Cookies: We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our site. By continuing to use the site you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
House of Commons Hansard
x
The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
Evening Sitting Opposed Private Bill Business North And South Shields Electric Railway Bill Lords (By Order)
22 July 1902
Volume 111

As amended, considered.

* (9.0.)

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

moved to add a clause requiring the Company to provide proper accommodation for conveyance of bicycles by all trains, but not more than six in one train. He was aware of the general feeling among Members who were averse from having matters of comparative unimportance, which had been decided by a Committee, brought up again before the House of Commons; but, in this case, there had been no consideration of the question, the Chairman having ruled that the cyclists had no locus standi. The Bill was one for the construction of an electric tube under the River Tyne, and the Company asked to be relieved from any obligation to carry bicycles at all. The population of Tyneside exceeded a million, and last year 44,000 cycles were carried by the old ferry steamer, so that it was a matter of some importance to all concerned. Cycling was no longer merely a pastime, but a real necessity, and not of professional men alone. He could testify to the increasing use of cycles by working men of late years, and it did not a little in certain districts to solve the housing question. He regarded the cycle as the working man's motor car. It might be argued that cyclists could still use the old out-of-date ferry service; but there was no guarantee, as far as he could find, that the present rate of service would be continued He was not aware of anything but the pressure of local opinion to prevent those responsible for the service from dropping it to half an hours service or even less. Apart from that, on one side of the river at any rate there was a hill approaching the ferry which was certainly awkward, and very often dangerous to cyclists. He claimed for cyclists in common with other sections of the community, the right to participate in the improved facilities which science was placing at our disposal. Parliament always recognised the salutary rule that the powers it conferred on public companies carried with them obligations, and zealously guarded against the companies picking and choosing the convenient and profitable traffic and leaving the rest. He believed it was alleged by the promoters that the adoption of the clause would hamper them in the working of their scheme; but that was guarded against by the limit placed on the number of machines carried. It appeared that it was proposed that the train should stop only thirty seconds at each end of the tube; but he did not believe the folks of Shields wished this scurrying, neck-breaking, heart-disease producing mode of progress. It was further pointed out by the promoters that other electric tube railways had not had similar obligations imposed upon them; but this was not an electric tube railway in the ordinary sense of the word, but a short tunnel. Then the promoters stated they were advised that it was mechanically impossible, and that the additional expenditure would seriously interfere with the financial prospects of the company. He could not, however, believe that in these days of engineering skill and mechanical progress, especially in the North of England, it was impossible to devise some means whereby cycles could be carried. A Clause (Company to carry bicycles) —(Mr. Plummer)—brought up, and read the first and second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he was not interested financially or personally in this scheme. He would like to point out it could scarcely be called a railway. It was more of the nature of a tram line which was intended to afford a cheap and rapid transit from one side of the river to the other. The great object of these railways was to carry, passengers, and there was no provision made in these cases for luggage of any kind, because it was realised that if luggage were allowed it would involve delay and some danger to the public. The suggestion now made that the company should be compelled to provide for the carriage of six bicycles by each train would necessitate invidious selection and obviously cause not a little disorder when there happened to be more than six waiting to cross. Cyclists already had an excellent means of crossing by the ferry boats. He quite recognised the spirit in which the Cyclists' Touring Club had approached this matter but he rather deprecated the pressure put upon M. Ps. to take a step which was not in the interest of the public generally.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

opposed the Clause. He was greatly interested in the question of rapid communication when it was closely connected with the housing difficulty. The object of tubular railways was to secure rapid means of transit in order that —

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Order, order! The general question cannot be discussed on this Bill. The point is whether cycles shall be carried through this particular tunnel under the River Tyne.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he had no intention of discussing the general question. This tubular railway was to serve a population of a quarter of a million, and it was strongly supported by the Tyneside Council as well as the Corporations of the large towns concerned and he did not think it fair to attempt to force this duty on the Company. They ought to have some direction from the Board of Trade on this matter; some hint as to whether that Department approved this proposal. He was well aware that cyclists were worse provided for in tins country than in any other, but he doubted the wisdom of imposing a special obligation in this case.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he would certainly do nothing to imperil or impede the progress of this Bill; but he was bound to admit that the cyclists of the two towns did not receive fair and adequate treatment under the Bill. The hon. Member who had last spoken said the cyclist had been refused a locus standi before the Committee. That was quite true, and that was the reason that they were called upon to discuss the Amendment now. His hon. friend had stated that there were sufficient means of transit for cyclists across the river. The question, however, was whether that means of traffic would last in anything like its present sufficiency when this Bill had passed. When his hon. friend talked of placing an obligation upon this Company which was not imposed on any other railway, he forgot that one of the matters into which a Committee had to inquire was whether any section of the community found its facilities diminished by granting facilities to any company. At South Shields there was at present a ferry which ran every fifteen minutes; but if their Bill were passed, that ferry service would be very likely diminished, because, when they had electric trams running under the river every six minutes, traffic would be diverted to that new means of communication. The ferry, if it was maintained, would not in all probability run with its present frequency: and, while the general public would be advantaged by the new means of transit, the cyclists would find their facilities lessened. Those who supported this Amendment had endeavoured to impose as little inconvenience as possible on the Company, and, with that desire, had consented to the absurd restriction that not more than six cycles should be carried at a time, and the price charged to be three times as much as that charged for the conveyance of cycles over the ferry.

* (9.30.)

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he agreed that the floor of this House was a most inconvenient place to discuss whether bicycles should be carried by this railway or not, but it was in consequence of the locus of the petitioners having been disallowed before the Committee that this discussion was now taking place. He thought the Standing Orders ought to be altered. He was Chairman of the Court of Referees, which disallowed the locus of the petitioners in this case. That Court was not concerned with the merits of the case, but decided against the right of bicyclists to petition upon technical grounds. He had, however, subsequently looked into the question and had satisfied himself that on the merits he should have gone against the bicyclists, because the scheme was intended purely for passengers, and the obligation sought to be imposed would be a serious hindrance. At the same time, he thought the Standing Orders ought to be extended, so as to allow bodies like the Cyclists' Touring Club to have an opportunity in the same way as Chambers of Commerce or Agriculture of being heard before the Committee.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the desirability of amending the Standing Orders.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he would vote against the Clause being inserted in the Bill.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he knew the localities to be served by this railway. Hitherto the means of getting across the river Tyne had been steam ferries, which worked very efficiently; but if this Bill passed the effect would be to direct a large proportion of the passenger traffic from the boats to the railway, and the boats would in all probability be largely withdrawn. It was the duty of the House to give the greatest possible facilities to all members of the public, even including cyclists. He was therefore of opinion that the justice of the case could best be met by admitting cyclists to have the facilities they desired.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said that the promoters of a private Bill, who came to the House asking, privileges of any kind, must obey the rules set down in the Standing Orders, and, therefore they had a right to expect that no new condition should be imposed on them while their Bill was before the House. What was now proposed was to impose on this company a new condition which had not been laid on any other electric tube railway company. That new condition had been laid on them while the Bill was passing through the House. The hon. Member for Newcastle said this was not a tube railway at all, but practically a tunnel. He was not an engineer, but he could not see the difference between the Central London Railway and that now proposed, except that the one was eight or nine miles long with thirteen stations and the other three-quarters of a mile long with two stations. The whole object of the railway was to give quicker means of communication between North and South Shields, the intention being to run trains every six minutes. It was necessary to the scheme that there should be speed in conducting the traffic. If bicycles were allowed to be carried, the difficulties of quick working would be increased. He hoped the House would not impose this new condition on the company.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said it appeared to him that the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle was a very strong one, because what was proposed to be done by the promoters of the Bill was actually to diminish the facilities at present enjoyed by cyclists. Cycling had become all over the country a means of rapid communication for business purposes. His own experience, as a traveller who sometimes had his cycle conveyed by the underground railway, convinced him that there would be no difficulty in carrying bicycles on this line. He regretted that the Standing Orders did not permit of the petitioners bringing their case before a Committee of the House.

(9.53.)

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said this House was bound to take cognisance of the change in the times, and to see that tube railway companies, to which they gave very valuable rights, provided the public with accommodation to the utmost possible extent. It seemed to him that the refusal to carry bicycles was quite behind the times, seeing the great commercial uses to which those machines wore now put, and that Parliament was giving this company great powers, including that of going under the river.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said that the hon. Member for Rugby had spoken about millionaires on the south side of the river. He did not know that millionaires were plentiful, but he knew that there were a large number of working men who lived on both sides of the river, and had to pass over the river to and from their work. Supposing, on account of the competition of the tube railway; the ferry should fall out of use, if the tube railway refused to carry their bicycles, what were the working men to do? He did not know as much about railway law as, perhaps, he should; but it was clear to him that this House, in considering railway Bills, should have some regard to the feelings and wants of the people. There was no use drawing a comparison between this proposed tube and the tubes in London. In no part of the country was the population so congested as in this particular district, and Workmen ought to have every possible means of access to their work. The company was not providing these tubes for the convenience of Work-people; their first consideration was to make profit. But if Parliament had the power to do so, they should make some provision for the cheap transit of cyclists and their machines.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said that this railway company was trying to get a great privilege from Parliament for the purpose of making, profit. They were justly entitled, therefore, to ask the railway company to do something in return in the way of carrying men to and from their work.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said that if cyclists were allowed to carry their bicycles in the proposed tube they would come in shoals every Wednesday and Saturday afternoon. There was a ferry every half mile on the Tyne, and cyclists had ample facilities for crossing the river by that means, and they would not lose more than four minutes anywhere by using the ferry boats as Compared with the tube.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said that no serious argument had been offered against the concession which would be made by the adoption of the proposed Clause. There were no engineering difficulties, and he thought he might take it that the promoters did not feel that the concession asked for would seriously interfere with the working of the railway.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said that, as an old member of a cyclists' club, he knew that a large number of workmen had their homes on one side of the river and their business on the other, and that involved the constant use of their

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.Delany, WilliamLangley, Batty
Abraham, William (Rhondda)Devlin, JosephLaw, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Allen, Charles P. (Gloue., StroudDewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)Layland-Barratt, Francis
Ambrose, RobertDilke, Rt. Hon. Sir CharlesLeamy, Edmund
Anson, Sir William ReynellDillon, JohnLegge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Archdale, Edward MervynDonelan, Capt. A.Leigh, Sir Joseph
Arkwright. John StanhopeDoogan, P. C.Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Arrol, Sir WilliamDouglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)Levy, Maurice
Ashton, Thomas GairDoxford, Sir William TheodoreLewis, John Herbert
Bain, Col. James RobertDuke, Henry EdwardLong, Rt. Hn. Walter (BristolS.
Baird, John George AlexanderDuncan, J. HastingsLowther, Rt Hn JW (Cum. Penr.
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (LeedsEdwards, FrankLoyd, Archie Kirkman
Balfour, Kenneth R. (ChristchFarrell, James PatrickLucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Bartley, George, C. T.Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.Lundon, W.
Bignold, ArthurFenwick, CharlesMacdona, John Cumming
Bill, CharlesFfrench, PeterMacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Boland, JohnFisher, William HayesMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bolton, Thomas DollingFitzGerald, Sir Robert PenroseMacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-Flannery, Sir FortescueMacVeagh, Jeremiah
Bousfield, William RobertFlavin, Michael JosephM'Artlmr, Charles (Liverpool)
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW.M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W
Brigg, JohnFuller, J. M. F.M'Kean, John
Broadhurst, HenryGardner, ErnestM-'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Brookfield, Colonel MontaguGoddard, Daniel FordMiddlemore, John Throgmort'n
Bryee, Rt. Hon. JamesGordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&NairnMolesworth, Sir Lewis
Bull, William JamesGorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John EldonMorgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Burke, E. HavilandGray, Ernest (West Ham)Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Butcher, John GeorgeGrenfell, William HenryMontagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)
Caidwell, JamesGretton, JohnMooney, John J.
Cameron, RobertHammond, JohnMore, Robert Jasper (Shropsh're
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr TydvilMorley, Charles (Breconshire
Cawley, FrederickHarwood, GeorgeMorrell, George Herbert
Cayzer, Sir Charles WilliamHayden, John PatrickMorton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-Murphy, John
Channing, Francis AllstonHeath, Arthur Howard (HanleyMurray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Charrington, SpencerHemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.Nanneiti, Joseph P.
Coghill, Douglas HarryHobhouae, Henry (Somerset, E.Nichol, Donal Ninian
Cohen, Benjamin LouisHolland, Sir William HenryNolan, Col. John P(Galway, N
Collings, Rt. Hon. JesseHorniman, Frederick JohnNorman, Henry
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. AtholeHoward, J. Midd., TottenhamNussey, Thomas Willams
Compton, Lord AlwyneHutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)O'Brien, Kendal Tipperary Mid
Corbett, P. L. (Down, N.)Jebb, Sir Richard ClaverhouseO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Craig, Robert HunterJeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.
Cubitt, Hon. HenryJones, William (Carnarv'nshireO'Connor, James (Wicklow, W
Cullinan, J.Jordan, JeremiahO'Connor, T. P (Liverpool)
Dalrymple, Sir CharlesJoyce, MichaelO'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.)
Davenport, William Bromley-Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.O'Shaughnepsy, P. J.
Davies, M. Vaughan (CardiganKenyon, Hn George T. (D'nbighPalmer, Walter (Salisbury)

cycles. He was glad to hear that there were no serious engineering difficulties in making the concession, and he marvelled at the modesty of the request, and that the railway company should refuse such a small matter.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he had hoped the House would have heard something on this question from the President of the Board of Trade.

(10.13.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 312.)

Partington, OswaldRoche, JohnTomkinson, James
Paulton, James MellorRolleston, Sir John F. L.Tritton, Charles Ernest
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'nRopner, Colonel RobertTufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Pemberton. John S. G.Russell, T. W.Tully, Jasper
Philipps, John WynfordScott, Chas. (Prestwich, LeighValentia, Viscount
Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. RichardSeton-Karr, HenryWarde, Colonel C. E.
Power, Patrick JosephShaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Pretyman, Ernest GeorgeShipman, Dr. John G.Webb, Colonel William George
Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. EdwardSinclair, John (Forfarshire)Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton
Purvis, RobertSinclair, Louis (Romford)Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Randles, John S.Skewes-Cox, ThomasWhite, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rankin, Sir. JamesSoaros, Erne-t.I.Whiteley, H.(Asht'n und. Lyne
Rasch, Major Frederick CarneSpear, John WardWhitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rea, RussellStrachey, Sir EdwardWhittaker, Thomas Palmer
Reckitt, Harold JamesStroyan, JohnWilliams, Osmond (Merioneth
Roddy, M.Sturt, Hon. Humphry NapierWilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.
Redmond, William (Clare)Sullivan, DonalWilson, Henry. J. (York. W. R.
Reid, James (Greenock)Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Remnant, James FarquharsonTalbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd UnivWrightson, Sir Thomas
Renwick, GeorgeThomas, Abel (Carmarthen, EWylie, Alexander
Richards, Henry CharlesThomas, Sir Alf. (Glam'rg'n, E.
Rickett, J. ComptonThomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)Thomas, F. Freeman-(HastingsTELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.Mr. Plummer and Mr.
Robertson. Edmund (Dundee)Thornton, Percy, M.John Wilson (Durham).
Robson, William (Snowdon)Tollemache, Henry James

NOES.

Acland-Hood Capt. Sir Alex. F.Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)Round, Rt. Hn. James
Agg-Gardner, James TynteGunter, Sir RobertRoyds, Clement Molyneux
Allhusen, Augustus Henry EdenHamilton, Marq. of (L'ndnderrySackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Anstrnther, H. T.Hare, Thomas LeighSmith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Atherley-Jones, L.Henderson, Sir AlexanderSmith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Banbury, Frederick GeorgeHermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Blundell, Colonel HenryHozier, Hon. James Henry CecilTomlinson, Sir Wm. EdW. M.
Bond, EdwardLee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareh'mWarr, Angustus Frederick
Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshireLlewellyn, Evan HenryWason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston ManorLoder, Gerald Walter ErskineWilliams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Chapman EdwardMaclver, David (Liverpool)Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Colomb, Sir John Charles RealyM'Killop, James (Stirling shireWortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Cremer. William RandalNewnes, Sir George
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (BoltonNorton, Capt. Cecil William
Carfit, WilliamPiatt-Higgms, FredirickTELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Godson, Sir Augustus FrederickPowell, Sir Francis SharpMr. Crawford Smith and
Goulding, Edward AlfredRenshaw, Charles BineMr. Corrie Grant.
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm ndsRobinson Brooke

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The next Amendment is, to insert after "parcels" the words "and bicycles." The word "parcels" is referred to in several Clauses of the Bill; to which is the Amendment to apply?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said it was in Clause 63, page 48, line 10.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

There is no word "parcels" n that line.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said that the word appeared in that line in the copy of the Bill he had.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The hon. Member is reading from a different copy of the Bill to that which I have.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he would move the Amendment in Clause 59.

Amendment made—

"In Clause 59, page 40, line 5, after 'parcels' to insert 'and bicycles.' "

Amendment proposed—

"In Clause 59, pige 40, line 5, to leave out '6d' in order to insert '3d.' "— (Mr. Plummer.)

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

asked whether the copy of the Bill which Mr. Speaker had was the latest copy, because before the Committee of the House oi Commons the line containing the word "6d" was struck out of the Bill altogether.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The copy I have is the copy which was furnished to me. I presumed it was the proper copy; though what the hon. Member has just said makes it doubtful, certainly.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

asked if, in the circumstances, the proper course would not be to adjourn the debate in order that Mr. Speaker and the House might be furnished with proper copies of the Bill. Although they were only dealing with one particular Bill, they were laying down precedents of great importance. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

What I understand is, that in the copy of the Bill I have the Commons' Amendments have not been entered up; and, therefore, the last Amendment was perfectly in order, and in its right place. In the copy I have the word "sixpence" stands in Clause 59, page 46, line 5, but I understand that the Committee of the House of Commons struck it out altogether.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said that the whole line was struck out.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

There has been a mistake, obviously, in this Bill; and I must call the attention of the House to it. The copy of the Bill placed on the Table corresponds with my copy, which therefore I assumed to be the correct Bill. It seems, however, that the Bill upon the Table is not the Bill as amended by the Committee. The Bill as amended by the Committee shows that the lines and figures of the hon. Members' Amendments are correct, and, therefore, Clause 63 is the Clause in which the previous Amendment stands. That need not affect the decision of the House as effecting the insertion of the words "and bicycles" after "parcels," if the House will allow the words to be

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.Bryce, Rt. Hon. JamesDavenport, William Bromley-
Agg-Gardner, James TynteBull, William JamesDickson, Charles Scott
Anstruther, H. T.Cameron, RobertFellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Archdale, Edward MervynCavendish, V.C.W (DerbyshireFinch, George H.
Arrol, Sir WilliamCecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Ashton, Thomas GairChapman, EdwardFisher, William Hayes
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert HenryCharrington, SpencerFitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Atherley-Jones, L.Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Bain, Colonel James RobertCohen, Benjamin LouisFlannery, Sir Fortescue
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(LeedsCollings, Rt. Hon. JesseFoster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christeh.Colomb Sir John Charles ReadyFoster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Banbury, Frederick GeorgeColston, Chas. Edw. H, AtholeFuller, J. M. F.
Bartley, George C. T.Compton, Lord AlwyneGardner, Ernest
Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael HicksCremer, William RandalGarfit, William
Bolton, Thomas DollingCross. Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Bond., EdwardCrossley, Sir SavileGordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)
Brigg, JohnCubitt, Hon. HenryGorst, Rt. hon. Sir John Eldon
Brookfield, Colonel MontaguDalrymple, Sir CharlesGoschen, Hon. Gyorge Joachim

inserted in Section 63 instead of in Section 59. It appears to mo that if this matter had been properly dealt with in the offices of the House, this difficulty would not have arisen. I will put the question now as it stands on the Paper, as that turns cut to be correct,

Amendment made—.

"In Clause 63, page 48, after line 26, to insert 'for every bicycle 3d.' "

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he begged to move the omission of "6d." in line 27, and the insertion of "1d." A passenger was to be carried for 1d, whereas 6d. was to be charged for a dog. It was a distinct insult to the man that a dog should be considered six times more valuable than he. They were all agreed that it was desirable to cultivate affection for domestic animals, and no animal was more companionable than a dog; but if 6d. was to be charged, the dog would very probably be left at home.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 48, line 27, to leave out the word 'sixpence,' and insert the words ' one penny '— (Mr. Keir Hardie)—instead thereof."

Question proposed, "That the word 'sixpence' stand part of the Bill."

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment.

(10.43.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 10.4; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 313.)

Goulding, Edward AlfredMacIver, David (Liverpool)Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Cray, Ernest (West Ham)M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm'ndsM'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh WSeton-Karr, Henry
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)M'Killop, James (StirlingshireSinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)Middilemore, Jno. ThrogmortonSinclair, Louis (Romford)
Grenfell, William HenryMolesworth, Sir LewisSmith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Gretton, JhonMoon, Edward Robert PacySmith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside
Greville, Hon. RonaldMore, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Gunter, Sir RobertMorgan, David J (W'lthamstowSpear, John Ward
Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nd'rryMorgan, J. Lloyd (CarmarthenStanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.Morley, Charles (Breconshire)Stroyan, John
Hare, Thomas LeighMorton, Arthur H. A. (DeptfordStrutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.Mount, William ArthurSturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Heath, Arthur Howard (HanleyMurray, Rt Hn. A. Grah'm (ButeTalbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Henderson, Sir AlexanderNewdigate, Francis AlexanderTalbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.Nicol, Donald NinianTollemache, Henry James
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, BrightsidePaulton, James MellorTrevelyan, Charles Philps
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hozier, Hon. James Henry CecilPeel, Hn. Wm. Robert WellesleyTufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.Pemberton, John S. G.Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. RichardWarr, Augustus Frederick
Jebb, Sir Richard ClaverhousePurvis, RobertWebb, Colonel William George
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)Randles, John S.Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.Rankin, Sir JamesWentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)Rasch, Major Frederic CarneWhiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)Rea, RussellWilliams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Legge, Col. Hon. HeneageReid, James (Greenock)Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.Remnant, James FarquharsonWillox, Sir John Archibald
Llewellyn, Evan HenryRenshaw, Charles BineWilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Loder, Gerald Walter ErskineRichards, Henry CharlesWilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Long. Col. Charles W. (EveshamRigg, RichardWortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, SRoberts, John Bryn (Eifion)Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Lowe, Francis WilliamRolleston, Sir John F. L.Wylie, Alexander
Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.Ropner, Colonel Robert
Loyd, Archie KirkmanRound, Rt. Hon. JamesTELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)Russell, T. W.Mr. Plummer and Mr.
Macdona, John CummingSackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-Robson.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.Edwards, FrankLundon,. W.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)Faber, George Denison (York)MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Allen, Charles P. (Glone. StroudFarrell, James PatrickMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Allhusen, Augustus H'nry EdenFenwick, CharlesMacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Ambrose, RobertFfrench, PeterMacVeagh, Jeremiah
Arkwright, John StanhopeField, WilliamM'Kean, John
Bignold, ArthurFlavin, Michael JosephM'Kenna, Reginald
Bill, CharlesFlower, ErnestM'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Boland, JohnGoddard, Daniel FordMooney, John J.
Broadhurst, HenryGrant CorrieMorrell, George Herbert
Burke, E. Haviland-Hall, Edward MarshallMurphy, John
Caine, William SprostonHammond, JohnNannetti, Joseph P.
Caldwell, JamesHarwood, GeorgeNewnes, Sir George
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.Hayden, John PatrickNorman, Henry
Causton, Richard KnightHayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cawley, FrederickHemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H,Nussey, Thomas Willans
Channing, Francis AllstonHolland, Sir William HenryO'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'raryMid
Clancy, John JosephHorniman, Frederick JohnO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Coghill, Douglas HarryHutton, Alfred E. (Morley)O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)Jones William (Carnarv'nshireO'Connor, James (Wicklow, W
Craig, Robert HunterJordan, JeremiahO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Cullinan, J.Joyce, MichaelO'Donnell, T. (Kerrv, W.)
Davies, M. Vauglan-(CardiganLambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Delany, WilliamLangley, BattyParker, Sir Gilbert
Devlin, JosephLayland-Barratt, FrancisPartington, Oswald
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.Leamy, EdmundPhilipps, John Wynford
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir CharlesLee, Arthur H. (Hants, FarehamPower, Patrick Joseph
Dillon, JohnLeigh, Sir JosephPrice, Robert John
Donelan, Captain A.Levy, MauricePryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Doogan, P. C.Lewis, John HerbertReckitt, Harold James
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)Lloyd-George, DavidReddy, M.
Duncan, J. HastingLucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)Redmond, William (Clare)

Renwick, (GeorgeThomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Rickett, J. ComptonThomas, David Alfred (MerthyrWilliams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)Thomas, F. Freeman (HastingsWilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk. Mid
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)Thomson, F.W. (York, W. R.)Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Robinson, BrookeThornton, Percy M.Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Roche, JohnTomkinson, JamesWilson, John (Falkirk)
Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)Tully, Jasper
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)Valentia, Viscount
Shipman, Dr. John G.Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Soares, Ernest J.White, George (Norfolk)Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr.
Strachey, Sir EdwardWhite, Luke (York, E. R.)Lough.
Sullivan, DonalWhitley, J. H. (Halifax)

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said he wished to move the omission of the concluding words of Clause 63. As at present drafted, it would appear that a person bringing home a parcel from market containing eight or ten separate articles might be called upon to pay 3d. for each separate package. The words he proposed to leave out were: "Provided always that articles sent in large aggregate quantities and so made up in separate articles, such as bags of sugar, coffee, meal, and the like, shall not be deemed small parcels, but that the term shall apply only to single packages in separate parcels." He did not understand the meaning of the words, and for that reason he would refuse to vote for the Bill until he had an explanation. If it meant that a woman returning from market was to be charged 3d. for each packet she had in her basket, such a provision ought not to be allowed to pass without a protest. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 48. line 28, to leave out from the word 'provided,' to the word 'packages ' in line 31, both inclusive."— (Mr. Keir Hardie.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said that the Amendment was more suited to the Committee stage. If the hon. Member would read again the proviso to which He objected, He would find that it actually carried out what he wished. For instance, if a grocer wished to send half a dozen parcels from North Shields to South Shields, instead of having to pay a certain sum for each parcel, he was entitled to have them weighed together and to pay one sum.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

asked what rate would be charged on a small parcel. They wore told—

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Order, order ! The hon. Member cannot address the House twice.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said that after the explanation which had been given he would withdraw the Amendment, but he hoped that in future the Chairman of Committees would see that Bills were properly drafted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the third time.