§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ MR. PICKERSGILL () Bethnal Green, S. W.
said he had on several occasions had to call attention to the Bills of this company. The fault was not his; it was rather that of the company. His action was taken in the interests not only of his own constituents, but of the vast body of gas consumers on the north side of the Thames. The object of this Bill was to enable the company to increase its capital by two and a half millions sterling, and the measure was identical with one introduced last session, the Second and Third Reading of which he unsuccessfully opposed, as he failed to get the support of the majority of hon. Members. When, how ever, that Bill went to another place the course which he had respectfully urged the House of Commons to take was adopted by the House of Lords, and it threw out the measure. It would be in the remembrance of hon. Members that 1186 last year the House appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the metropolitan gas companies. That Committee had made some very important recommendations, which had, however, been entirely ignored by the Gas Light and Coke Company in their present Bill. The company had. in fact, not shown the slightest disposition to comply with any one of the five important recommendations of the Committee, and he thought he was not going too far when he suggested that in so acting they were showing something very like contempt towards the House. Complaint had for a long time been made of the excessive charges for gas made by this company, as compared with other companies, whether metropolitan, suburban, or provincial corporations or companies, and it was important to note that the difference in price had been constantly increasing for the last ten years. Taking the South Metropolitan Company for the purposes of comparison, he found that in 1889 the difference between the charges of the two companies was 3d. per thousand feet. In 1890 it was 4½d., in 1891 5¼d., in 1892 7d, in 1893 7¾d., in 1894 7¾d., in 1895 there was a slight drop to 5¾d.: in 1896 6¼d., in 1897 6½d., and in 1898 8¼d.: and this constantly increasing difference had been going on in spite of the fact that the company had all the natural conditions in its favour. It was the largest gas company in the world; it had the largest and richest district to supply; it had a larger area of supply than any other metropolitan company, and the amount of gas sold per mile was larger in the case of the Gas Light and Coke Company than in the case of any other company in London. Why was it, then, that the price charged was so high? The Report of the Committee showed clearly and decisively that the company had long been breaking its statutory bargain, because in 1867, what was known as Mr. Cardwell's Committee stated that gas companies were entitled to divide their 10 per cent, dividend only on the condition that their affairs were conducted with "due care and management." He would like to draw the attention of the House to the Report of last year's Committee, which, he submitted, amply bore out the charges he had made against the company. It was as follows—The Committee have very fully considered all the evidence submitted to them, and. after 1187 giving due weight to the reasons offered by the Gas Light and Coke Company in explanation of the higher price charged for their gas, they are of opinion that the affairs of the company have not been well managed. The intention of the sliding scale was to give to the consumers a special interest in economical administration, while the control was left exclusively in the hands of the company. Hence there was an implied obligation on the part of the company that their affairs should be administered (to quote the language of Mr. Cardwell's Committee) 'with due care and management.' Your Committee have arrived at the conclusion that this has not been done. Hence, the intention of the Parliamentary bargain, which was in effect made, has not been realised by the company, and thus the benefit to the consumers which was contemplated when the standard price was fixed nearly a quarter of a century ago has not been obtained. With regard to Mr. Field's explanations on the subject of over-capitalisation, your Committee would point out that even accepting integrally the sums of £1,500,000 and £400,000 expended respectively on the Beckton Works, and on extra storage in case of emergency, they only amount to a total of £1,900,000. On the other hand, the difference in the capital cost of 3s. 8d. per 1,000 feet, as shown above, between the Gas Light and Coke Company and South Metropolitan Company, amounts, on the 21,000 millions of gas sold by the Gas Light and Coke Company in 1898, to £3,850,000.He submitted that the findings of this Committee amply justified the charge which had been brought against the management of the company. Now he came to another topic. It was stated in the memorandum which had been issued by the promoters of the Bill that one reason for desiring to increase the capital was to enable the company to meet demands, coming mainly from the working classes, to have gas supplied to them by means of the automatic meter, or, as it was more commonly known, "the penny-in-the-slot" system. But how was the company treating a very large portion of its gas consumers? The company was under a statutory obligation not to charge to its customers south of the Thames more than was charged by the South Metropolitan Gas Company. Its charge was, therefore, limited by law to 2s. 2d. or 2s. 3d. per thousand feet. But the company, finding its charges thus cut down, sought to make up the deficiency by imposing an excessive price for the fittings which they themselves supplied, and consequently the working-class consumers were charged for these fittings at the rate of 1s. 2½d. per thousand feet, the fittings being precisely the same as those for which the company charged its cus- 1188 tomers north of the Thames only 9½d. The Committee to which he had referred drew attention in strong terms to various malpractices on the part of the company, and it recommended that, whenever any metropolitan gas company came to the House to increase its powers for raising capital, Parliament should impose a reduction of the statutory price and insist on a revision of the sliding scale. Good sound reasons were put forward for the adoption of such a course. The Committee pointed out, in the first place, that since the statutory prices were fixed the cost of producing gas had been largely reduced, while, in the second place, it was now possible to obtain capital at a much lower rate of interest than formerly. Then the Committee recommended that if any gas company were granted powers to raise fresh capital it should be limited to a period of five years. Yet the company were showing great disrespect for the Committee by seeking to get the power for a period of nearly twenty years instead of five years. I his was no doubt a very unusual proposal, and when Mr. Field, the representative of the company, was last year asked if they had ever made such a proposal before, the reply was, "I do not think so." It was clear, therefore, that the company had adopted an entirely unusual practice in substituting twenty years for ten years, which had been the usual term in the past. The reason was obvious. During the last ten years there had positively been a decrease in the amount of gas sold by the company, with the exception of the business done through the automatic meters, and it was upon that that the company had based their estimate of future financial requirements. Was it necessary, he ventured to ask, to give the company powers to raise fresh capital? His answer was in the negative, because there was another source from which the money could be obtained and at the same time a great advantage be conferred on the company. The Committee had recommended that the South Metropolitan Gas Company should be empowered to purchase the property of the Gas Light and Coke Company on the south side of the river and to serve their customers in that area with gas. Now that would be an advantage not only to the public but to the company, because after all its right to supply gas south of 1189 the Thames was what he might call a damnosa hereditas. It was compelled, as a matter of fact, to sell its gas south of the Thames at less than cost price, and it had been established by evidence that while the cost price was 2s. 4½d. per one thousand feet, the legal charge to the consumers was only 2s. 2d., and the total loss to the company represented something like £10,000 per annum. It was because of that the Committee recommended that power should be given to sell the company's property south of the Thames to the South Metropolitan Gas Company. At the present time there was a Bill before the House promoted by the last-named company with the object of purchasing such property and rights of supply, and if it were earned the Gas Light and Coke Company would receive a very large capital sum as the result of the sale, and it would in consequence be placed in possession of sufficient funds for the present, and would not require any accession of capital. Under these circumstances he thought it was very desirable that the House should reject this Bill, and he begged to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
§ MR. LOUGH () Islington, W.
said he knew it was a difficult thing to persuade the House to reject a private Bill on the Second Heading. But they had an example the previous day of the fact that the House sometimes did so, and if the House was not prepared to exercise its functions in matters of this kind it would be better to abolish Second Readings altogether, and not go through the farce. If ever there was a Bill which ought to be rejected, the Bill now before the House came under that category. He wished to give the House two or three points why he thought this strong course should be adopted. His first point was that this Gas Light and Coke Company continually flouted Parliament, and paid not the slightest attention to any recommendations made either by the general law or by Select Committees appointed to consider the matter of gas. The House ought to consider this subject a little more seriously than it had done. Only last year a Select Committee on London Gas Supply sat for twenty-one days and made five recommendations. It was a great presumption that the greatest gas company in London should come there with a Bill in which they took not the 1190 slightest notice of these recommendations. The Committee recommended that the standard price should be reduced 6d. per thousand feet. That was not noticed in the Bill. The Committee recommended that the company should sell their southern area, and that area was not sold. The Committee recommended that slot meters should be regulated by the Board of Trade, and the prices corrected. Nothing whatever had been done in that direction. Now there were 120,000 of those slot meters in the area served by this company, and the company had absolutely disregarded the recommendations of the Select Committee thereanent. The general law stated that the precise capital sum proposed to be raised should be stated in the Bill, but that was not done. In fact, this was almost the same Bill which was rejected last year. His most serious point was that owing to over-capitalisation and mismanagement this company was a burden on the whole population of London north of the Thames. The price of gas charged south' of the river was 2s. 1d. per 1,000 feet, whereas the Gas and Coke Company charged 2s. 11d.: and although they did not charge for meters the excess of the charge for slot meters counterbalanced that. There were two and a quarter millions of people in the company's area, and that excess of 10d. per 1,000 feet meant an extra burden on the people of £800,000 per annum. He would put it in another way. In a business with which he was connected they paid £639 last year for gas supplied by the Gas and Coke Company, whereas if they had been supplied by the other company it would have only reached £444—that was, there was an extra tax of £195 which they were compelled to pay the former company. It might be said that business men could take care of themselves, but this monopoly pressed on the poor people of London, who were the great consumers of gas There were 120,000 consumers by the slot, and they had to pay £2 15s. per slot or 19s. or £1 per year more than they would have to pay if served by the company on the other side of the Thames. That was a very serious monopoly. All legislation in regard to gas had been in the direction of reducing the price. Gas was, after all, light, and light was a necessity of life. And why should the House give a monopoly to a company of 1191 a necessity of life? It would not give a monopoly of soap, or candles, or tea, or sugar, and why of gas? Again, the company wanted by the Bill two and a half millions of new capital, but that would serve them for fourteen or sixteen years. Why on earth should Parliament give them power to raise capital for the next sixteen years, when the company had at present £450,000 of unissued capital, and £600,000 at the credit of their capital account? Again, they could raise capital by selling their southern area to the South Metropolitan Gas Company, which was willing to buy it. He believed that the only difference between the two companies was in regard to the price, and on a fair basis the South Metropolitan Gas Company offered the Gas Light and Coke Company a million for it On all these grounds, he contended that the House should not hesitate to reject the Bill, and he had great pleasure in seconding the motion of his hon. friend.
Amendment proposed —
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—[Mr. Pickersgill.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word now' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. BOULNOIS () Marylebone, E.
said that if the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green had his way he would not allow Londoners to have either gas light, electric light, or water; because he came down there consistently, session after session—he supposed at the instigation of his friends the London County Council—
§ MR. BOULNOIS
said he had a recollection, at all events, of the hon. Member posing on former occasions on behalf of the London County Council, and it might be assumed that he was acting for them on that occasion. He was not going to follow the hon. Member into any of the details he had placed before the House—details which were expressly for the consideration of the Committee upstairs. It was absolutely impossible for the House to say whether the price charged for gas by the 1192 Gas Light and Coke Company was too high or not. They knew that it was higher than the price charged by the South Metropolitan Company, but there might be plenty of reasons for that. He agreed with the hon. Member for West Islington when he said that the House would have to take into serious consideration whether it was desirable to have Second Readings of Private Bills at all, but not for the reason he gave, but because the time of the House ought not to be taken up with those details, which were for the Committee upstairs. The Member for South West Bethnal Green said that the Bill entirely disregarded all the recommendations of the Select Committee of last session, but he was told that those recommendations could not be incorporated into the Bill. The hon. Member for West Islington had said that the Gas Company had no right to ask for powers to raise further capital, when that which they already had was sufficient to last for a number of years, but it was idle to suppose that they would have gone to all the expense of promoting this Bill if it had not been necessary. The hon. Gentleman had also charged the company with fraud against the poorer classes by the use of the penny-in the-slot meters. That charge ought not to be made, having regard to the fact that that way of supplying gas to poor people had created a vast amount of satisfaction among them. He had no interest in the company either as a shareholder or otherwise, but he thought the usual course taken in the House in regard to industrial companies should not be departed from. He hoped the House would not support the rejection of the Second Beading.
§ MR. BANBURY () Camberwell, Peckham
disclaimed having any interest in the company, either personally or as representing his constituency. Nevertheless, he hoped that the House would pause before it rejected all these private Bills on Second Reading, unless they contravened, and he understood they did not, some well-recognised principle on which the House proceeded. It was true that a private Bill had been rejected on Second Reading on the previous evening, but that Bill had also been rejected by the Committee upstairs, which was not the case with the present Bill. The company was prepared to sell its works to the South Metropolitan Gas 1193 Company, and had made an offer which had not been accepted. They were also willing to go to arbitration. He hoped the Bill would not be rejected.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON () Tower Hamlets, Poplar
agreed that the House ought not to throw out a Bill on Second Beading on matters of detail, but a Committee of the House ought to have a full opportunity of considering such details. In the present case, however, it was not a matter of detail. The promoters of the Bill had deliberately ignored the five recommendations made by the Committee which sat last year; and great dissatisfaction had been expressed by that Committee in their Report. It was a very strong measure for a private company to introduce a Bill to the House and not incorporate a single recommendation of the Committee. Under the circumstances, if Committees were to be of any value at all, the Second Reading of the Bill ought to be rejected.
§ SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE () Camberwell, Peckham
, as a large consumer, supported the Bill. He thought the House would do well to pass it, having regard to the fact that more gas was required, and unless their capital was increased the company would not be able to supply cheaper gas or a larger quantity. The increase of the penny-in-the-slot meters necessitated considerably more capital to set them up. He disagreed with the views of the opponents to the Bill, and thought if the company was bought up by the Metropolitan Gas Company the prices, so far as the consumers in the north were concerned, would be increased.
§ MR. COHEN () Islington, E.
hoped the Bill would be read a second time by a large majority. He advocated the passing of the Bill entirely in the interest of the consumers. With hon. Members opposite he shared regret at the disregard by the Gas Light and Coke Company of the recommendations of the Select Committee. In his opinion the Gas Light and Coke Company had treated the House of Commons with an absence of respect in introducing a. Bill which had entirely ignored the recommendations of the Committee. But he was not so anxious to punish the company as he was to mitigate the sufferings of gas consumers in the north of London. Whether the company 1194 was asking for too much capital or not was a question of detail which could not be adjudicated upon by the. House of Commons, but should be referred to a Committee sitting upstairs.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR () Liverpool, Scotland
expressed a strong and sincere hope that the House would reject the Bill. As he understood them, the facts were simply these: There were two large gas companies in this great city, one of which practically dealt with the north of London, and the other with the south. The company in the north charged 2s. 11d. for that which in the south cost only 2s. 1d. Some hon. Gentleman had said that it could be clearly proved that it was just to charge 2s. 11d. in the north for what 2s. 1d. was charged in the south, but no endeavour had been made to prove that. It was impossible to prove it. The Committee of the House of Lords which had rejected this Bill recommended that when the company came before the House of Commons to raise new capital this question of the difference of price should be raised, and an attempt made to compel it to reduce its prices to those of the South London company. That recommendation had been absolutely ignored. He failed to see how the hon. Member for East Islington, who supported a Bill in favour of allowing the company to continue its excessive rate, could reconcile his action with his regard for the interests of his constituents. The great argument in favour of giving the company additional capital was the enormous facilities it gave to the poor by the penny-in-the-slot system. He understood, however, that those facilities were given by the company in the south as well as the company in the north of London, with this difference: that the company in the south charged 9d. per thousand feet of gas, while the company in the north charged 1s. 2½d. Therefore this enormous boon to the working classes was afforded at the expense of a difference of 5½d between one part of London and another, with no division between them except the river Thames and no distinction of circumstances. Whether the company required more capital or not, it was not justified in coming to that House unless it agreed to the recommendation of the House of Lords Committee—namely, to bring its terms to an equality with those of the South London Company. He 1195 appealed to the House to take up a firm attitude on this question, and to safeguard one of the highest interests of the poor by seeing that light was given to them on reasonable and fair terms.
|Aird, John||Graham, Henry Rohert||Oldroyd, Mark|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Penn, John|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Helder, Augustus||Perks, Robert William|
|Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)||Henderson, Alexander||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.)||Pilkington, R. (Lancs Newton)|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampste'd)||Pilkington Sir G. A. (Lancs S W)|
|Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S. (Hunts.)||Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Hartley, George C. T.||Hobhouse, Henry||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)||Howard, Joseph||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Bethell, Commander||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Purvis, Robert|
|Bidrulph, Michael||Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)||Joicey, Sir James||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)||Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.|
|Brassey, Albert||Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Kenyon, James||Robinson, Brooke|
|Brown, Alexander H.||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Russell, T W. (Tyrone)|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Knowles, Lees||Ryder, John Herbert Dudley|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Lafone, Alfred||Savory, Sir Joseph|
|Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn)||Seely, Charles Hilton|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw H.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea)||Shaw-Stewart, M H. (Renfrew)|
|Chelsea, Viscount||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Side bottom, William (Derbysh.)|
|Coddington, Sir William||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Long,Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)||Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)|
|Colston, Charles E. H. Athole||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.||Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller||Spencer, Ernest|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Lowe, Francis William||Stanley, Sir Henry M. (Lambeth)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. (Kent)||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Curzon, Viscount||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lyell, Sir Leonard||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley|
|Denny, Colonel||Macdona, John Gumming||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Maclean, James Mackenzie||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart||M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||M'Killop, James||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Evans, Sir F. H. (Southamp'n)||Malcolm, Ian||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Walrond, Rt. Hn. S'r William H.|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.)||Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Webster, Sir Richard E.|
|Finch, George H.||Middlemore, J. Throgmorton||Welby, Lt.-Cl. A C E (Taunton)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Milner, Sir Frederick George||Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)|
|Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Monk, Charles James||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Garfit, William||More, Robert Jasper (Shrops.)||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|Gedge, Sydney||Morrell, George Herbert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Morrison, Walter||Wyndham, George|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Morton, Arth. H. A. (Deptford)||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Mount, William George||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Gold, Charles||Muntz, Philip A.|
|Goldsworthy, Major-General||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Banbury.|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||Newdigate, Francis Alex.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 1184-Noes, 106. (Division List No. 42.)1197
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Engledew, Charles John||Norton, Captain C. Wm.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Evershed, Sydney||O'Brien, James F, X. (Cork)|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Fenwick, Charles||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)|
|Allison, Robert Andrew||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Flower, Ernest||Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland),|
|Bainbridge, Emerson||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Baker, Sir John||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Reid, Sir Robert Threshie|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Gull, Sir Cameron||Richardson. Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Gurdon, Sir William Brampton||Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Hanson, Sir Reginald||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)|
|Billson, Alfred||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Blake, Edward||Harwood, George||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Burt, Thomas||Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.||Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Hemphill, Rt. Hon, Charles H.||Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.|
|Caldwell, James||Hogan, James Francis||Strachey, Edward|
|Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)||Holland, William Henry||Stuart, James (Shoreditch)|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Jacoby, James Alfred||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Charrington, Spencer||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Wallace, Robert|
|Clark, Dr. G. B.||Langley, Batty||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Wason, Eugene|
|Courtney Rt. Hon. Leonard H.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Crilly, Daniel||Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)||Leng, Sir John||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Lloyd-George, David||Williams, John Carvell (Notts)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lough, Thomas||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Macaleese, Daniel||Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Ewan, William||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Duckworth, James||Maddison, Fred.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Pickersgill and Colonel Dalbiac.|
|Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Marks, Henry Hananel|
|Dunn, Sir William||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand|
|Ellis, John Edward||Molloy, Bernard Charles|