§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (&c.) Carnarvon,I move that the Provisional Order Bill No. 14 be referred to the Police and Sanitary Committee of this House. I know that that Committee has been a Committee rather to deal with questions on Private Bills—municipal questions, where any powers which depart from the general law of the land are sought to be conferred upon municipalities. Such Private Bills are always referred to the Police and Sanitary Committee. But I think the time has arrived when some of these Provisional Orders ought also to be referred to this Committee. I cannot help thinking that the powers which are sought to be given to some of these local authorities, subject simply to the supervision of an official of the Local Government Board, must have escaped the attention of the House. The powers are exceedingly large, and what is still more extraordinary is that by means of Provisional Orders, which are supposed to be something inferior and are not scrutinised so carefully as are Private Bills, where there is no evidence taken before the House, and where Committees of the House of Commons do not examine into the details, powers are sought by municipalities which Committees of the House of Commons have consistently refused to confer by means of Private Bills. I do not make complaint that this Bill is any departure from precedent. I am sorry to 41 say that it seems to be the sort of Bill which has been passing for some time without any challenge at all. It seeks to confer on the local authorities power, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board, to make bye-laws regulating the sands. That has always gone through the Police and Sanitary Committee without any question. But when we came to other powers which are sought to be given, there are powers which the House of Commons has invariably refused to give. The first is to make bye-laws for regulating trade on the sands. That is really a very sweeping power. You are not to be allowed to sell anything except subject to the bye-law. But what I object to more particularly is the power with regard to preaching or lecturing on the sands. No one is to be allowed to lecture on the sands except in accordance with certain regulations which are made by the local authority, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board. That is a power which Committees of the House of Commons time after time have absolutely refused to confer upon any municipality at all, with the one single exception of Southend. That was conferred in 1894, but has never been put into force; and the Police and Sanitary Committee, whichever Party happened to be in power, has consistently refused to follow that example. I object to these powers being given by these Provisional Orders without their being investigated by some Committee of this House. The party seeking this power is a small town in North Wales. The powers are large, and if the circumstances were exceptional I could quite understand the Local Government Board and the House of Commons conferring these powers. But what are the circumstances? The town is small; the population is 7,000; the sands are the only free open space in the whole town where such meetings can be held or such lectures or preachings given. The sands are exceedingly extensive, being about two or three miles in front of the town; they are very wide, and there is plenty of room. There was a local inquiry before an officer of the Local Government Board, and there was no suggestion made on the part of the Town Council that there had been any real abuse in connection with the matter. A Protestant lecturer, a clergyman of the Church of England, came down to Rhyl and addressed meetings on the foreshore 42 on the question of Ritualism. There was some disturbance, but no actual breach of the peace. He was considerably interrupted by the Ritualistic supporters of the local clergy, and in the end those who sympathised with Ritualistic views appealed to the Town Council, who being fearful of offending sonic of the rich visitors to the town, came to the conclusion that the best Klan was to prohibit this gentleman from preaching on the sands at all. But they discovered that they had no power to do that, so they applied to the Local Government Board for the necessary authority. The reply was:
We cannot give you power to prohibit the holding of these meetings on the sands, but we will give you powers to regulate them by bye-laws.But what I want to point out to the House is that the powers it is proposed to confer are tantamount to a prohibition of the meetings altogether. It will be found at Rhyl that the crowd is generally to be found within an area of 500 yards on either side of the place where these meetings are held, and if the bye-laws are so framed as to prohibit meetings at that particular place that will be equal to prohibiting the meetings altogether. Surely unless a very strong case is made out this House should give no local authority power to make bye-laws which may have the effect of putting a stop to freedom of speech in the only open space in that part of the town. As the Secretary to the Local Government Board must know very well, since he has had an opportunity of reading the evidence given by his inspector, there was absolutely no case made out for any interference. There was only evidence of one slight disturbance, which was not attributable to anything done by the clergyman whose meetings were interfered with. The object of the Council is no doubt to suppress these meetings, and not merely to regulate them. That was, in fact, admitted by some of the councillors who gave evidence in the course of the inquiry. There was no attempt at concealment on that point. But there was an effort to make a compromise between the different sections—between those who were fighting for absolute freedom of speech and those who were for regulating or suppressing the meetings. An agreement was arrived at between the repre- 43 sentatives of the Town Council and of the Local Free Church Council to the effect that there should be absolute freedom of speech between certain points on the Rhyl sands. But the Town Council subsequently repudiated that agreement, thus showing quite clearly that their object was not so much to frame regulations which would prevent disturbance and smooth matters as to make it impossible for persons who were obnoxious to the majority of the Town Council to hold any meeting at all. I know that some teetotal lecturers occasionally go on to the sands, and there are gentlemen on the Town Council who are interested in the liquor trade, and who naturally object to the sands being used for the purpose of making appeals to their customers which may have the effect of reducing their profits. It has nevertheless not been shown that this lecturing and preaching has interfered with the amenities of the place, and I therefore appeal to the Government to send this Provisional Order to the Police and Sanitary Committee to be reported upon. The powers it proposes to confer are of an extensive and sweeping character, and ought to be thoroughly examined. I do not think the delay involved would prevent the Bill passing into law this session.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That the Order for the committal of the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill be read, and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to the Police and Sanitary Committee."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)I venture to hope that the House will not adopt the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman opposite. After all, the power sought by the Rhyl Council is a very simple one, and one which the House should not hesitate to confer upon it. For many years the Rhyl District Council has been in the habit of allowing a large portion of the foreshore to be used by various religious and irreligious bodies, who have had assigned to them fixed spots for which they have paid a rental amounting in the aggregate to £400 or £500 annually. Everything went on satisfactorily until, unhappily, the miserable dispute arose between High and Low Churchmen, who had taken up positions on this magnificent foreshore and spent much of their time in wrangling on theological questions. I am 44 not surprised that the Rhyl Council, anxious to preserve peace and quietness in the interests of the inhabitants and the visitors, have asked power to make bye-laws, not to put down freedom of speech, but to keep a certain portion of the foreshore free from these disputants. It is my painful experience on many Sundays during the summer to see what is going on on the Embankment near to my house—where, morning, afternoon, and evening, Churchmen, Socialists, and atheists spend hours in what I can only characterise as more or less blasphemous proceedings. I cannot therefore feel surprised that the Rhyl Council strongly objects to a similar abuse of freedom on their sands. This, so far as the Rhyl Council is concerned, is not a Party question. The resolution to apply for these powers was carried with practical unanimity in a Council composed of twelve Nonconformists and six Churchmen, while an election which has since taken place has resulted in the return of four candidates who declined to pledge themselves to support the repeal of the Order, and the defeat of two who gave such a pledge The desire of the Council is to secure that the residents and visitors may enjoy Sunday in something like peace.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEWe do not propose to interfere with the esplanades. I am confining myself to the foreshore and sands.
§ MR. ERNEST GRAYBut the foreshore and sands can be seen from the esplanade, and surely the authorities have a right to prevent the peace being disturbed by disputes which only minister to the vanity of the disputants, and do nobody any good whatever. I strongly object to the Provisional Order being sent to a Committee. An inquiry has already been made by the Local Government Board inspector, and, after all, no bye-laws cyan become operative until the approval of the Local Government Board has been obtained, as well as of two other State Departments. Surely there is sufficient guarantee that freedom of speech will not be interfered with.
§ MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)As Rhyl happens to be part of my constituency, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words, especially as there is a considerable division of opinion on the 45 subject among my constituents. I have been appealed to by citizens of Rhyl to bring the matter before the House with a view to securing guarantees for freedom of speech. Undoubtedly at Rhyl there is a grand stretch of sands, which constitute a most convenient place for carrying on religious and temperance services. I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite that these services consist of nothing but wrangling. A great many most valuable religious services are carried on, especially among children, and I do not think that because these disputants to which the hon. Gentleman has referred have appeared on the scene, therefore the right of free speech should be taken from all. I think the House should always be most jealous of any interference with the right of free speech. The liberties of this country have been won and preserved by free speech. I am not opposed to reasonable regulation, and I think such powers should exist, and that the Police and Sanitary Committee might well take care that proper rules were framed. This subject was fully discussed a few years ago in connection with the case of Eastbourne, and we know that this House upset the very stringent rule which the Eastbourne authorities had adopted. I support sending this Order to the Police and Sanitary Committee, because I think care should be taken to prevent any future Council at Rhyl using their powers for the suppressing of free speech.
§ MR. McKENNA (Monmouth, N.)As a member of the Police and Sanitary Committee, before whom questions of this sort are usually considered, may I say that there seems to be some misapprehension as to the recent practice of the Committee on this matter. The Local Government Board appear to rely on the precedent of Southend, in 1895, the Bill affecting which was very much in the form of this Order. But during the last three years the Committee have had before them a great many Bills dealing with seaside places in which this very question has been raised, and which have also been reported upon by the Home Secretary. The Home Office, it will be seen from the Report, are against the Local Government Board in this matter. The most recent precedents are those of St. Anne's-on-Sea, Yarmouth, and Paignton, and in the last named the clause passed by the Committee and 46 approved by the Home Secretary read: "Provide for the preservation of order and good conduct among the persons frequenting the sea-shore." Thus the local authority are given powers to make bye-laws for this specific purpose. But if you go beyond that, and give the Rhyl Council power to suppress public speaking, you interfere with the liberty of private citizens in a way which in recent years the Police and Sanitary Committee has not been willing to sanction. I think we shall be making a great mistake if we go outside the usual practice in this matter.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W RUSSELL,) Tyrone, S.There are two things I will not enter upon in this discussion. I do not propose to discuss the Provisional Order procedure of the House, for that has nothing to do with the point we are now discussing, and most assuredly I will not discuss the religious question. The people of Rhyl have their rights, independent of preachers on the foreshore, and surely these rights are of some consequence. The Bill before the House contains three Provisional Orders—one affecting the Isle of Thanet, another affecting Reading, and the third affecting Rhyl; and I think there will be a serious objection on the part of those concerned with the first two Orders to the proposal to commit the Bill to the Police and Sanitary Committee.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEI could not divide the Bill. I was obliged to take it as a whole.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLWhat is the case in regard to this Order? The ordinary course has been followed in regard to it. Application was made to the Local Government Board by the Urban Council; an experienced Inspector was sent down to hold a local inquiry, and the evidence shows that there has been trouble in connection with these proceedings on the foreshore as far back as 1878. The Inspector reports that the Commissioners purchased from the Crown the greater portion of the foreshore, hoping they would get greater control, but in reality they did not improve their position. After all, they are now only asking for powers which other local authorities possess.
§ MR. McKENNANone have been granted since 1895.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI feel bound to point out that any bye-laws for the regulation of the foreshore which the Urban Council may pass under the Bill must satisfy three State Departments before they can come into operation—the Board of Trade, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and the Local Government Board; and does anyone imagine that these central Departments will sanction a bye-law interfering with free speech? The object of the Urban Council is not to regulate the speech of the preachers, because that is perfectly free, but to regulate the places where the speech may be delivered. Similar powers have been given to the Harrogate Corporation to regulate meetings on the Stray, and to the Southend authorities in respect of the beach at that place. Those authorities are empowered to set apart from time to time portions of the beach on which persons may deliver lectures and sermons, and to prohibit the use of any other part for such purpose. I submit that what has been done in those Private Bills is exactly what is asked for by the Rhyl Urban I Council. The Order does not raise the I question of free speech at all; it simply proposes to give the Council the right to regulate certain things, and if they abuse that power the central authorities will certainly correct them. I hope the House will allow the Bill to proceed in the ordinary way.
§ * MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)The hon. Gentleman has expressed his surprise that my hon. friend proposes to refer to the Police and Sanitary Committee a Bill which deals with three Provisional Orders, whereas his objection only applies to one. But I assume he could not have referred a section of the Bill to that Committee, and consequently the objection only proves the inconvenience of grouping together Provisional Orders relating to different places in one and the same Bill. The second objection he raises is that there is no precedent for such a step. But, surely, if the course proposed is reasonable and rational it is right to suggest it. Thirdly, the suggestion is that bye-laws cannot be framed by the Rhyl Council without the sanction of certain public bodies, and we are asked, Is it likely that any State 48 Department would seek to restrict the right of free speech? I am old enough to remember the time when public bodies did seek to restrain the right of free speech, and I do not wish to put it in the power of any such bodies to do it again. This House, when it gives powers to public bodies, is bound to have some guarantee that such power shall be exercised with discretion and with strict, regard to the requirements of justice. I am not acquainted with the composition of the Urban Council of Rhyl, but I am entitled to form an opinion from the public utterances of certain members at the inquiry which took place before the inspector. I will quote a couple of sentences from the evidence of official witnesses. The Chairman of the Council, after saying that the Council wished to have discretionary powers, added, "If I had my way I would, prohibit all meetings absolutely." And the Town Clerk frankly admitted that the, Council wanted the powers to control the, preachers and teetotal lecturers; for "sometimes they are men of very extreme views, stiff-necked and strong-headed." Now, the hon. Member for South Tyrone is a warm advocate of temperance; does he recognise his portrait in that description? I am quite sure he would not allow himself to be muzzled when seeking to advocate the principles of temperance on Rhyl sands or anywhere else. I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact-that it is not called upon to do anything more than refer the matter to a competent tribunal. I hold that my hon. friend has made out a prima facie case for the further consideration of the matter before it receives the final sanction of this, House. May I remind the House of what occurred at Eastbourne, where there was a conflict between the local authorities and the Salvation Army? Surely that is sufficient to warn the House of the dangers involved in granting powers under such an Order as this.
* MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)Representing as I do one of the three towns interested in this Bill, I wish to say that so far as Ramsgate is concerned, happily none of these religious disputes have occurred; but I would remind the House that almost identical words are embodied in the Ramsgate Provisional Order as those to 49 which exception is taken in the case of Rhyl; and, representing as I do the inhabitants of Ramsgate, I say that they strongly object to the elimination of these words, or to this Bill being in any way delayed. Remember that if this Bill goes to the Police and Sanitary Committee they must act on general principles, and if they omit the words in the case of Rhyl they must do so also in regard to Ramsgate. I may mention that in the case of the London Parks Regulation Act, nearly thirty years since, I myself carried in the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred a proviso that "no person shall deliver or invite any person to deliver any public address in a park accept in accordance with the rules of the park." That proviso, although in the first instance it led to the dropping of the Bill for the session, was adopted by Mr. Gladstone's Government the following year, and unanimously accepted by both Houses of Parliament. A similar power is exercised ruthlessly by the London County Council in all open spaces under their control, with general approval. What I wish to point out is that what it is proposed to give to the Rhyl Council is simply the power exercised by the authorities of the Royal parks, by the Loudon County Council, and I believe by almost all the chief local authorities in the country. I only hope the House will follow that precedent.
§ * MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)There is an important difference between regulating the right of free speech in the Royal parks and the case with which this Order deals, because regulations regulations relating to the Royal parks can he discussed in this House every year, whereas this Bill will be passed once for all. I say that here the right of free speech is in question. What did the hon. Member for East Ham say? He said, "We want to get these people—the preachers and the teetotal lecturers—out of the way of visitors on the esplanade." What does that mean? It means that the right of free speech is to be altogether suppressed on the foreshore.
§ MR. ERNEST GRAYThere are large portions of the foreshore at either end of the town where these disputes may rage without injury to anybody.
§ * MR. LEWISAnd you expect the, teetotal lecturers to go into the country and waste their eloquence on the sand-hills. I want to point out what will be the inevitable result of such regulation, and that is the suppression of the right of free speech on the foreshore at Rhyl. I have read very carefully the report of the inquiry held by the Inspector of the Local Government Board, and the evidence is simply overwhelming against any suppression of the right of free speech on the Rhyl foreshore. The House has to consider an extremely important question, and I do hope that at this initial stage it will take the course recommended by my hon. friend, and send this Bill to a Committee, where a compromise can be arrived at which will be satisfactory to both supporters and opponents of this particular part of the Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)The hon. Member who has just sat down has shown the real character of this opposition. They not only want the right, of free speech preserved, but they also, want the town of Rhyl to keep an audience for them. They will not go out into the wilderness like St. John, but they want to go into the centre of the town, where they can send round the hat. Now, is it reasonable that such a power should be given under a Provisional Order? After all, what is it that is being given to the local authority? It is not the power to prohibit services or ordinary utterances, but simply to define the places where those services and utterances shall be delivered, and where such meetings shall be held. It seems to me a most excellent provision. Take a few antagonists, like, for instance, on the one side the hon. Gentleman the, Secretary to the Local Government Board, and on the other side my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet—are those two antagonists to be allowed the whole of the foreshore, and is the local authority-not to be allowed to mark out a square. or a 40 ft. ring for them in such a manner as will enable the spectators around them to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to the value of their arguments? The right of free speech is riot involved, and all that is sought for by the opponents of this. Provisional Order is the right to send round the hat.
§ * MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, S.)I have not the slightest doubt that if my hon. friend who has just addressed the House had to speak upon the sands at Rhyl or any other sands and spoke with the humour which distinguishes him he would secure a very large audience. I happen to have in my hand a letter from the chairman of the Rhyl Local Board in which he states some of the reasons of these good people at Rhyl, who are ratepayers, lodging-house keepers, and hotel proprietors. Their object, I fear, is to keep away people whose nervous system is likely to be upset by a speech such as that delivered by my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn. It seems perfectly clear that what these local authorities desire is to send out these preachers and speakers into what my hon. friend calls the wilderness, where they can indulge in what a previous speaker has described very ignorantly as an interminable wrangle. The right of preaching in the open spaces of this country is not only claimed by preachers of the Gospel throughout this land, but by being surreptitiously slipped through this House in these Provisional Orders. It was only a session or two ago that a most objectionable series of bye-laws were authorised in a Provisional Order of the County of Kent. Under those bye-laws people who have stood up in the public thoroughfares in the villages of Kent, and preached the Gospel where their forefathers had done for ages past, have been fined by the magistrates, and in default these good men have been thrown into the gaols of the county. Appeals were made against that infamous procedure, but while the Home Secretary—with a speed which generally marks a Government Department—was inquiring into the position of these poor men they fulfilled their sentences before any remedy could be applied. I do trust that we shall not allow this Provisional to pass in this form. There may be cases 52 which distinguish Ramsgate from Rhyl. I do not agree that you must apply the same order to different towns and different circumstances. What is this Police and Sanitary Committee for if it is not to be allowed to exercise a reasonable judgment? I do hope that the House will not be led away by the flood of eloquence which proceeded from preceding speakers, but that they will agree to this Provisional Order being dealt with in such a way that regulations may be adopted in conformity with the law of this country in Rhyl. We should not do anything in this House which will lead the religious classes of this country, who cherish the right to free speech, to suppose that this House is trying to put into the hands of local authorities the power to suppress one of the most cherished privileges which we now enjoy.
§ * MR. H. J. WILSON (York West Riding, Holmfirth)There is one matter which I think ought to be put right in this Debate. It is perfectly true that in the two cases to which reference has been made the Police and Sanitary Committee have already sanctioned clauses of this kind. I have not, however, heard it stated that there are four or five other cases where the Police and Sanitary Committee have rejected a clause of this kind. As I was not present during the earlier part of this discussion, I shall not venture to speak on the question of procedure or the local circumstances in the case of Rhyl. Next, I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet say that the Police and Sanitary Committee would be obliged to act the same in one case as in the other, but that is precisely what they have not done. That Committee judges according to the evidence in each case, and, as I have just said, it has granted the clause in two or three cases and rejected it in four or five cases.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes 107; Noes, 200. (Division List No. 200.)
55| AYES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Hayne, Rt Hn. Charles Seale- | Pilkington, Sir G. A.(L'ncs. SW) |
| Allen, Wee (Newt.-u.-Lyme) | Hazell, Walter | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H. | Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) |
| Austin, M. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. | Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Bainbridge, Emerson | Hogan, James Francis | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Baker, Sir John | Horniman, Frederick John | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Jacoby, James Alfred | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Joicey, Sir James | Souttar, Robinson |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jordan, Jeremiah | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Caldwell, James | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Strachey, Edward |
| Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) | Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Langley, Batty | Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb.) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Channing Francis Allston | Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Clark, Dr. G.B.(Caithness-sh.) | Leng, Sir John | Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Leuty, Thomas Richmond | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Colville, John | Lewis, John Herbert | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Commins, Andrew | Lyell, Sir Leonard | Wallace, Robert |
| Crombie, John William | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Davitt, Michael | M'Ghee, Richard | Warner, Thomas C. T. |
| Dillon, John | M'Kenna, Reginald | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Doogan, P. C. | Maddison, Fred. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Duckworth, James | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Dunn, Sir William | Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand | Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull) |
| Evershed, Sydney | Moore, Arthur (Londonderry) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Woodall, William |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hudd'sf'd |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Moulton, John Fletcher | Woods, Samuel |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Oldroyd, Mark | |
| Gold, Charles | Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Gourley, Sir E. Temperley | Pease, J. A. (Northumb.) | Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Carvell Williams. |
| Harwood, George | Perks, Robert William |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Finch, George H. |
| Aird, John | Cecil, Ld. Hugh (Greenwich) | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Firbank, Joseph Thomas |
| Arnold, Alfred | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.) | Fishier, William Hayes |
| Arrol, Sir William | Chamberlain, J. Austin (Worc'r | Fison, Frederick William |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | FitzGerald, Sir Robert P. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Chelsea, Viscount | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. | Fletcher, Sir Henry |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Coddington, Sir William | Flower, Ernest |
| Balcarres, Lord | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Folkestone, Viscount. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r) | Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready | Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Fry, Lewis |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Cruddas, William Donaldson | Galloway, William Johnson |
| Barry, Rt Hon A H S (Hunts) | Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | Garfit, William |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Curzon, Viscount | Gedge, Sydney |
| Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin | Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh | Gibney, James |
| Beach, Ht. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol) | Dalkeith, Earl of | Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. |
| Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Goldsworthy, Major-General |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward |
| Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull | Denny, Colonel | Goschen, Rt Hn G J(St George's) |
| Bethell, Commander | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) |
| Biddulph, Michael | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Gunter, Colonel |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Donelan, Captain A. | Halsey, Thomas Frederick |
| Bolitho, Thomas Bedford | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord George |
| Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hammond, John (Carlow) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Doxford, William Theodore | Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle) |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu | Drage, Geoffrey | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. |
| Brown, Alexander H. | Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V | Heath, James |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Heaton, John Henniker |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Gl'sg'w) | Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.) | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Carlile, William Walter | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Hill, Rt. Hn. A. S. (Staffs.) |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Fergusson, Ht. Hn. Sir J.(M'nc'r | Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) |
| Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) | Manners, Lord Edward W. J. | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow) | Marks, Henry Hananel | Spencer, Ernest |
| Houldsworth, Sir Wm. H. | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk) |
| Howard, Joseph | Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J. | Stanley, E. Jas. (Somerset) |
| Howell, William Tudor | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Hozier, hon. J. Henry Cecil | Milton, Viscount | Stephens, Henry Charles |
| Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R) | Monk, Charles James | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | More, Robt. J. (Shropshire) | Stock, James Henry |
| Jolliffe, Hon. H. George | Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Kimber, Henry | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Lafone, Alfred | Myers, William Henry | Sutherland, Sir Thomas |
| Lawrence, Sir E. D.-(Corn.) | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Uni. |
| Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Thorburn, Walter |
| Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Lecky, Ht. Hon. W. Edw. H. | O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) | Usborne, Thomas |
| Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Valentia, Viscount |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H. |
| Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Penn, John | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Webster, It. G. (St. Pancras) |
| Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) | Pinkerton, John | Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. |
| Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-L.) |
| Lowles, John | Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Lowther, Ht. Hon. Jag. (Kent) | Purvis, Robert | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset), |
| Lowther, Rt Hn J W(Cumb'land | Pym, C. Guy | Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm. |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Rankin, Sir James | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath |
| Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Renshaw, Charles Bine | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Lucas-Shadwell, William | Ridley, Rt Hon. Sir M. W. | Wortley, Ht. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Macaleese, Daniel | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. | Wyndham, George |
| Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Macdona, John C | Round, James | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q. C. | Hopis, Clement Molyneux | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Maclean, James Mackenzie | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | |
| M'Iver, Sir L.(Edinburgh, W.) | Samuel, Hairy S. (Limehonse) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| M'Killop, James | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Mr. Ernest Gray and Colonel Milward. |
| Malcolm, Ian | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |