HC Deb 12 May 1899 vol 71 cc452-65

As amended, considered:—

MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

I rise to move the clause of which I have given notice, and which reads as follows: If the undertaking of the Company is purchased within seven years from the passing of this Act otherwise than by agreement by any public body or trustees, nothing in this Act shall authorise the Company to bring into account or to make any claim in respect of any advantages conferred on them by or resulting from the passing of this Act. These are the words which are applied in a similar clause in a Bill which has been introduced by the Government, and. which has now passed through this House, and has passed through most of its stages in the other House, and were introduced there at the suggestion of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission, in recommending something of the nature of the Bill which the Government brought in, stated in their Report: It was urged by the London County Council that if the effect of any scheme of intercommunication should be to increase the value an arbiter would put on the undertaking of the company, we doubt whether this appreciation is well founded, but we think, in any case, all doubt on the subject should be removed, and they proceeded to suggest that a clause of this kind should be introduced. Now, we are in this peculiar position, that, as I pointed out when the East London Water Bills, which have now been amalgamated into one, were before the House, one of them, which is now Part 3 of the present proposed Bill, traversed some of the ground of the Bill of the Government, with the addition of a clause about taking water from the Thames under certain circumstances, but containing practically the provisions of the Government Bill in case of a temporary difficulty. Now, in the Government Bill there is introduced the clause that I have referred to, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission. We are in this peculiar position, that if the Government Bill and this Bill both become law, we should have in the one certain facilities and intercommunication, subject in the Government Bill to a clause such as I have read to the House, and in the other Bill, that promoted by the East London Water Company, we should have these facilities and powers without that restriction. Now, when a company comes to make the interconnection under this Bill, is their action to be subject to this clause, or is it not? I submit that the peculiar difficulty here has arisen from the fact that the Bills have gone before different Committees of the House. I would not have ventured to have brought this matter before the House at this stage, but have left it to the House of Lords to deal with it, but for the very peculiar position of sending up from this House two Bills the operation of which is intended to accomplish the same thing, the one being subject to a restriction and the other not. There is very high authority for the restriction in the clause such as I move. Three different Committees of this House, on three separate occasions in 1896 and 1898, decided that the authority of the Royal Commission is applicable to this particular case. I point out that in the present Bill under consideration there is a considerably stronger reason for inserting the clause than there was in the Government Bill, because this Bill gives facilities, not only for intercommunication, but for drawing additional water from the Thames. It also authorises a large concession of power to make certain reservoirs, the object of which is to provide for the increased population in the East End of London. I admit that this increasing population should be very properly provided for in some way or-other, but it should be made subject to the clause I have described. It may be said that the Bill for East London will not increase the value of the company's undertaking in case of purchase. There may be very considerable difference of opinion on that point, but what I want to make clear is that whether this increase takes place or not, that increased value should not be allowed to be brought in in a question of purchase. I am doing nothing new in this matter. In 1896, when certain Bills were brought forward and when the scheme for the purchase of the water companies was thrown out by the House, I pointed out that there was a danger, while the question of purchase was under the consideration of the Government, who had promised to deal with it effectively and immediately, that, in the meantime certain powers might be given to the companies to proceed with works, and that these powers might raise their price against us, altogether irrespective of the addition to it by the expenditure of the money. The President of the Local Government Board met me very fairly by saying that he would make it, an instruction to the Committee that they should not go any further in granting powers to the companies than the immediate urgencies of the case required. I was a member of the Committee presided over by the honourable Baronet the Member for Durham, and we found it was practically essential to proceed with the great Staines scheme. The Committee, however, while feeling that they were, going possibly beyond the immediate urgency of the ease with a view to the proper interpretation of the word "urgency," met the spirit of the instruction by putting in a clause such as I have moved here. They did not wish these powers which they were granting to increase the value of the undertaking in case of purchase, and they felt that the question of purchase was about to be decided by the appointment of the Royal Commission, whose Report we are looking forward to in a few weeks' time. The need of the clause is greatly intensified in the present Bill because the concessions being given by it to the company will, I certainly think (though some may not), raise the value of the undertaking in case of sale and purchase. Now, it is not adequate to say that the introduction of a sinking fund into this Bill meets the whole question. The introduction of a sinking fund meets the requirements of the case in the event of the company not being purchased and proceeding to carry out the works—a certain portion of the profits is to be set aside for the public benefit. But suppose that the undertaking is purchased within the next year or two, this sinking fund does not affect the question. The question is this: whether the concession of the right to make inter-' communication and to create new reservoirs for supplying a largo population—whether that right, subject to a sinking fund, is a valuable property or not. Now, I hold it to be so. Whether it is or it is not, we are merely following the view of the Royal Commission, which says it is better in any case that all doubt on the subject should be removed, and that doubt will be removed by the introduction of this clause. There were two Bills, to one of which the instruction and Report which I have just read referred, and the other was the Bill for what is called temporary facilities of supply, and with respect to that there came a letter from the Local Government Board to my honourable friend the Member for Durham, indicating in the clearest terms that this portion of the Bill referred to the temporary supply which is incorporated in the present supply, and which was a repetition of the Government Bill itself. My argument is this—that the Government Bill having had this clause introduced, and the Local Government Board recognising that this Bill, so far as that portion is concerned, is the same as their own, the clause ought to be introduced into this Bill. I have laid before the House as briefly as I could the arguments in favour of the introduction of this clause. The position of the London water question is very serious, and the introduction of this clause seems to me to be the only way by which justice can be done, pending the issuing of the Report of the Royal Commission which we expect upon an early date. I therefore beg to move the introduction of this new clause.

A Clause (provision in case of future purchase of undertaking,)—(Mr. James Stuart,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and question proposed— That the Clause be read a second time.

* SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

As Chairman of the Committee whose judgment has been impugned, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words upon the reasons which induced us to refuse the application of the London County Council upon that occasion when this clause was suggested to us. I may again repeat what I have often said in this House, that it does seem to me a very dangerous practice for the representatives of the London County Council to come down here and impugn the decision of the Committee, and to try and make this House the organ for upsetting decisions which had been come to by Committees of this House when those Committees have had all the facts laid before them by the most competent counsel, I suppose, in the world, the counsel of the Parliamentary bar. If anything would induce this House not to upset the decision of the Committee, it is the very long speech and intricate argument of my honourable friend. First of all the instruction to which our attention was called by the Local Government Board, which the honourable Member has been good enough to read, was not an instruction from this House. It was merely a hint sent by the Local Government Board that we wore to do what, in their opinion, had been done in former years, that is, not to pledge this House in any Act of Parliament to a course which hereafter might be found detrimental to some great and general decision with regard to the London water companies. That consideration was before us when we made the Report which we have had the honour to present to the House, and in it the Committee state that they had the instruction given in 1896 before them. Now, my honourable friend must know that there is a wide difference between the East London Water Bill and the Staines Reservoir Bill, which was a Bill brought in by three companies to supply water to any of those three companies according to their needs. In that Bill we not only inserted the sinking fund clause, but we put that clause in relative to the value of the companies not being increased, because it might be alleged when those three companies came to be purchased that the Staines Reservoir Bill had not merely the value of the Staines Reservoir attached to it, but also a further value in connection with the supply to each of the other companies. Therefore, when we came to the clause that has been mentioned by my honourable friend, in which I had some little share, it was felt that if the Staines Reservoir was bought by any London or general district trust, or by the County Council, that there should be no increased value attached to it by reason of its construction. I think I can put very shortly before the House the reason why we did not insert this clause in the Committee on the Bill before the House. The Government Bill alluded to by my honourable friend was a Bill brought into this House with that clause in it, but when it left this House it had not any sinking fund clause in it. This Bill before the House to-day has the sinking fund clause in it. My right honourable friend's Bill (Mr. Chaplin) was based word for word upon the First Report of the Royal Commission. That Commission also said, in addition to what the honourable Member has quoted, that those auxiliary appliances should not be hold to relieve the company from the obligation of improving its resources as rapidly as practicable, in order that it might be independent of all extraneous aid. That was practically an instruction from the body already appointed that we were to hand to the East London Water Company, if we could, further supplies, that would keep them perfectly clear of that extraneous Bill. It was a Bill merely for a temporary necessity, and we gave them power to take 10,000,000 gallons a day out of the waters of the Thames in addition to their own present supply, and so far as the evidence goes before us there will be no occasion for the operation of my right honourable friend's Bill, and those poor people who have been so destitute of water in the year of drought, unless there is a drought more extreme than that of last year, will be in possession of an ample supply of water. With regard to this sinking fund clause, the main portion of the Bill was for £1,000,000 sterling, to lie spent upon reservoirs for holding the surplus water of the River Lea. Those reservoirs will hold about 5,000,000 gallons, and will cost about a million of money. Of that sum £230,000 sterling will be spent on the one reservoir, and £450,000 on the second reservoir. No reservoir to be constructed under this Bill can be in working order for seven years from the date of the passing of the Act. That is what the engineer says, and you can generally safely give his estimate seven or eight percent. of a margin, and so it will be seven or eight years before these reservoirs will be at work. My honourable friend's clause provides for the purchasing of the undertaking within seven years in his new clause. But suppose the reservoir is not ready at the end of seven years, how possibly could the works of an unused reservoir add to the value of the water companies' undertaking? Why should there be any restrictive clause put in the Bill for an unfinished reservoir? But suppose it is finished, then the sinking fund clause comes into operation in regard to this million sterling invested in these reservoirs as soon as ever a drop of water is taken out of the reservoir for public use. What is the sinking fund? I had a good deal to do with the sinking fund when it was re-drafted by the County Council before the Committee of l892. What did it do? Why every penny of money that is raised for this purpose becomes liable to the sinking fund as soon as ever a drop of water is taken from the reservoir seven years hence. The sinking fund means that whatever proportion the new capital bears to the old capital to that extent the revenue applicable to the sinking fund goes to a certain purpose, and that revenue is set aside. The money to be spent has all to be raised by debentures, and the price of those debentures is fixed by the Governor of the Bank of England. Again, as soon as they are on the market they have to be sold by public auction, and therefore the money is got at the lowest possible juice. That share which the new capital has earned in the total revenue is first to be allowed the interest on which the capital has been raised, then one per cent. goes to the water company for collecting the revenue and looking after the interests of the consumers. The balance of the revenue thus earned is then handed to the City Chamberlain, and it is to be invested in the companies' own stock, and that stock and its earning becomes the property of the City Chamberlain until this House orders an appropriation of the money so invested, and that has accumulated from the water supply of London. Therefore, no profit whatever can arise, first of all because the reservoir will not be finished by the time my honourable friend's clause will work; and, in the next place, under the sinking fund no possible profit can arise. I ask any gentlemen accustomed to acting as arbitrators how they can possibly add to the value of a concern on which there is no money being used that earned a profit. It is the earning of a profit which gives an increased value. Therefore the majority of the Committee, looking at the position of the revenue, and knowing that there could be no profit arise from the capital authorised to be spent, concluded that it would be no use whatever putting in this clause. I may be told that it would do no harm if it did no good. So far as my humble voice went I advocated that we should never cram a Bill with clauses of a useless character. I think I have now satisfied the House that the Committee acted wisely in doing what they did, and that it was no use putting this clause in, for it would be perfectly inoperative. My honourable friend was good enough to pay me a kind compliment for the way I acted as chairman of that Committee, but the worst compliment he can pay me is to come down to this House and challenge the decisions of that Committee. I do say again in this House that it is a dangerous practice for the House of Commons, on an ex parte statement, to upset the decisions of Committees which have been taken very quietly, and solemnly arrived at. The Committee which sat with me the other day was a painstaking Committee. Sir Robert Peel held that if the decision of a Committee was prima facie doubtful it should still be supported for the fear of producing greater evils. I trust that the House will believe that the Committee went carefully into this question, and that they had good reasons for objecting to the clause which my honourable friend asks the House to insert.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I regret that I was absent when the honourable Member moved his Motion, and I doubt whether I should be justified, as a member of the Government, in offering any advice upon this particular question. Nor do I think that I should have risen at all to take part in this Debate excepting for the fact that I have been informed of a statement made by the honourable Gentleman which might probably be calculated to give rise to some misapprehension as to the attitude of the Local Government Board on this particular Bill. I may remind the House that it is the practice of the Local Government Board upon all Bills of this nature; to send reports upon them to the Committee, and I understand that the honourable Member has argued in this case that the reports sent by the Local Government Board on this question must be taken as a general indication that the Local Government Board must be hold to be averse to the principle of this measure. That was not so, for the reports of the Local Government Board were intended merely and solely as information with regard to matters generally affecting the question, and it was only right to put them before the Committee for their general consideration. That being so, what I am informed the honourable Member has said upon this subject is calculated to mislead the House as to the attitude of the Local Government Board. So far as I am personally concerned, I agree with what has fallen from the honourable Baronet who has just sat down, and who presided over that Committee, and who has had a vast experience, not only on Committees, but on other bodies dealing with this particular question. In addition to this, I venture to say that the House will do well to bear in mind what has happened upon former occasions when Bills of this nature promoted by the water companies have been rejected by the House of Commons.

MR. STUART

reminded the right honourable Gentleman that he had not proposed the rejection of this Bill.

MR. CHAPLIN

I must say that I think the House would be wise in accepting the views of the Chairman of the Committee, and I feel it is my duty to support this Bill.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

thought the warning which the right honourable Gentleman had addressed to the House was entirely unnecessary and entirely wrong, because no one had proposed to throw out this Bill, or to oppose its progress in any possible way. The question before the House was simply whether or not the Amendment of his honourable friend should be inserted. He, wished to say just a word or two with regard to the argument addressed to the House by the honourable Baronet below him. So far as he understood him, one of his arguments was expressed in some such terms as these—that because this Bill has in it a sinking fund clause there was no necessity to introduce in it the purchase clause which his honourable friend had suggested. Now it seemed to him that those two clauses—the sinking fund clause and the purchase clause—were really alternative clauses dealing with the same question. That was to say if the companies continued to exist the security was given to the public by the operation of the sinking fund clause. If, in the alternative, purchase was effected within seven years, a similar object was attained by the purchase clause. In the second place the honourable Baronet said that the Government Bill when it left this House did not contain a sinking fund clause, and that was perfectly correct. They knew now that a Committee in another place had inserted in the Government Bill a sinking fund clause, and as the matter now stood the Government Bill contained both a sinking fund clause and the purchase clause of his honourable friend. Therefore they were only asking that this Bill should follow the precedent of the Government Bill. The honourable Baronet had said that there was no necessity for this clause, although he admitted their contention in principle that the companies ought not in the event of purchase to derive any advantage from the works which this Bill authorised. If that was so, why did he object to the insertion of this clause? The honourable Baronet said it was undesirable to introduce unnecessary clauses in the Bill, and he thoroughly endorsed that sentiment. But then a high authority had suggested a doubt as to whether or not these companies would be able to claim compensation in respect of these works, and he thought it was wise to take security against it. He thought the House would do well to adopt the suggestion of his honourable friend.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)

said he was a member of the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of the honourable Baronet, and he could assure the House that the matter was fully considered. He thought the House would be very ill advised to attempt to fight this battle over again upon the present occasion. The subject occupied the atten- tion of the Committee for some three or four days, and they arrived at the best conclusion they could. For the House to consider this question thoroughly would involve a discussion almost as long as they were compelled to devote to it in Committee. It was not quite correct, as the honourable Member for Hoxton had said, that they were producing an anomaly by this Bill. The anomaly existed, for even the sinking fund clause was not the same in the different Bills, and the circumstances of this company were not upon all fours with the circumstances of other companies. Upon this question he was not in exact harmony with everybody who sat on his side of the House, for on many occasions he had supported the view of the London County Council. They were the constituted authority for London, and as long as that was so they ought to support them whenever they could. That being so, and the Committee having gone into this matter more fully than this House was likely to do upon the present occasion, he ventured to assert again that if this Bill was passed it would not create an anomaly that would be disadvantageous to the public.

MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)

said that as a member of the Committee he felt it his duty to divide the Committee upon this subject. He recognised the ability of the chairman of that Committee, and his great experience both on Committees of the House and in the country on Bills of this nature, but he was convinced on the evidence placed before them that it was not necessary for them to pass a temporary Bill at all. He considered that the Bill of the right honourable Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, had given sufficient facilities to this company. The engineer in cross-examination before the Committee was asked the following question: 231. Now, do you say that this Bill does not in itself give you all that you require for tiding over all the difficulties which you told the Commission you could get over even with the present means of communication? And his reply was: It would certainly tide over the present year if a drought should occur in the present year equal in intensity to the drought of last year. There was another point in this Bill in regard to the 10,000,000 gallons of wate taken from the Thames——

* MR. SPEAKER

The honourable Member must confine his remarks to the clause which is now before the House.

MR. NUSSEY

said he would bow to that ruling, although he did not think they ought to prejudge any action which might be taken in the future. That being

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Hemphill, Rt, Hon. Charles H. Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)
Billson, Alfred Holland, Wm. H. (York,W.R.) Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Horniman, Frederick John Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Burns, John Jacoby, James Alfred Souttar, Robinson
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Spicer, Albert
Caldwell, James Jones William (Carnarvonshire Steadmau, William Charles
Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow) Laurie, Lieut.-General Stevenson, Francis S.
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land Strachey, Edward
Colville, John Leng, Sir John Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Crombie, John William Lloyd-George, David Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E)
Daly, James Lough, Thomas Thomas, David Alfied (Merthyr
Davitt, Michael Lyell, Sir Leonard Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dilke, Kt. Hon. Sir Charles Macaleese, Daniel Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Dillon, John M'Kenna, Reginald Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Donelan, Captain A. Maden, John Henry Wedderburn, Sir William
Doogan, P. C. Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) Weir, James Galloway
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Fenwick, Charles Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, John (Govan)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow.W.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Kelly, James TELLERS for the AYES—Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Pickersgill.
Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley Pirie, Duncan V.
Gurdon, Sir William Brampton Power, Patrick Joseph
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Reid, Sir Robert Threshie
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Goldsworthy, Major-General
Aird, John Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Allsopp, Hon. George Chelsea, Viscount Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Anstruther, H. T. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Coghill, Douglas Harry Gull, Sir Cameron
Arnold, Alfred Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gunter, Colonel
Arnold-Foster, Hugh O. Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Halsey, Thomas Frederick
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Compton, Lord Alwyne Haslett, Sir James Horner
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter
Baldwin, Alfred Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Statffs.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D. Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hanmpstead
Banbury, Frederick George Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)
Barnes, Frederick Gorell Dalkeith, Earl of Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Barry, Rt, Hn. A H smith- (Hunts Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn
Bartley, George C. T. Denny, Colonel Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol Doughty, George Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies
Beaumout, Wentworth C. B. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Jenkins, Sir John Jones
Bethell, Commander Doxford, William Theodore Johnstone, William (Belfast)
Blakiston-Houston, John Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Bond, Edward Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme. Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Kimber, Henry
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Fardell, Sir T. George Kitson, Sir James
Boulnois, Edmund Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Knowles, Lees
Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r Lawrence, Sir EDurning-(Corn.
Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis Finch, George H. Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Finlay, Sir Robert. Bannatyne Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Burt, Thomas Fisher, William Hayes Leighton, Stanley.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow Fry, Lewis Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Carew, James Lawrence Garfit, William Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Gedge, Sydney Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) Giles, Charles Tyrrell Lowe, Francis William
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Gold, Charles Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

so, lie urged upon the House the advisability of strengthening the Bill by adding, the clause which the honourable Member for Hoxton had moved.

The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 185. (Division List No. 140.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman Paulton, James Mellor Simeon, Sir Barrington
Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) Spencer, Ernest
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk
M'Cahnont, H. L. B (Cambs.) Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Maclver, David (Liverpool) Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham) Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb, W.) Perks, Robert William Stephens, Henry Charles
M'Killop, James Pierpoint, Robert Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Malcolm, Ian Pilkington, Richard Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Middlemore John Throgmorton Pretyman, Earnest George Thorburn, Walter
Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John Purvis, Robert Valentia, Viscount
Milner, Sir Frederick George Rankin, Sir James. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Milton, Viscount Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.
Monk, Charles James Reckitt, Harold James Wanklyn, James Leslie
Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Redmond, William (Clare) Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire) Rentoul, James Alexander Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Morrell, George Herbert Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Morton, Arthar H. A. Deptford Richardson, Sir Thos (Hartlep'l Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Mount, William George Ridley, Rt. Hon Sir Matthew W Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Royds, Clement Molyneux Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Myers, William Henry Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Newark, Viscount Rutherford, John Wyndbam, George
Newdigate, Francis Alexander Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Wyvill, Marmarduke D'Arey
Nicol, Donald Ninian Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Young, Commander(Berks, E.)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Savory, Sir Joseph
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Seely, Charles Hilton TELLERS for the NOES—Viscount Folkestone and Mr. Goulding.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Sharpe, William Edward T.
Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)