HC Deb 03 July 1900 vol 85 cc366-79

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

*CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

In moving the rejection "of this Bill, I desire to say that I do so not only by the special request of the vestry of the important parish affected by it—Marylebone —but also by the wish of other public authorities in London, and especially of the parish a portion of which I have the honour to represent in this House. I make this statement in order to show that this is no narrow issue as between the parish of Marylebone and a certain electric lighting company, but that it is a matter which affects important parishes throughout this immense and thickly-populated area of the county of London. This Bill comes forward at a most inopportune moment, inasmuch as it is on the eve not of the creation, but of the coming into being of the great London boroughs on the 1st November next. It will be a matter of the gravest concern to every one of these great areas if at this moment the parish of Marylebone is to be placed in the position that a second electric lighting company is to be brought into competition with the existing company, with the result that the new borough authority, when it comes into existence, will either have to forego for many years the right and power to supply its own electric light, or will have to buy out at enormous cost the two companies. This is in no sense a party matter, and I believe I am justified in saying that the President of the Board of Trade has left it an open question, and that he desires the House itself to settle the issue. Neither is it a question of municipal trading, inasmuch as from time immemorial it has been deemed to be one of the primary duties of local bodies to control the lighting of the area for the management of which they are responsible. Seeing that the formation of these new metropolitan boroughs was carried in this House by a majority of the votes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in opposition to the wishes of many on this side, I would point out to those who desire to treat this as a party question that if they pass this measure they will practically be handicapping and weighting the horse that they themselves have backed. It is of the first importance that these new borough councils should have a fair field. They were created with the express purpose of bringing new municipal life into the administration of the great areas throughout the metropolis, and with a view of encouraging men of a superior class to join the local bodies. So far as the borough of Marylebone is concerned the new borough council will be practically identical with the present district, and by passing this Bill you will be placing it in a position in which it will be unable to deal effectively with the electric lighting of its area. I wish to be perfectly fair to the House in this matter. I have no intention of attempting to make a lawyer-like speech, but I will be perfectly frank, and give a plain statement of what has occurred. I will do absolute justice not only to the company which is promoting this Bill, but also to the company which now has possession of the electric lighting of Marylebone. I frankly acknowledge that the vestry have been at fault. In the year 1889 it allowed the Metropolitan Company to provide electric light, in view of the reserve powers granted to them by the Acts of 1882 and 1888, and having in view the risks, seeing that electric lighting was not in the advanced stage it has now reached, and it was, consequently, a highly speculative matter. The vestry, bearing in view those facts, agreed to forego the power which they might have obtained themselves to supply the electricity, and allowed the Metropolitan Company to undertake the duty. For a certain time the company did the work fairly well, but eventually, owing to the fact that the demand for the light in this great and rich parish enormously in- creased, the company became unable to give complete satisfaction to the inhabitants of the district. They were, moreover, handicapped by the fact that they were building a large generating station at Willesden. Some years later the vestry, overwhelmed to some extent by complaints from the inhabitants of the parish, applied for an Order to enable it to supply the electric light, and at the same time two other companies made a similar application, one of them being the company which is promoting the present Bill. What happened? The Board of Trade granted the Order, but left it to the House to decide whether or not the vestry should be allowed to compete with the existing company. The House— very fairly, as I think—decided in favour of the Metropolitan company, inasmuch as that company had borne the toil and heat of the day. It had entered on a risky undertaking, and, up to a certain period, had given satisfaction. Some years later the vestry applied again for an Order, and again failed, and it then brought in a private Bill with a view to buying up the Metropolitan Company, either voluntarily or compulsorily. The company opposed that, and the House of Commons again decided against the vestry and in favour of the company. What has happened now? The vestry have once more decided to apply for a Provisional Order, more especially in view of the fact that they are soon to be constituted a borough council. But, at the same time, another electric lighting company, which is identical with the St. James's Lighting Company—perhaps one of the best electric lighting companies in the metropolis—is also attempting to get a footing in the parish of Marylebone, and if it does so the local authority will eventually be obliged to buy it out at enormous cost. What does the company urge in favour of its scheme? I have here the document in which they put forward their claim to support. They point to the fact that in 1889 the vestry adopted a report of its Parliamentary Committee, stating that, "in the belief of the Committee, competition between two companies would be beneficial to the parishioners." No doubt, at that time, when the vestry were being harassed by complaints of the inefficiency of the supply, they, did believe that competition would be a good thing. Then the promoters go on to point out that at a meeting held at the Board of Trade on the 21st March, 1900, to consider the grant of the present Order, counsel for the vestry stated that "the vestry has always been in favour of competition in this parish, and they are still in favour of it." But what is the reply of the President of the Board of Trade, at the close of his remarks when he received the deputation in January? He said he thought the deputation would have "done some good in ventilating the subject, and in showing how burdensome the present state of things was, and how necessary it was that a remedy should be found" Well, that remedy has been found in a provisional agreement which has been come to between the representatives of the vestry and of the Metropolitan Company, to buy out the latter, and, therefore, whatever there may have been in the statement that the vestry favoured competition, that statement now counts for nothing. I notice in this document from which I have been (noting there is a statement, made prominent by the fact of its being printed in red ink, to the following effect — It is stated that since the notice of objection to the Second Reading was given a committee of the vestry have made a provisional agreement with the Metropolitan Company for the purchase of the undertaking of the latter company within the parish at an enhanced price. Neither party having the necessary powers to make such an agreement, it is ultra vires, and cannot be binding upon either party. We know it cannot, but the vestry have done all that they can do by entering into this provisional agreement. I may further add that the existing Metropolitan Company, which formerly opposed this measure, distinctly contradicts the statement I have read, and says it can lie disproved by a reference to the Parliamentary Paper (Electric Lighting, Metropolis) (No. 189). The true position of the matter is stated in the Parliamentary Paper of 1889 (page 9) as follows— The Marylebone authorities object to more than one company having powers in their district, and have entered into agreements with the Metropolitan Company. Seeing that this agreement has been entered into, and seeing also that the company which has a real status in the parish is at one with the vestry, I think I am justified in saying that it would be directly against the interests of the community to allow a second company to come in—a company which could not compote, a company which would never be in a position to compete, and which would do nothing more than, thwart the efforts of the new borough council to do its duty, and which would ultimately force that borough council to buy it out at a heavy cost. I may further state that the vestry has not only petitioned Parliament against this Bill, but it is prepared to oppose it at every stage. If you pass this Bill the new borough council will not be able, like some of its neighbours, to supply the electric current at something like 3d. per unit, and private householders will have to pay probably 6d. per unit, and business premises 5d., while the parish itself will have to go on paying £30 per lamp instead of being able to supply its own lamps at a cost of £20 each per year, as is done in the adjacent parish of St. Pancras. By passing this Bill you will be depriving the ratepayers of Marylebone of the opportunity of getting better and cheaper facilities for lighting; you will deprive them also of the opportunity of making a profit which could go to the reduction of rates; and, furthermore, you will be bringing in a new authority to tear up the streets of the parish. You must remember that Oxford Street and Marylebone Road both pass through this parish. In one year Oxford Street was opened up 178 and Marylebone Road 111 times. Is it not monstrous you should bring in another company to tear up these streets, to the great detriment not only of the inhabitants of the parish, but of the trade and of the entire community, causing as it does so much inconvenience and loss to the residents and the public? Finally, may I point out that if you pass this Bill you will be stultifying yourselves? This House has passed a measure creating borough councils throughout the metropolis, and at the beginning you are going to stab one of them in the back by preventing it performing one of its most important duties—namely, dealing with the lighting of the parish. By so acting you are taking a distinctly retrograde step in the matter of local government, and at the same time you will be doing a great injustice to the inhabitants of a large and important parish. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time, this day three mouths.

GENERAL LAURIE (Pembroke and Haverfordwest)

I rise to second the motion. I do not propose to go over the ground so well covered by my hon. and gallant friend opposite. I simply stand here as a representative of a metropolitan and municipal authority, which feels that if this privilege is given to a private company in the case of Marylebone it will be given in the case of other municipalities, and that private companies, against the wishes of the local authorities, will be enabled to furnish what it is claimed it would be an advantage to the inhabitants of a municipality to have supplied by the local authority. Twelve years ago the Metropolitan Company was permitted, with the consent of the vestry, to furnish electric light to the parish. But the work has not been done satisfactorily; indeed, matters became so unsatisfactory that the vestry decided to avail itself of their reserve right to instal the light themselves. It accordingly applied for a Provisional Order, but some difficulty arose in regard to it, and Parliament refused it the power to instal, the House taking the view that when certain individuals had invested their money in furnishing what they believed to be a convenience to the inhabitants, no competition should be permitted. Yet, although competition by a local authority was forbidden, the House is now asked to allow competition by another private company. The parish says, and with absolute truth, that sooner or later this electric service must be furnished by the municipality itself, and when the local authority does take it over, instead of having only one company to buy out there will, if this Bill is allowed to pass, be two companies to be bought up. No doubt competition is a very good thing in the right place, but if it means that there must, in consequence of it, be a large addition to the rates, then the ratepayers are certainly not prepared to accept a proposal entailing such a liability. People who live in adjoining parishes realise that this is the thin edge of the wedge, and that what is made to apply to Marylebone to-day will be applied to other vestries to-morrow. Only to-day the vestry to which I have the honour to belong passed a resolution urging that this Bill should be opposed in every possible way. The President of the Board of Trade, in a debate on an exactly similar question a short time ago, said the House should always support municipality. Well, I ask the House to take that course to-day. The President of the Local Government Board has also laid it down as a general principle that when a municipality and a private company were applying for the same thing the preference should be given to the municipality. Now, what is the position here I Marylebone has applied for and been refused permission to instal, but it intends to again come to the House for power to supply its own electric light, as well as to buy out the existing company. In the meantime you are asked by this Bill to allow a private company to come in and establish itself. I venture to suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board meant what he said the other day he will support the opposition to this Bill. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said——

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in order in discussing a speech made on a different occasion and on another subject, in the present session.

GENERAL LAURIE

I am sorry to have transgressed the rules of the House. I only desired to express my hope that the views uttered by the right hon. Gentleman not very long ago are still held by him. I would also like to point out that, after all, the person to be chiefly considered is not the municipal authority or the commercial company, but the consumer. If I understand aright, the consumer and the ratepayer are very nearly identical persons, and as a ratepayer I would point out that he, after all, is the proper person to deal with this subject, because he has, every now and then, the means of turning out his elected representatives on the local authority if they do not do their duty, whereas, if the lighting is in the hands of a private company he has no control whatever over the directors. The parish to which I belong is spending over £100,000 in laying new pavements, and what is our experience of private companies? We have asked a company which has legislative power to break up our streets to do what work they require before we repave them, and their reply has been that they intend to use their powers when they like. How much better would it be for work of this sort to be done by the municipality itself, instead of allowing a private company to do all sort of mischief by breaking up the streets and destroying the value of work done with the ratepayers' money. I hope that the House will not accept this Bill, but will postpone consideration of it until such time as the borough councils themselves have been created, and the ratepayers sure in a position to express their views upon the subject.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months."'—(Captain Norton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,) Croydon

I will endeavour to put before the House the dry facts of the case, which lie to a great extent in a nutshell. This is a Bill which proposes to confirm a Provisional Order, and I only desire to say, in the first place, that in issuing these Orders the Board of Trade acts with a view to giving the House an opportunity of judging whether or not the Orders should toe converted into law. The position in regard to this matter is this. Tie supply of electric light in Marylebone has been bad for some years past and has been greatly complained of. It therefore became necessary that something tangible should be done to remedy the existing state of things. Two years ago the Vestry of Marylebone applied to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order to provide a supply in competition with the existing company. Having regard to the state of affairs we did not hesitate for a moment to grant it, but it gave rise to considerable discussion. It was contended that it would have been unfair to the existing company to put it in competition with a rate-aided authority. However, the House agreed to read the Bill a second time, although later on the Committee rejected it, mainly, I believe, on the ground that rate-aided competition would be unfair to the company. Subsequently an important deputation, including many of the loading inhabitants, waited on the Board of Trade complaining of the quality of the light. Eminent doctors declared that it was impossible to carry on operations in consequence of the bad light; shopkeepers also complained, and the conductors of places of worship, declared that they could not carry on their devotions—they wanted more light. The deputation seemed to think that the Board of Trade had some means of putting these wrongs right, but, as a matter of fact, I had to explain that the Board of Trade was practically powerless, and that the only remedy for a grievance of this kind is to be found in competition. That is the real way in which existing evils, both in regard to price and quality, can be remedied. But the application of the vestry for a Provisional Order having been refused, is this House now to say that there shall be no remedy until some future time, when a new municipal authority has been created? The House must decide this question for itself. I have sympathy with the position of the vestry, but I must point out that, having already been refused power, they have not put in a fresh application. The hon. Gentleman says they have agreed with the existing company to purchase its undertaking, and that if it is carried out the vestry will then have the matter in its own hands. But I understand that that agreement requires ratification, and that it has not been definitely assented to by either side. If the House reads this Bill a second time I propose to move an Instruction to the Committee in order to safeguard the interests of the vestry in regard to any agreement which it may conclude. I shall propose that it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the expediency of inserting a clause in the Order, providing that the Order shall not come into operation until a date to be decided by the Committee, and shall not then come into operation if the undertaking authorised by the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (West London Order, 1899) shall have been purchased by the vestry of Marylebone or their successors. If the House passes the Second Reading, together with this Instruction, the Committee will then be able to consider the position of the vestry in regard to this agreement. I hope that, having regard to the undoubted fact that the supply of the electric light is defective, and that the vestry have been refused power to instal, the House will not relegate this matter again to the position in which it was six months ago, but that it will send the Bill to a Committee to consider all the questions raised by it.

MR. CRIPPS (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

only wanted to say one or two words as to the proper principle of dealing with matters of this kind. He hoped that the House would not give a Second Reading to this Bill. The facts were very simple. They already had a company in possession of the parish, and they had a vestry or municipal authority desirous of taking the lighting of the district into its own hands. Between the company and the vestry there was a provisional agreement, and they might take it for granted that if this Bill were thrown out that agreement would be carried into effect. Was it right, then, to introduce another company which the vestry would eventually have to buy out? As they knew, he was an opponent of municipal trading, but this was not a question of municipal trading at all, for the House had long recognised the principle that, where a local authority asked for powers to buy out an existing company, in order that it might itself supply the light, such power ought to be granted it. He did not believe any case could be quoted where it had been refused. When the vestry asked for power to compete with the existing company a totally different set of conditions arose, and it was felt by the House that the company should not be subjected to a rate-aided competition. If this Bill were carried they would have two authorities interfering with the streets, which was an unmitigated nuisance, and when the time for purchase came they would have two companies to buy out instead of one.

MR. LYTTELTON (Warwick and Leamington)

hoped that the House would give the Bill a Second Reading. Was it fair that, because a local authority had intimated that some time or other it would light its own district, private enterprise should be refused even a hearing before a Committee of that House? He regretted that, after the offer of the President of the Board of Trade to move an Instruction which would practically safeguard the interests of the local authority, the opposition to the Bill was being persisted in. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved its rejection had admitted that the promoters of this Bill were men of excellent position in the electric lighting world, and that they had an excellent record in London. It was admitted, too, that so far back as 1897 the vestry desired competition. So bad was the electric lighting that the vestry itself came to Parliament for a Provisional Order, but the House very properly declined to give a rate-aided authority power to compete with the Metropolitan Company. How had the situation changed? The opponents of this Bill said that it had changed because the vestry had entered into a provisional agreement to purchase the undertaking of the Metropolitan Company. He understands that that was not the fact. The vestry had never passed any such resolution at all. It was passed by a committee of the vestry against a powerful minority, and there were considerable obstacles to the carrying out of the agreement. In the first place the shareholders of the Metropolitan Company had to be asked for their consent. Next, Parliament had to approve the bargain, and finally the electors of the parish of Marylebone would have to ratify it, and he did not believe that that ratification was by any means assured, in view of the strong minority which opposed the passing of the resolution. He did not say it was not a bonâ fide agreement; it was a mere intention to agree, with many obstacles in the way. The shareholders of the Metropolitan Company had to be dealt with; the electors of the new borough council had to be converted, and so also had that body when elected. He did not say the vestry might not be so fortunate as to get Parliament to reverse its decision of 1898, and convert the electors in November next. The Amendment in effect said, "Notwithstanding all these obstacles in the way, you, the ratepayers and inhabitants of Marylebone, are to remain in a condition, as regards electric lighting, which everyone admits to be deplorable, or at any rate very undesirable." What did the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade amount to? That the State should guarantee the rights of the vestry if they were in earnest and successful in carrying out the bargain which they had made provisionally with the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company; and on the vestry being able to purchase the existing undertaking, the operation of this Bill should be postponed. What more reasonable, rational, and temperate proposal could be made? He submitted that the refusal of such an offer as that guaranteed by the Instruction to the Committee, threw a very considerable light on the ability of the vestry to carry out their declared intentions.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 119; Noes, 147. (Division List No. 169.)

AYES.
Anstruther, H. T. Goldsworthy, Major-General Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Goulding, Edward Alfred Mount, William George
Arrol, Sir William Graham, Henry Robert Muntz, Philip A.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Gull, Sir Cameron Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Atherley-Jones, L. Gunter, Colonel Myers, William Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George Nicol, Donald Ninian
Baird, John George Alexander Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Baldwin, Alfred Hardy, Laurence Penn, John
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds) Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth) Percy, Earl
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S.-(Hunts.) Hornby, Sir William Henry Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Hartley, George C. T. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Pierpoint, Robert
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Howortn, Sir Henry Hoyle Purvis, Robert
Blakiston-Houston, John Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Rankin, Sir James
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Hudson, George Bickersteth Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith. Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Seely, Charles Hilton
Billiard, Sir Harry Johnston, William (Belfast) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Shaw, Charles Ed. (Stafford.)
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) Kimber, Henry Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Knowles, Lees Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Lafoue, Alfred Thorburn, Sir Walter
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Thornton, Percy M.
Cross, Herb, Shepherd(Bolton) Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R. Tollemache, Henry James
Curzon, Viscount Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Usborne, Thomas
Dorington, Sir John Edward Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool) Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers. Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Warr, Augustus Frederick
Drage, Geoffrey Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (Cumb'land) Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart Loyd, Archie Kirkman Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas Macaleese, Daniel Willox, Sir J. Archibald
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.) Macdona, John Cumming Wilson, J. W. (Worcester, N.)
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Maclure, Sir John William Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R. (Bth)
Finch, George H. M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin, W.) Wolff, Gustav, Wilhelm
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Marks, Henry Hananel Wylie, Alexander
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Fisher, William Hayes Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose. Middlemore, John Throgmortn
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Moon, Edward Robert Pacy TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fry, Lewis Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Mr. Lyttelton and Mr. Banbury.
Giles, Charles Tyrrell More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)
NOES.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) Colomb, Sir John Ch. Ready Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Cripps, Charles Alfred Galloway, William Johnson
Baker, Sir John Crombie, John William Gold, Charles
Bethell, Commander Daly, James Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley
Blake, Edward Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Gurdon, Sir William Brampton
Boulnois, Edmund Dillon, John Hanson, Sir Reginald
Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur Donelan, Captain A. Harwood, George
Broadhurst, Henry Doogan, P. C. Hatch, Ernest Fredk. George
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Duckworth, James Hazell, Walter
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.
Hurt, Thomas Emmott, Alfred Holland, William Henry
Buxton, Sydney Charles Engledew, Charles John Horniman, Frederick John
Caldwell, James Evershed, Sydney Howard, Joseph
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Farquharson, Dr. Robert Howell, William Tudor
Carew, James Laurence Fenwick, Charles Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Causton, Richard Knight Field, William (Dublin) Jacoby, James Alfred
Cawley, Frederick Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor.) Flavin, Michael Joseph Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a.)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Flower, Ernest Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Flynn, James Christopher Kinloch, Sir Jn. Geo. Smyth
Kitson, Sir James O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur Stevenson, Francis S.
Labouchere, Henry O'Kelly, James Strachey, Edward
Langley, Batty Parkes, Ebenezer Tennant, Harold John
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington) Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Leng, Sir John Fender, Sir James Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Lewis, John Herbert Perks, Robert William Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lloyd-George, David Pickersgill, Edward Hare Tritton, Charles Ernest
Lough, Thomas Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wallace, Robert
Lucas-Shadwell, William Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)
MacDonnell, Dr. MA. (Queen's C) Power, Patrick Joseph Walton, Joseph (Bamsley)
Maclean, James Mackenzie Easch, Major Frederic Carne Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Reckitt, Harold James Wason, Eugene
M'Dermott, Patrick Redmond, William (Clare) Wedderburn, Sir William
M'Ghee, Richard Reid, Sir Robert Threshie Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.)
M'Kenna, Reginald Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.) William's, John Carvell (Notts)
M'Killop, James Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wills, Sir William Henry
M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Malcolm, Ian Robinson, Brooke Wilson, John (Govan)
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J. Samuel, Hy. S. (Limehouse) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'dde'sfd)
Monk, Charles James Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Woods, Samuel
Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr) Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) Wrightson, Thomas
Murnaghan, George Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Soames, Arthur Wellesley Yoxall, James Henry
O'Brien, Jas. F. X. (Cork) Souttar, Robinson TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Spencer, Ernest Captain Norton and General Laurie.
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Spicer, Albert

Resolutions agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for three months.