced into another place on a permanent basis and it was only at a very late stage of the Bill that an Amendment was moved, and carried, that the period for which the Bill should run should be three years. It is perfectly true that after the expiration of those three years the Bill might be placed under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and be carried on, possibly, from date to date. But I feel that unless you really give to those people who are to work this Bill some sort of assurance— and it is really a short assurance—that they will have some five or six years during which they can develop their schemes and set in motion the whole of the machinery which will make this work possible, the whole of this measure will be perfectly useless.
May I remind your Lordships that some of these schemes involve a period of two or three years in which they are to be carried out. They involve also very considerable negotiations with the local authorities, and I doubt very much whether any of the local authorities will agree to bear their share of the burdens or to take upon themselves the considerable financial obligations which they have to take, if this Bill is to continue for only three years. I urge, therefore, that the six years should be retained. I urge it really on the principle on which the Bill has been put forward by noble Lords opposite—that it is an experiment. I submit very earnestly to your Lordships that not only will the experiment be a failure, but that it is impossible to carry out this great new experiment in London government unless the authorities who are trying to work the Bill are given a rather longer period than three years. I submit very strongly to your Lordships, therefore, that we ought, if possible, to retain that period of six years, and I trust the Government will not be too obdurate on that point.
§ LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Viscount has said, and I bear in mind what was said on a previous occasion. I hope that in 364 not pressing my Motion the matter will not be misunderstood, because the Motion which I moved was in accordance with the views which the Government have stated more than once. I do not think I am in a position to press it to a Division, and, therefore, having heard what the noble Viscount has said, I do not insist on my proposition.
§ On Question, Motion negatived, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I understand that the decision of your Lordships' House has been that the House of Lords adheres to its Amendment?
§ LORD PARMOOR:It is 1930 instead of 1927.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:That makes it quite clear.