HC Deb 23 May 1898 vol 58 cc294-307

On the Order for the Second Reading—

Motion made and Question proposed— That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon District)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the Motion that stands in my name, and I do so upon two or three grounds. With regard to the scheme itself, I understand that the Committee had sufficient evidence as to the desirability of making a railway of this kind. It is a scheme for making a railway across central Wales, to Aberystwyth, and other popular summer resorts, and bringing them more or less into direct communication with the Midlands. The Chairman of the Committee, in giving the decision of the Committee, said that the preamble had not been proved, and he used the following words— The Committee fully recognise the enormous public advantages which would accrue from an undertaking of this character if carried nut on the proposed lines, and anyone who examines the facts must come to the same conclusion as the Committee came to on that particular point. First of all, the railway proposes to serve a district which is not served at the present moment by any line of railway, neither the Cambrian, nor the London and North Western, nor the Great Western; none of these lines tap this district at all. It is a very, very large and important district—one of considerable mineral resources—and it contains a large agricultural area. If there were a railway of this kind the mineral resources could be opened up, and the agricultural products would have a more accessible market than they have at the present moment. Then there is another point with regard to that. There is absolutely no local opposition to the scheme. On the contrary, all the landowners along the line support it emphatically. The largest landowner through which the line would run, Lord Lisburne, sent his agent before the Committee to say he was in favour of it. The proposed line would run something like five or six miles through his estate. He could not, however, give it financial support, for the simple reason that he is but a life tenant, and was, therefore, not in a position to make arrangements with the company which he would otherwise have been glad to make. All the local authorities support the scheme. The county councils of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire, and Cardiganshire—the county councils for the three areas through which the line would run—without distinction, have a, most unanimous feeling in favour of the scheme, and anyone who is acquainted with the district must know that it will make an enormous difference to this country, whether a railway of this kind is made or not. Therefore it is beyond all matter of doubt that the Committee, so far as the first part of their decision was concerned, were right in saying that it would secure enormous advantages to the public of these three counties. Why, then, was the scheme rejected? It was rejected purely and simply upon financial grounds. The only evidence the promoters adduced in support of the financial portion of the scheme was that nearly £70,000—I believe £68,000 is the exact figure—had been already promised to be subscribed to the ordinary share capital of the company. But not only that—there was, in addition, the evidence of the Great Western Railway manager, who stated that he was prepared to recommend to his directors that they should work the line in perpetuity at 60 per cent. Now, that was the whole of the evidence, and the Committee did not consider that it was sufficient. I do not, of course, intend to criticise their decision. Probably, upon the evidence, they could do nothing else than come to the decision at which they arrived. My object in moving this Motion is to ask the House to give the promoters another opportunity this year of proving that they have sufficient financial support to carry the scheme, and I do this on behalf of the local Member, who is unable to be present to move this himself. The whole of the district very strongly supports this scheme, and the promoters assure me that if another opportunity is afforded them they would be in a position to prove to the same Committee that the financial support to be given to the scheme is perfectly adequate for the purpose of a railway of this character. I do not suppose that they would be able at the present moment to give particulars, but if only another fortnight or three weeks be given them, and if the Bill be re-committed to the same Committee, the time will be perfectly ample for them to make their arrangements. All I ask the House to do is to send the Bill back to the same Committee again, in order to enable the promoters to adduce fresh evidence, which they believe will be forthcoming, for the purpose of proving that they are in a position to finance this scheme properly. I make an earnest appeal, especially to the members of the Committee, on behalf of the locality. It is a matter of great importance to the locality, and I hope that the members of the Committee will rather go out of their way to give the facilities I ask in order to enable this scheme to go through in the course of the current year. The district is in really a very bad way. The mines have been closed, and there used to be some very large mines there, and very paying ones, but they have been closed purely and simply owing to foreign competition, which has sent down the price of lead and other minerals. These mines are so many miles away from a railway station that the heavy railway carriage makes it an utter impossibility for them to successfully stand against foreign competition. If there were such a line as this running through the heart of this district, it would open up these mines again, and enable hundreds and thousands of small peasant proprietors, who are now compelled to go to South Wales as labourers, to work their own farms, and by that means the agricultural prosperity of the district would be, to a certain extent, restored. I do hope that, in the interests of this district, the House will allow the promoters to have another opportunity of satisfying the Committee with regard to the financial soundness of their scheme, and of their ability to properly carry it through. This they are asking on their own responsibility. If they are not prepared with fresh evidence then they are not asking the Committee to come to any different decision upon the evidence which has already been adduced. They simply ask for an opportunity of adducing fresh evidence, and stronger evidence, as to the financial support of the scheme, which they believe they will be in a position to adduce. If this resolution is carried, and they go before the Committee, an dare not prepared with that further and stronger evidence, then the Bill will be again thrown out, and probably the promoters will be punished by being mulcted in costs. With that grave responsibility resting upon them the promoters ask for the re-committal of this Bill, and I earnestly trust that the House will see its way to concede their request in this important matter.

MR. W. JONES (Carnarvon,) Arfon

I beg, Sir, to second the Motion. In addition to what my honourable Friend has said as to the local authorities being in favour of this scheme, and as to its bringing the district into communication with Manchester, Birmingham, London, and other towns, I can say that it would bring us into communication with the South Wales colliery district. Now, that is an important consideration, because just now the cost of bringing a ton of coals from South Wales to this district is 25s., whereas, if this railway were made, it would be just about 5s., or a little under. In addition to that, there is another consideration. All the lead mines in this district are not disused. A few only—some of the old mines—may have gone out of use, and may have become unworkable, but this is considered to be the best lead district in Great Britain, and I have heard within the last few hours that a wealthy Belgian capitalist is opening up negotiations for working this district. Besides, if this line were made, it would bring London, and some of the more important watering places, into closer touch with this district by three hours. Just now, it takes nine hours to go from London to Aberystwyth, and by this line it would take six. The line opens up facilities for trade, and it opens up facilities for better communica- tion for the people. The consensus of feeling in favour of the Bill in the locality is exceedingly strong, and I hope that the House will give some heed to that feeling by at least allowing the Bill to be re-committed.

MR. NEWDIGATE (Warwickshire, N.E.)

Mr. Speaker, I must ask the indulgence of this House before venturing to hope that the House will not accede to the appeal of the two honourable Gentlemen who have just spoken. The Chairman of the Committee ought really to ask the House to reject this Motion, but unfortunately he is absent at the present time. In the first place, I should like to thank the honourable Member for the Carnarvon district for the exceedingly kind way in which he spoke of the opinion of the Committee on this Bill, and I can assure the House that that opinion was not arrived at hurriedly, but it was only arrived at after considering every possible piece of evidence that could be put before us. We were all agreed as to the value of the proposed line; we all thought if would open up a rich mineral and agricultural district, and that it would also lead to enormous advantages to the surrounding district; but I venture to urge to the House that in granting a monopoly—which we should have been doing had we passed this Bill—we must first of all ascertain and make certain in our own minds that we are granting a monopoly to persons who have got some backing behind them. Unfortunately, whatever evidence was brought before us could not satisfy us that there was that backing which every concern of this description should have. Perhaps I may tell the House in a few words what happened. The capital which was asked for for the purpose of forming this railway was the sum of £700,000 in £10 shares, and they asked for borrowing powers up to£230,000. What was brought before the Committee on the 5th May was that the deficit had been placed at £23,800. In addition to that, Sir William Ingram, whose absence I am sure we all very much regret, had promised to subscribe the sum of £10,000, and then some other gentleman, whose name was net given—


His name was given—Mr. Barrow.


I was coming to that; that happened the day after. This gentleman was supposed to have a largo sum of money to place for the working of this railway. On the 5th May we were not satisfied with the financial aspect of this Bill, and we told the promoters so, and we adjourned till the following day; and we requested that on the following day some statement should be made to us giving better promise of financial support than had already been placed before us. What happened next day? With the exception of an additional sum of £20,000, which was promised by Mr. Burrow, who is a mortgagee of the Milford and Manchester Railway, there was no more capital promised. The honourable Member for the Carnarvon district made a great point of the manager of the Great Western Railway Company promising to work the railway; but what was it he really did? The general manager of the Great Western Railway Company came before the Committee, and, as my honourable Friend has mentioned, said that his company were prepared to take the line over and work it if 60 per cent. of the profits wore paid to them; and then the Chairman put this very pertinent question to Mr. Wilkinson—whether he would be prepared to advise the Great Western Company to advance the necessary capital to enable this scheme to be worked, and the answer given was a most decided no. It was the same with everybody who was interested in the scheme. The honourable Member has mentioned Lord Lisburne. Well, Lord Lisburne has something like 40,000 acres, and enormous benefit would accrue to his estate if this line were built. My honourable Friend said that he was not able to give financial support to the scheme because he was only a life tenant, but surely if this line were such a good thing as the promoters make out, he would have been willing to place a small sum at their disposal. I sincerely hope, as do all the Members of the Committee, that perhaps next year, when this Bill is brought before a Committee of this House again, that better financial proposals may then be brought forward, because the Committee are all of one mind in hoping that this railway will be made, but I do venture to suggest to the House, and to appeal to the House, that we have given the subject every possible consideration and attention, but when we found that the financial proposals were inadequate—and even at the present moment the honourable Member for Carnarvon, who can always by his eloquence make a case appear good, whether it is good or bad, cannot assure us that the promoters will have better proposals to lay before the House. We could not pass the Bill, and I hope the House will support the Committee in the action we took. I thank the House for so kindly listening to what I have had to say on this matter.

MR. EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid)

It is not necessary for us to argue upon the very clever speech made by the honourable Member who has just sat down, whose courtesy on the Committee everybody acknowledges. It is, however, necessary that this railway should be built. That was admitted by the honourable Member. It is a mere question whether or not another opportunity should be given to the promoters of carrying out this public work, which, would be for the public benefit. The honourable Member who has just sat down, took some trouble, which I can assure him was absolutely unnecessary, to defend the Committee, as if some aspersion had been cast upon its conduct. As I understand it, no one at all denies that the Committee did a proper thing, and came to a right conclusion upon the evidence before them. I myself had an opportunity of listening to some of the evidence with regard to the public character of the undertaking, and I heard also what took place with reference to the financial proposals. The sole object of the promoters in asking for the recommittal of the Bill is that they should not be prevented from finding the necessary money, as I believe my honourable and learned Friend has satisfied himself that they can do, and from laying their case before the Committee again this year. This railway will really be for the benefit of that part of the country. It is a very useful scheme, making as it does Aberystwyth three miles nearer London than it is at the present moment, and I do not think it should be lost to the public for another year if the promoters are prepared to satisfy the Committee that they are able to carry the matter out to a financial success. This proposal to go before the same Committee shows, not only the financial capacity of the promoters, but then belief in the decision to which that Committee came. It is quite clear that these promoters were not promoters of railway Bills of an ordinary kind. I believe they were a company which has already spent a considerable sum of money in the neighbourhood of Aberystwyth, which runs up to £150,000 or £160,000, and it may be that they did not consider it to be absolutely necessary to show that they could finance the undertaking to the fullest extent, and the time that the Committee gave them was only a few hours—from one day to the next—and it is quite impossible that in that time, if they had not given the necessary consideration to the matter before, they were able to satisfy the Committee that the thing was financially sound. They are asking now for another opportunity of doing so, and I hope that the House will give them that opportunity. What is the result of the two alternatives? If they go back before the Committee they must do one of two things. They must either satisfy the Committee, or fail to satisfy the Committee. Surely nothing would be lost by that, and I am certain that the Committee would not grudge another sitting for that purpose. That is what will happen if this Motion is carried. If it is not carried, the result will be that for a whole year this undertaking, which is admitted on all hands to be desired for all services of the community in the locality, and to be an undertaking which, will be enormously for the public benefit, will be delayed. Under these circumstances I do trust that the House will accede to the request of the promoters.


I was a Member of the Committee to which reference has been made, and that is my excuse for saying a word or two upon this matter. The honourable Member for Carnarvon District has asked that the Committee should spend a little more time in considering this Bill. Personally, I think we should be perfectly willing to give up any extra time. My honourable Friend who has just sat down suggested that probably only a day would be required, but I am not so sure of that, because, although it has not been referred to this afternoon yet, we have not heard the case which may be made out against the Bill; so far we have only heard the case of the promoters. It was pointed out that the Committee were unanimously of opinion that this scheme would probably be a good thing for the country; but, on the other hand, we were certain that the financial proposals put before us were not such as to warrant us in passing the preamble. The next day, after the promoters had had time—a short time, but still some time—to see whether they could improve their position, they made certain statements to us, and then the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the financial proposals were in no way improved. We are now told that they are not prepared to give any financial statement at this moment, but that probably in a fortnight or so, after they have bad time to go into the city and consult financiers, they may be able to come forward with such proposals as would warrant us in passing the preamble. I have no great Parliamentary experience, Sir, but it seems to me that very likely somethings of that sort might be done every day in regard to any private Bill which was thrown out in Committee on financial grounds, and it does seem to me, especially at this comparatively late period of the Session, that it would be a pity if this Bill were to be re-committed on such merely suppositious grounds as those. If better financial proposals can be made during the next fortnight, I cannot help thinking that they also might be made before next year. I must confess, as a Member of the Committee, that it struck me as strange that none of the gentlemen who, I believe, would undoubtedly benefit—landowners, and owners or lessees of mines, property which would yield a large sum of money—were willing to advance any money towards a scheme which would put so much in their pockets. I hope that the House will agree with the action which the Committee took, and will endorse that which the Committee believed to be right.


I regret to have to oppose this Bill, but I do so on extremely simple grounds. The honourable Members who advocate this proposal are brave men struggling with adversity, and I am bound to say that they have made a gallant fight; but the question is a very simple one. The Committee rejected the Bill because the promoters had not sufficient money. That is, I am afraid, a common complaint with many people. What is more, they not only had not sufficient money then, but they cannot delimit the time when they will have it, although I think some suggestion has been made about a Belgian capitalist and lead—a gentleman who was anxious to invest his capital in this railway, and which I have no doubt would benefit the place very much. But the Committee especially rejected the Bill for the reason that there were not sufficient funds then, and these funds are not forthcoming now. Then there is another rather important point, and that is that the witnesses for the opposers of this Bill have naturally returned to the country, and should this Bill be re-committed, the opposers would be put to further expense in bringing those witnesses back again. I cannot help thinking that this request is almost unprecedented and unreasonable—if anything unreasonable can come from Wales. In this instance, it seems as if honourable Members have forgotten the trouble taken by the Committee. This decision was arrived at after four days' patient investigation, and now we are asked to re-commit the Bill, which would involve the necessity of further expense on the part of the opponents in bringing their witnesses again to London. I trust that the House will not accept the Motion under these circumstances.

SIR J. PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

I have only come in to listen to this Debate without knowing anything about the question. My honourable Friend on my right said that he had had very little experience of Committee work in this House. It so happens that I have had upwards of 40 years' experience on one side of the Table or the other—some- times promoting Bills and sometimes sitting in judgment upon them. But I think it is almost an unheard-of case, where a Committee has deliberately given an opinion, not so much on the merits of the Bill itself as on the financial aspect of the scheme which have been laid before it, to come back again to this House, and ask that the Bill shall be re-committed in order to give the promoters time to improve their financial proposals, in order to carry out the scheme. This Bill must have been deposited last November. The plans must have been here last December, and they have had from that day to this time to consider their financial prospects, which the Committee have condemned as unsuitable to the occasion. Now, the honourable and gallant Member opposite spoke about impecuniosity being a common complaint, but in this case it is not so much that the promoters are impecunious as that the scheme does not bike in the district through which the railway is to go. What would this House do, if in every case of compulsory purchase the parties were to do what these promoters are doing? This kind of thing would lock up the district against the proper development of a scheme for which money would be found on a proper financial basis. It is really to be hoped that the House will pause before it recommits this Bill. If it re-commits this Bill it seems to me that it opens a door for an enormous amount of what I may call "back lash" in legislation. The duties of a Committee would never terminate, nor would the labours of this House ever come to an end.

MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)

As a member of this Committee, I have some diffidence in speaking of this matter, as I am not very familiar with the practice of the House in similar cases. I think, in view of the general agreement of opinion on the part of all the local authorities, and all the local representatives of the district, that there is in this case an exceptional reason for some more consideration being given to this Bill. As has already been said, the Committee were of one mind in regard to the usefulness of the proposed line, in regard to the direction of it, and also in regard to the prospects of it after hearing the evidence of the Great Western manager. There were no two opinions with regard to that point. As has been said, the main difficulty was that the money promised for the promotion of this line was altogether inadequate, and, although those who are now asking for the Bill to be re-committed have not quarrelled at all in any sense with the decision of the Committee on that point, it was the only reasonable decision to which the Committee could come; although, for my own part, I differ from my colleagues on that particular point, because I considered it was quite possible for additional financial arrangements to be made in the time that would elapse between the Bill leaving the Commons and going to the Lords.


I would like to point out to the House that when this question was before the Committee the honourable Member never took the trouble to divide upon that point, nor to have Ins objection recorded in the Journals of the Committee. I think the honourable Member is treating the Committee rather badly on this point.


It is true that I did not divide the Committee. There would

not have been much sense in that, when the numbers were three to one; but I do not think that any Member of the Committee mistook my meaning in regard to it, or that I hesitated to express my opinion. I am sure every member of the Committee will know that to the very last I took the view which I have expressed here, that it would be a wise and proper thing to allow the Bill to go on. Now, Sir, I take it that the arguments that have been brought forward by the honourable Member for the Carnarvon District would not have been brought forward unless he had very good reason for saying what he did. He said that here were improved financial arrangements almost ready. Perhaps he is not willing to commit himself to any definite sum, or any definite contribution—but I do not think he would make such a statement if he had not known that there was a reasonable prospect of it coming about. Vs it is not a very long matter, I think the House might, in a case like this, considering the unanimous opinion of all he local authorities, re-commit this Bill.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 178.—(Division List No. 115.)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Giles, Charles Tyrrell M'Hugh, K. (Armagh, S.)
Baker, Sir John Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)
Billson, Alfred Gourley, Sir Edward T. Maddison, Fred.
Blake, Edward Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mandeville, J. Francis
Bronkfield, A. Montagu Griffith, Ellis J. Murnaghan, George
Caldwell, James Hammond, John (Carlow) Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Carew, James Laurence Harwood, George O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)
Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Collery, Bernard Hayne, Et. Hn. Chas. Seale- O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)
Colville, John Healy, Maurice (Cork) O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur
Condon, Thomas Joseph Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Crean, Eugene Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)
Daly, James Holland, Hon. Lionel R. Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)
Davitt, Michael Horniman, Frederick John Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Chas. Howell, William Tudor Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)
Dillon, John Jacoby, James Alfred Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Donelan, Captain A. Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)
Doogan, P. C. Jordan, Jeremiah Shee, James John
Doughty, George Labouchere, Henry Sheehy, David
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Laurie, Lieut.-General Spicer, Albert
Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire) Lewis, John Herbert Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Engledew, Charles John Lough, Thomas Steadman, William Charles
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Stevenson, Francis S.
Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Macaleese, Daniel Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Fenwick, Charles McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn. 'sCo.) Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Field, William (Dublin) MacNeill, John G. Swift Tanner, Charles Kearns
Flynn, James Christopher McCartan, Michael Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen)
Thomas, Alt (Glamorgan, E. Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro') TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Tully, Jasper Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr.
Waring, Col. Thomas Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) Milbank.
Weir, James Galloway Yoxall, James Henry
Aird, John FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (M'ntrose)
Allhusen, Augustus H. E. Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Allison, Robert Andrew FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F. Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Ambrose, Wm. (Middlesex) Flannery, Fortescue Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Anstruther, H. T. Flower, Ernest Newark, Viscount
Asher, Alexander Folkestone, Viscount Nicol, Donald Ninian
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Nussey, Thomas Willans
Ashton, Thomas Gair Fry, Lewis Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Galloway, William Johnson Paulton, James Mellor
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(C.of Lond.) Pease, Arthur (Darlington)
Bainbridge, Emerson Gordon, Hon. John Edward Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)
Baird, John George Alex. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)
Balcarres, Lord Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Banbury, Frederick George Graham, Henry Robert Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bartley, George C. T. Greville, Captain Pretyman, Ernest George
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Purvis, Robert
Beach, Rt.Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Rankin, James
Beckett, Ernest William Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Hanson, Sir Reginald Rentoul, James Alexander
Bethell, Commander Hazell, Walter Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Helder, Augustus Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.
Bond, Edward Hornby, William Henry Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Boulnois, Edmund Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry Round, James
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.) Howard, Joseph Russell, T. W. (Tyrond)
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Savery, Sir Joseph
Brown, Alexander H. Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Schwann, Charles E.
Brunner, Sir John T. Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Sharpe, William Edward T.
Bullard, Sir Harry Johnston, William (Belfast) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)
Burt, Thomas Joicey, Sir James Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow) Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H. Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) Lafone, Alfred Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall) Spencer, Ernest
Causton, Richard Knight Lawson, John G. (Yorks.) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs. N.) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) Thorburn, Walter
Channing, Francis Allston Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie Tritton, Charles Ernest
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Usborne, Thomas
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Loder, Gerald Walter E. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.
Coddington, Sir William Long, Col. V. W. (Evesham) Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent) Walrond, Sir William Hood
Collings, St. Hon. Jesse Lowther, J. W. (Cumberland) Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)
Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Wayman, Thomas
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Lubbock, Et. Hon. Sir John Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lyell, Sir Leonard Wedderbarn, Sir William
Crombie, John William McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool) Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson McCalmont, H. L. B.(Cambs.) Wentworth, Brace C. Vernon-
Cubitt, Hon. Henry McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm,E.) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Denny, Colonel McEwan, William Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D. McKillop, James Woodall, William
Doxford, William Theodore Maden, John Henry Wylie, Alexander
Drage, Geoffrey Maple, Sir John Blundell Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arey
Dunn, Sir William Mappin, Sir Frederick T. Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong
Ellis, John Edward (Notts) Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.
Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ. (Manc.) Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Milward, Colonel Victor Mr. Newdigate and Sir
Fisher, William Hayes Monk, Charles James Thomas Gibson-Carmichael.
Fison, Frederick William Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

The Resolution brought forward on Friday was agreed to.