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."

"The City Company shall not, without the consent of the company, construct or seek power to construct or aid in, consent to, or acquiesce in the construction by any other body or company of any railway to the north of the prescribed line, and should any such railway be constructed by any other body or company, the City Company shall not, without the like consent, enter into any arrangement for or promote the running of trains or carriages to, from, or over such railway, from, to, or over the railway station or any part thereof, provided always that the foregoing provision shall not be taken to preclude the City Company from extending the railway by this Act in any direction, so long as it is not extended to the north of the prescribed line."

"I fully admit that hon. Members who represent those districts in the North of London have serious cause for complaint. The travelling facilities (there) are deplorable. I have been there myself.… Conditions exist there which ought not to exist, which I think hon. Members are quite right in pressing upon this House.… as strongly as they possibly can, and which ought to be put right at the earliest possible moment.… I admit again.… that you want either electrification or new railways or both in that locality.… to serve the teeming scores of thousands of people who live there and have, old and young, weak and strong, to go in every day to their work under these unfortunate conditions. I have been in fairly constant touch with the London and North Eastern Company.… They are investigating the problem.… in conjunction with the Metropolitan. I take that to mean that they are now considering what, if anything, can be done to get a Tube extension.… to the affected areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1923; cols 848–9, Vol. 165.]

I beg to second the Amendment. I want to agree most heartily with everything that has been said by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison). I am not going to take up time by describing in detail the hopelessly inadequate and scandalously inefficient conditions of travel that exist in the large residential area in the North of London at present served by the London and North Eastern Railway. This area might well be described as the dormitory of London. Practically the whole of the population of that area, men and women, have to go backwards and forwards every day of their lives to the business centres to earn their livelihood. Let it be sufficient for me to say, as the hon. Member for North Tottenham said, that these conditions were described last June by the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) as deplorable, conditions which should be put right at the earliest possible moment. I myself would not describe those conditions in such moderate terms; I would describe them as scandalous. It is a scandalous thing that travelling facilities such as those should exist in the premier city of the world, and I am confident that hon. and right hon. Members of this House, if they would take the trouble to go down to Finsbury Park Station at 6 o'clock on a wet evening, on any wet evening they like, would readily agree with what I have said.

You wanted him to break his neck!

I do not wish to be disrespectful to Lord Banbury. The hon. Member for North Tottenham said he was glad he had left this House and gone to another place. I myself am sorry, because what he said last year in this Debate gave great strength to our case, and I may say that the insults which he heaped upon my constituents on that occasion did mc a great deal of good. When this question came up in this House last June the representatives of the present board of the London and North Eastern Railway Company told us that the amalgamation had only taken place six months previously, and that they had not yet had time to look into an electrification scheme, and they appealed to us to give them more time to draw up a plan of that sort. They have had that time now, and I hope that when the representatives of the company come to reply this evening they will be able to tell us that such a scheme is well in hand, although I have not much hope that they will be able to give us very much information, because at the deputation to which the hon. Member who preceded me referred we were told by Mr. Wedgwood that very little had been done, that their tenders had been sent out, but that they had not got on with the job quite as well as we hoped they would have done in a year. An electrification scheme of the London and North Eastern Railway will undoubtedly relieve the congestion in that part of London, but it is not going to solve the problem.

This line serves my constituency, and I was asked, when this Bill was brought forward, to allow, my name to be put on the back of it. I confess at the time I took that step, I rather thought that my duties would be confined to seeing my name in print on the back of the Bill, but I found there was considerable opposition to the Bill, and, in the circumstances, I did, of course, what every Member of the House would do. I devoted a great deal of time and care to mastering the details of the Bill, seeing all the officials of the company who could instruct me on the subject, and I am quite sure I shall have the courtesy and toleration of the House while, on their behalf, I lay before the House the reasons for the Bill, which reasons, I suggest, make it deserving of support. First of all, there appears to be very considerable misapprehension as to the way in which this Section got into the Act of 1902. The position of affairs at that time was this. A tube railway had been authorised, and was partly constructed, but the promoters of the scheme had not any more cash to spend and the thing was hung up, and could not be completed. For 10 years the scheme to construct a tube railway to Finsbury Park station had been in abeyance, and in this crisis, with the tube partly constructed, and the daily needs of the locality growing, the people with this derelict tube turned to the Great Northern Railway Company and asked for help. Consequently, there was introduced the Bill of 1902, which, in the Preamble, sets out the facts I have indicated, namely, that this railway, as to the latter part of it, had been abandoned, and the Great Northern Railway Company were put under terms to find the capital for the continuation of the line. They were put under very drastic terms indeed, because Sub-section (13) of Section 36, which is the Section that has been designated by the hon. Member, who so ably and eloquently moved the rejection, as a piece of sharp practice—and the Act contains many other Sections—sets out the terms which were imposed upon the Great Northern Railway Company. It must not be forgotten that they were providing the capital. They had to make the issue for the purpose of obtaining the money for those who were building the tube, and hoped to make it successful. The terms put upon the Great Northern Railway Company are set out in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 36:

"Within six months of the completion of the tube the Great Northern Railway Company has to lease the land and the railway to the Tube Railway Company and the latter has to pay as rent such an annual sum as shall be equal to the whole of the interest which would be payable in that year on the aggregate amount of the Great Northern Three per cent. Preference Stock which the company shall from time to time issue for the purpose of raising money."

"The aggregate amount of the interest which shall accrue on the Great Northern Three per cent. Preference Stock from time to time issued by the company for the foregoing purposes or any other.…"

"Dear Lord Ashfield,

I note that you have been asked to receive a deputation upon the question of extending the tube facilities in North London. I anticipated that you would re- ceive such a request, as I had previously seen a deputation headed by Lord Ednam. I told them that if you were prepared to put up a scheme for tube extensions north of Finsbury Park we should be perfectly prepared to give it fair consideration. I can have no objection at all to your receiving the deputation."

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Finsbury is miles away from that area?

That is so, but I mean Finsbury Park. The first thing we had to do was to get an estimate in order that we might have some idea what the work was going to cost, and three of the largest and most important firms engaged in this class of work were asked to send in estimates, and each of them refused upon the ground that under present conditions the work was larger than they could undertake, and they asked leave to combine and give a combined estimate. These firms are now considering that question, and although no specification has been taken out, the rough sort of estimate that has been given shows that the electrification of the line will cost round about £5,000,000.

"a railway in the parish of Rufford by a junction with the company's Rufford Colliery branch and terminating in the parish of Bilsthorpe."

"Lands in the urban district of Hessle situate on the north side of and adjoining the company's Hull and Selby railway."

On a point of Order. I should like to inform the hon. and learned Member that there are four Members for Hull, and although we may not have obtained the same notoriety—

I offer the hon. Member my deep apology. There is an hon. and gallant Member for Hull whom I had in view, who is so much more in our mind at the moment. The extension and re-arranging of the marshalling yard for the Hull traffic is to cost £100,000. I will not weary the House by going through all the details of the Bill. If it be passed it will involve an expenditure of £2,500,000. This company is being a little unjustly treated. There is great and natural discontent. The services, I have no doubt, can be greatly improved. I admit it. I am not contending that it is not so. I know the discomfort that travellers have to put up with. But do you remember the abnormal conditions: this vast population all wanting to travel at the same time; this old-fashioned line which has to be brought up to date. If you remember that, I suggest it would be a grave mistake to turn down this Bill which, after all, has many good Clauses in it. It would be very unjust to accuse this railway of dishonesty in any form. It made a bargain, a very proper one which obtained the sanction of Parliament. I do not suggest that bargains should never be set aside. I am suggesting that bargains should only be set aside, when they had the sanction of Parliament, for the gravest possible reasons. I suggest that this Bill should be passed with all the good objects it has in view and the various points which Members have to urge on behalf of their constituents could be thrashed out in Committee.

Last Monday night, in consequence of receiving a request from the town council of West Ham, I was authorised to put down a Notice of Motion similar to the one moved by my hon. Friend. It makes it very unpleasant for any Members, either on this side of the House or on the other side, to have to speak against a Bill of this character that is going to provide employment for a very large number of men in the various trades and callings in different parts of the country. I admit that one Clause of the Bill will provide work for some people in West Ham. As other speakers have mentioned, when these Bills are brought before the House of Commons every now and again the only chance we have is to enter our protest against the various railway companies because they are not carrying out their obligations in accordance with the powers they have already received. It will be remembered that last Thursday night, in this House, another railway company presented a Bill for Second Reading, and got it through without any opposition. But I would remind the House that, although they got their Bill through without opposition, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company have had previous Bills before this House, before and since the War, and many of the obligations and powers contained in those Bills have never, up to the present time, been carried out.

"The White Gates Level Crossing in the Victoria Dock "Road has been for many years a cause of great inconvenience. Every possible step has been taken by the corporation to obtain relief, but without success. The level crossing crosses the highway which affords direct access to the docks, and was described by a Committee of the House of Commons, after inspection some 18 years ago, as being dangerous to life and limb. At the time the crossing was first constructed the road was a private thoroughfare subject to tolls, and the railway, docks and roads were for all practical purposes in the same ownership. Hence, doubtless, no objection was raised by the owners of the road to the crossing. Subsequently the line became the property of the Great Eastern Railway, now merged in the London and North Eastern Railway. After much litigation the local authority acquired, under special statutory powers, the private interests in the road, freeing such road from tolls."—

"The site of the road was conveyed to the authority and is their property. During the War, namely, in June, 1918, the railway company approached the corporation, asking for facilities to enable them to carry out certain works at the level crossing, and, as it was understood those works were works of repair, consent was readily given. The Board of Trade informed the corporation that the works were urgent, the War Cabinet having given the necessary priority. The works were commenced one Saturday night and continued over one or two weekends, and it was eventually ascertained from an inspection that an additional line of rails had been laid across the highway on the level, making two lines in all, or four sets of rails. Immediately the Board of Trade were interviewed, and it was explained to them that the council understood only works of repair were to be executed, they having only asked that the railway company should be allowed to have possession of 'the level crossing'; that an encroachment had been made upon the highway; that further lines had been laid down without the slightest notification to the highway authority, and that the private property of the corporation had been utilised. The Board emphasised the extreme urgency and national importance of the matter, as it was apprehended at that moment the Channel ports might have to be closed, and the food supply of London enter the metropolis from the Western ports, and there was only one double line of rails into the docks, the warehouses of which were proposed to be used as the granaries of London. The Board appealed to the corporation on patriotic grounds not to compel them to proceed under D.O.R.A., but to allow the works to continue, and promised that West Ham should not be thereby prejudiced in any way, but on the termination of the War—the actual cessation of hostilities—when the necessity for the lines was removed, they should, if the council desired, be removed and the roadway reinstated to its original position. This was definitely arranged with Colonel Pringle, and subsequently confirmed by an official letter from the Board to the Town Clerk, dated the 24th June, 1918, the last paragraph of which is as follows:

'I am to add that the action now being taken by the railway company at the instance of the Government will not affect the status of the crossing or the legal rights of your council in relation thereto at the end of the War.'

"On the faith of these promises and representations the works were allowed to proceed, the corporation rendering all assistance in their power. Immediately on the termination of hostilities, namely, the 11th November, 1918, the corporation did not ask for the additional lines to be removed, but waited to hear from the Board of Trade; but no communication was received until, in December, 1921, the Disposal and Liquidation Board wrote that the Chief Inspecting Officer of the Ministry of Transport—Colonel Pringle, the gentleman who made the arrangement above mentioned—reported that the utility of certain works was dependent upon the retention of the four lines of rail over the White Gates level crossing, namely, the two original lines and the two lines laid down under War pressure. The Commission added that the Great Eastern Railway Company were prepared to purchase the works constructed at Government expense, provided they had the right to retain the additional lines over the public highway, and asked for an undertaking that the corporation would not in principle oppose an application to Parliament to confirm the construction and user of the additional lines. This undertaking the corporation found themselves unable, in the interest of their district to give, and eventually an appeal was made by the railway company under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1920, to the Minister of Transport, against the corporation's withholding of their assent to the retention of the additional lines of metals. The whole of the facts were carefully laid before the Ministry of Transport, including the promise and representation made by their predecessors, and the corporation submitted that no appeal lay in the matter. This contention was overruled, and Colonel Pringle—the gentleman whose actions were in question—was appointed to hear the appeal. On the 26th July, 1923, the corporation by counsel attended before the inspector. Subsequently the Minister gave a decision consenting to the use of the crossing after the 31st August, 1923, subject to any conditions which he might by Order prescribe. Although this intimation was given in August, 1923, no Order has yet been made." [Interruption.]

"The corporation submit that the whole proceedings of the company, and the Ministry of Transport are irregular and ultra vires, that no appeal lay against their refusal to consent to the continued user of the original lines; that there was no power or right in the Ministry to take land belonging to the local authority; that the tribunal chosen was not the proper tribunal, and that the time within which an application could be made had long before expired; and if an opportunity affords, they are quite prepared to test their views in the Courts. This opportunity has, however, been denied to them up to the present. The corporation submit that Parliament would never sanction the construction of a railway level crossing or an additional set of lines across one of the most important highways to the docks, and that the conduct of and attitude adopted by the Ministry (the actions of whose predecessors are in question) is not what is usually associated with a Government Department in appointing the individual who made the arrangement, and who publicly stated that his mind was a blank, and he had no recollection in the matter, to act as judge practically in his own case." [Interruption.]

"The corporation understand that the Disposal Board have been paid for their works some £25,000 by the railway company, presumably the actual cost of the work, and in order to obtain this sum the property of the corporation has been illegally taken and the public penalised by having another set of rails laid across the public highway. The corporation consider that no further powers should be conferred upon the London and North Eastern Railway Company until steps are taken by them to remedy the position at the White Gates level crossing."

Will the hon. Member tell me how many lines there are running across the road—three, four or six?

Prior to the War there were two sets of railways. Now there are four.

Would the hon. Member mind reading the quotation again?

If you want to know what I mean by four sets of railways, I mean that two trains can run one way and two the other at the same time. The Corporation of West Ham have for 18 years tried to persuade the Great Eastern Railway Company to remedy this defect. We have not been successful, and this is the only chance we have of entering a most emphatic protest against the highway robbery of the Great Eastern Railway. I ask the Minister of Transport whether he will not have a proper investigation made into the case, so that he will be in a position to restore to the West Ham Corporation the part of the highway that rightly belongs to them. I have the right to ask hon. Members opposite if the Borough of West Ham was in their division, and they were subject to the same conditions, what they would say about it? They would be as much annoyed as I am. The Corporation do not mind these sets of rails remaining where they are, always provided they are going to give us adequate compensation. But after the West Ham Corporation have had to pay £30,000 for this piece of road, I most emphatically protest against the railway company coming along and pinching part of it. I am very pleased you, Sir, gave me the opportunity of reading that memorandum so that we might have it officially recorded in the Journals of the House.

Before I can see my way to vote for this Measure, there are one or two assurances I should like to have from the promoters. We have heard a great deal about the stranglehold of a monopoly on the City of London. I want to say a few words about another monopoly which has a stranglehold on the City of Hull. Before the Railways Act, 1921, we had two competing railway systems. That Act deprived us of this advantage by combining the competing line under the name and under the management of the London and North Eastern Railway. The point I want to raise is similar to that we have just heard about. It is a question of level crossings. May I explain, roughly, the ground plan of Hull. There are four large main thoroughfares, running north and east from the centre of the city. They are large, wide roads capable of carrying a vast amount of traffic, but, unfortunately, each of these lines of road is intersected by the main line of the London and North Eastern Railway. The corporation say it is necessary, for a good service, that passenger and mail trains should continue to run across these level crossings, and they raise no objection. What they object to is the carriage of mineral and goods traffic upon these level crossings. It is not necessary, because the competing line, the Hull and Barnsley, designed their entrance to the city with more consideration for the rights and the convenience of the inhabitants, and they constructed a high level line, which crosses all the roads by bridges, allowing at all times free traffic underneath, and by a very small re-arrangement of sidings and points this high level line could be used for all the mineral and goods traffic in and out of Hull.

I hold no brief for this railway company or for any other railway company. I sympathise with the hardships of London, from whose representatives the bulk of the protests have come to-night. The bulk of the protests against the powers included in this Bill are centred round London. No doubt, London is a very important place, but may I respectfully say that there are places other than London, which are largely affected by this Bill, and the powers which it seeks? The complaints in regard to London are well grounded, but I would point out that although London may suffer inconveniences, it is not fair to the ports on the North East Coast that they should be butchered to make a Roman holiday for London's convenience. My point is that this Bill, with all its defects, out to be passed. The defects are a matter for Committee rather than for the Second Reading of the Bill.

I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill, and in doing so I should like to say that I hold no brief for the railway company, that I am not a director or shareholder of the company, and that I have not been asked, directly or indirectly, to support the Bill. I feel, however, that it is my duly to support it. The last speaker gave the true statement of the position when he said that the London and North Eastern Railway Company ought not to be blamed for the position of London traffic. If hon. Members would read the memorandum which has been issued by the railway company, they would see that the company have made a perfectly straightforward case. We have had a very able speech from one hon. Member, in which he explained fully the reason for this particular Clause in connection with the tube railway. I recommend hon. Members to read the memorandum, and if they will do so I am sure that their minds will be disabused of some of the views which they hold.

I desire to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. If the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Raine) had been here while the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R Morrison) proposed his Amendment and made his speech, he would have heard the extent to which we have been trying to negotiate. We have seen both the London and North Eastern Railway Company and the Tube Company, and our experience does not give us the simple faith he has in railway companies. I cannot imagine how he got those things in the North of England, but we cannot do anything approaching that in London. The hon. Member for North Tottenham and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Viscount Ednam) have put the case an commonly well, and I only need to emphasise the point they make. In Finchley there has never been such a combination of people on any question as we have on this at the present moment I happen to live on the North Eastern Railway system myself, and you have to live on it and travel on it daily to appreciate what we are suffering from Here we have a railway company which made a bargain some years ago, which in my opinion ought not to have been legally sanctioned. The London and North Eastern Company appear to adopt a dog-in-the-manger policy. They will not consider the question of a tube beyond Finsbury Park. Up to now we have no reason to believe that the company will consider tubes beyond the Finsbury Park as a means of relieving the congestion. Neither can any Tube Company have permission to make tubes, and the community is left to struggle to work or play by tram or 'bus or train as they like. We are hoping to build a great many more houses in the northern heights of London. The London and North Eastern Railway is not able to handle the present traffic, far from handling any further traffic that may accrue.

Before dealing with the larger question, perhaps I might refer to two points which have been raised, the first by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) and the second by the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward). The hon Member for Plaistow gave us a very long extract from a memorandum which has been adopted by the West Ham Council. All hon. Members who listened to that memorandum must have realised at the finish of it that this was, indeed, not a case of a fight between West Ham and the railway company, but a disagreement between West Ham and the Ministry of Transport. There is no doubt that the Ministry of Transport held an inquiry in regard to this particular Clause. The inquiry went against the wishes of the people of West Ham. That fact is not the real reason for blocking this Bill now. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for North-West Hull, I would remind him that when last year the former London and North Eastern Railway Bill was brought in it was pointed out that certain works were being carried out, and were, in fact, scheduled in the Bill in order to enable the company to avoid a great many of the delays to which reference has been made to-night. I can assure the hon. Member that those works are in course of construction, and will be continued, and that our earnest hope is that the result of the completion of those works will be that much more traffic will be carried by the high level railway in Hull, and that the delays will be reduced. As to the Ferry service, I cannot give him any definite information, but I can assure him that the matter will be most carefully looked into, and, if anything can be done, the railway company will be only too glad to do it.

That is not our point. Our point is that we want the removal of this objectionable Section. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not try to sidetrack hon. Members from the main issue. The whole intention of our argument is the removal of the Section.

The Noble Lord took me up rather too quickly. I used the word "firstly," and I was dealing, firstly, with the question of electrification. As the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw Division pointed out we hope to electrify the line [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] It may simplify matters if I say that I happen to be a director of the company, and I think I am entitled to use the word "we." When a railway company wishes to undertake any work of this magnitude, they have to consider whether or not it is a commercial proposition. Under the Railway Act passed by this House in 1921, a railway company is bound to see that this is a commercial proposition before it adopts it or before, in the alternative, it puts upon the traders of this country the necessity of finding the standard revenue, and that is a point which this House should realise before pressing on a railway company a work of this magnitude without due consideration. As regards the question of the tubes raised by the Noble Lord, the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw pointed out, very truly, that there is nothing at all to prevent people, with the one exception of the Metropolitan Railway, building as many tubes as they like, in any direction, and at any moment. They could start those tubes to-morrow, and if they themselves, on their part, could show that it was a commercial proposition, I have no doubt they would find no difficulty at all in obtaining the necessary money.

Will you give a guarantee that you will not obstruct?

I cannot give a guarantee of that kind. The hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw has pointed out that, with the one exception of the Metropolitan Railway Company, which made an agreement—to which there were two sides, as he also truly pointed out—any company can start and build those tubes, and if it were a paying proposition I am certain the House of Commons, or the Committee upstairs, would give a Bill authorising the work most favourable consideration. There is the position, and I do not think there is anything further which I can add. The company does not want to assume a dog-in-the-manger policy. The company has shown, during the last 12 months, that it is anxious in every way to meet the demands of the inhabitants of North London. The company has not wasted time, but has made very considerable progress, and I do not think the company is asking for too much when it asks for another month or two in which to complete its investigations in regard to electricity, intending and hoping, as it does, that it will find that it will be a commercial proposition, in which case it will proceed with the work.

I should like first to deal with the question of the White Gates level crossing. This complaint really lies more against the Ministry of Transport than the railway company. In August last, after a formal inquiry was held, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport authorised two additional lines of railway, which had been laid down during the War, over the White Gates crossing in Victoria Docks Road to be continued in use. The officer holding the inquiry reported that no danger had been caused by the use of the additional lines, and that incon- venience for road traffic, caused by the shutting of the gates, would be diminished by their use. I am well aware of the traffic difficulties in and near the docks. Indeed, I received an important deputation from the Chamber of Commerce to-day on this very subject. When a London Traffic Bill is got through, I hope we shall be able to deal with the problem of traffic to and from the docks, but I do not think this question is one that can be said, in any sense, to be the fault of the railway company.

By the leave of the House, may I be allowed to say one word in reply to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman? As I said before, I do not think the company want to appear in a dog-in-the-manger position, and they would like to meet the criticism as far as possible. Speaking on behalf of the railway company, I would like to say that if the Bill receives its Second Reading, and the instruction is not pressed, the company are prepared to undertake that they will proceed with all due expedition to a decision upon the proposal, which they have under consideration, to electrically equip the Great Northern section of the suburban line to Finsbury Park and northwards of Finsbury Park, and if they come to the conclusion that they are unable to proceed to carry into effect such electrification referred to, or they fail, when the time arrives in October next for the introduction of private Bills in the next Session of Parliament, to come to a final decision, then they will waive any provision, statutory or otherwise, under which their consent is necessary for the construction of a railway northwards of Finsbury Park by any other company, body or persons.

Has the hon. Gentleman nothing more to say about the condition of Hebburn?

I think it must be obvious to the House that at this late hour it will be impossible to move the Motion standing in my name, and the names of other Members of the county of Durham, in reference to the matter of bridges and stations. In reply to an interruption made by an hon. Member below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Raine) said that he thought that people who did not succeed with the London and North-Eastern Railway Company did not go the right way about it, and I should like to ask the hon. Member whether the negotiations which have been proceeding for many years in relation to Sunderland Station I have succeeded. I should like to ask whether the railway company has a method of selecting larger companies and larger measures to the disadvantage of smaller communities?

"A thing of beauty is a joy for ever,"

In rising to oppose this Amendment, and to support the Bill, I sympathise very much with the promoters of this Measure. I do not think it is quite fair that such trenchant criticism should be launched against the new group of railways managed by the North Eastern Railway Company with regard to the carrying out of so many works over their whole system, extending for many hndreds of miles, and which are very necessary. In reading the provisions of this Bill I take it that they are all good, and so far as I am concerned in my own particular corner of the country, there are only two Clauses to which I take exception, and they are Clauses 39 and 40.

The undertakings which have been given, so far as the tube extension is concerned in relation to the electrification of the Great Northern suburban line, seem to me to be irrelevant to the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison). The Great Northern suburban lines, whether electrified or not, cannot replace the facilities for transport which are demanded by the Members representing London constituencies. The Great Northern Railway comes into King's Cross. That is of no use to the people who would come into the City of London on the Metropolitan line, or the people who would go into West Central or West London on the Piccadilly Railway. Therefore, it is an irrelevant consideration. All that has been offered is that, if the company undertakes to proceed with the electrification of its own suburban lines, there would then be no obligation on the company to waive its legal position, so far as the extension of the tube beyond Finsbury Park. That undertaking cannot in any way give satisfaction to the opposition to this Bill on this particular point. I am interested in the matter, not so much as other Members, but the people of Hackney have an interest in the matter in view of the communications they have with Finsbury Park. Another point I wish to raise is the scandalous state of the rolling stock provided for working-class passengers. I have travelled on the suburban lines of this railway a good deal. I venture to say that its third-class carriages are a disgrace to civilisation. I will not say that they are a disgrace to the Great Eastern Railway Company, because it is not possible for anything to be a disgrace to that company, but the condition of the third-class railway rolling stock on that line is a true indication of what the hon. Member who has the impudence to get up in this House and say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

That is not a phrase allowed in the House of Commons.

I beg your pardon, Sir, I withdraw. The hon. Member, who states that he represents the railway company—which seems to me to be a highly improper thing for a Member to suggest in this House; I should have thought he would have represented a constituency—It does show what he and his fellow directors think of the working classes when they provide rolling stock of that character.

On a point of Order. May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the state of third-class railway carriages has anything to do whatsoever with this Bill?

On the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind, it is customary to allow discussion on the manner in which the powers of the company have been used.

If the hon. and gallant Member objects to the discussion of the third-class carriages, I will have a word to say about the second. The third-class carriages are an indication of what the hon. Gentleman and other directors of the company think of the working classes. The condition of the second-class carriages is some indication of what the directors think of the middle classes; I assure the House that the second-class carriages are very little better than the third. They are dirty, the seats are exceedingly narrow, and they are really vehicles in which one would not travel if one were not compelled. They deliver the working classes and the middle classes of London to their places of employment, not in that state of pleasure and brightness in which working people ought to go to work, but in such a state of depression, sadness and misery that they cannot properly discharge their duties.

"That the Question be now put."