§ [SECOND READING.]
§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ *MR. HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)rose to move the following Amendment—
That this House, having regard to the manner in which the London and North Western Railway Company have evaded their obligations in respect of the re-housing of persons of the labouring class displaced for the purposes of the company, declines to confer additional powers upon the company.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I have looked at the Amendment which the hon. Member has placed upon the Paper, and if he is going to move that I am bound to tell him that I think it is out of order. He may move the rejection of the Bill on some relevant ground, but to discuss on the present Bill a question as to what the conduct of the railway has been under previous powers would be out of order. The hon. Member, of course, may vote upon any ground he has present in his mind, but he cannot argue in this House either on the particular Amendment or on the Second Reading the question of the conduct of the London and North Western Company under Bills which deal with matters different to that now before the House.
§ *MR. HAYsaid that under the circumstances he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He was aware that in so doing he was adopting a course which was seldom pursued in the House in reference to private Bills; but he did so because the provisions of the Bill conflicted with the public interest in relation to the re-housing of the people. There had during the present session been one precedent at any rate for the action he was taking. Only a few weeks since a motion was submitted to the House for the 182 rejection of the Bill promoted by the Gas Light and Coke Company, on the ground that that company had failed to comply with the obligations placed upon it by Parliament. The debate which then ensued led to the withdrawal of the Bill. In submitting the motion he had first of all to claim the indulgence of the House upon the first occasion on which he had ventured to address it. He wished next to make it clear that in the motion he was submitting he had no desire to hamper the London and North Western Railway Company in the conduct of their business. He had had no communication of any sort or kind with any persons or society connected with the company except the personal acquaintance which he enjoyed with hon. Members of that House who happened to be directors of the company. The object of his motion was to induce Parliament to lay down once for all the principle that a company which in pursuit of profits had constantly to seek the sanction of Parliament for its schemes, should not, under the advice of their officials, endeavour to drive a coach-and-four through the regulations laid down by Parliament for public companies and public bodies in regard to the housing of the working classes. He did not think he could better state his case than by quoting the purport of a question he addressed to the Home Secretary on the 7th March last, when he drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Broad Street dwellings had been acquired by the company, and the tenants given notice to quit. That property immediately adjoined the Broad Street Station of the company, and the Shoreditch Borough Council officials had been informed that the buildings were to be cleared of the tenants and demolished, and the land handed over to the company for the extension of its premises.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I understand the hon. Member is now discussing something done under a former Bill, and is going to contend that the company has not fulfilled its statutory obligations. Is that so?
§ *MR. HAYI am quoting from a question I addressed to the Home Secretary 183 on 7th March last, to prove the non-observance by the company—both in spirit and in law—of the duties imposed upon it by Act of Parliament.
§ *MR. SPEAKERBy a previous Act of Parliament?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThen, as I have said, it is not open to the hon. Member to discuss that; I cannot permit a discussion on the mode in which the company has carried out previous Acts of Parliament. The debate must be based on something directly connected with this Bill.
§ *MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)Would it not be in order, inasmuch as this Bill proposes to interfere largely with the dwellings of the people, to refer to the way in which the company have acted in the past, and to argue that this Bill ought not to be allowed to pass, because under it they might act in the same way again?
§ *MR. SPEAKERLet me put an extreme case. Suppose a company had not made a bridge which under an Act it was bound to make at some point in London; a year later they came to Parliament for powers to make a bridge in Cumberland; could it be argued that that power should be refused because they had been guilty of default in London? I am quite aware there are sections in this Bill relating to the housing of the working classes. They are inserted under Standing Order 183a, and provide exactly what duty shall be imposed on the railway company. They also provide for a penalty in case of default. I understood from a question put to the President of the Board of Trade the other day that legal proceedings are actually being instituted against the company in respect of their action in the case now being referred to by the hon. Member. I must rule that such action cannot be discussed on this Bill.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)But is it not open to us, when a company comes to Parliament for new powers, to discuss before granting them 184 whether they have carried out the obligations laid upon them by previous Acts?
§ *MR. SPEAKERI think not. If that were permitted there is scarcely anything done or omitted to be done by a company which might not be discussed on an omnibus Bill of this description.
§ *MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwick shire, Rugby)said he should like to put a parallel case, because he had recently given a vote under a misconception in the light of the present ruling of the Chair. When the Great Eastern Bill was before the House there was some discussion on the rule which compelled employees of the company to join benefit or other societies formed by the directors. The representative of the company agreed to strike out that particular rule, and he accordingly voted for the Bill. But in doing so he quite thought he would have power in another year if the company failed to carry out that undertaking to oppose any future Bill promoted by it. Although there might be power to punish a company for default by penalty or mandamus, the final power, he respectfully submitted, should rest with the House of Commons to deal with breaches of parliamentary undertakings. If the London and North Western Company had not carried out duties imposed upon it by existing Acts, it surely should be open to Parliament to punish it by rejecting the present Bill.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThis is not the case of a breach of a Parliamentary undertaking. They have always inserted the model clause, and can be compelled to observe it. No doubt where a company has obtained leave to raise capital to be spent in a particular way, and then asks for further capital, its action in regard to the first grant may be taken into consideration. But that is a totally different case to this.
§ MR. FLOWER (Bradford, W.)But would it not be possible for an hon. Member to show that the clauses of this Bill are inadequate?
§ *MR. SPEAKERIt would be for the Committee to consider that point. These clauses are prescribed by the Standing Order, and they cannot be put forward as an objection to the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ *MR. HAYsaid that in view of the ruling of the Speaker he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. It was clear that although they were not permitted to refer to the past action of the company this measure did not sufficiently safeguard public interests. It was only on the 16th May, 1899, that a Report was presented to the House by one of its Committees recommending that the company should be compelled to pay the costs of certain proceedings, because it had unnecessarily harassed certain private poisons and interests. No sooner had Parliament come to a decision on the matter than the London and North Western Railway Company applied for an injunction in the High Courts to restrain the Taxing Master of this House from issuing a certificate for the payment of the costs. It was obvious that the House should seriously consider whether any powers of any sort or kind ought to be given to the company except upon terms. The provisions of the Bill were absolutely futile to prevent the company evading its obligations as to the re-housing of the working classes. How was it, if the provisions were adequate, that in the only instance in which a company had been brought to book had been when clauses over and above the labouring class clauses in this Bill had been in such Bills. It had been shown that the London and North Western Railway had, by the trickery of the attorney or legal chicane, evaded the duties imposed upon them by Parliament in regard to the conduct of their business. He could quote precedents against this Bill by referring to the South Eastern and South Western Railway Bills.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That is not in order. The hon. Member is now seeking to initiate a discussion as to whether the provision made generally by Parliament to compel railway companies to re-house the working classes is adequate 186 or not. That is not a matter which can be discussed upon private business. If the hon. Member had got a motion or a Bill upon that subject it might be then a proper subject for discussion, but it cannot be discussed on a private Bill as private business.
§ *MR. HAYsaid that the only basis upon which they could form an opinion as to what the company would do if this Bill became law was what they had done in the past, and if that was any guide the company would again flout Parliament, and the whole energy of the company would be devoted to defeating the objects and provisions of this Bill. According to the Official Returns there had been during the last nine years something like 153 schemes initiated by local authorities in regard to which proceedings had been taken; whilst during the last session of Parliament, out of a total of 218 private Acts receiving the Royal Assent, 120 contained a section affecting the dwellings of the poorer classes and conditions as to displacement and re-housing presented to Parliament and put into force with reference to the housing of the people. Therefore this matter of the housing of the working classes, when private Bills were before the House, was one of the highest importance, and of extreme urgency. This Bill did not in any way protect the interests of the working classes if they were displaced for the purposes of this company. The local authority, which was the authority under the Public Health Act, 1891, and the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1900, to deal with overcrowding, was powerless under this Bill; indeed, it was not even referred to in the labouring class clauses of the Bill. In fact, this Bill contained clauses which defeated the intention of Parliament as expressed in the two statutes which he had mentioned. Therefore he urged upon the House not to let this Bill pass unless they knew exactly what the company proposed to do in reference to the re-housing of the labouring classes who were to be displaced by the Bill or otherwise displaced by the company. This matter affected London and London working classes, not merely from the point of view of convenience, but with 187 regard to their physique and industrial capacity. It also affected the general public health of the metropolis, and it was idle for them to pass laws to reform the condition of the working classes if those laws were set at nought, and companies were allowed to ride roughshod over the intentions of Parliament. Powers were asked for in this Bill to clear certain areas in Hammersmith. These powers imposed upon the company obligations in regard to re-housing. Those obligations had been insisted upon by Parliament in previous Bills, but this company had gone from one subterfuge to another to evade them. His object was to prevent this Bill becoming law, because he believed it would be dangerous to the public interest. He appealed to hon. Members to discard the easy-going attitude too generally adopted with regard to private Bills, and to remember that this company stood at the present moment before the Law Courts in an action commenced by the Home Secretary. He hoped that the House would insist, by rejecting this Bill, on the company giving very definite undertakings that they would observe both the spirit and the letter of the Acts which they obtained year after year to facilitate the conduct of their business. He ventured to say that, by rejecting this Bill, the House would ensure that provisions would be placed in the Bill which would prevent the recurrence of those actions which had led the responsible Minister of the Crown, finding that it was his imperative duty, all milder methods having failed to obtain observance of the law by the company, to call this the premier railway company of the United Kingdom to book in the law courts of the land.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)said that the ruling of the Speaker, to the effect that it would be out of order to refer to the past action of this company, would be in the minds of most hon. Members when they voted. This Bill was brought forward by the company to extend their powers, and give them, amongst other things, the power of displacing some of the working classes in London. Under the ordinary clauses put in all Bills of this kind, the 188 company were supposed to find housing accommodation for the poor people displaced from their present homes. The question was, could they trust this company to carry out the intentions of the House? A railway company was looked upon by some people as the servant of the public, but it was more in the relation of a tradesman. Its master was its shareholders, but it was employed by the nation to do certain commercial work, and if it did not carry out that work, it was liable to be dismissed from the service of the nation. The case before the House was much the same as a private individual employing a person to redecorate his premises, who, in doing so, did great damage to his property. The result was that he did not employ that tradesman again, and the House ought to be doubtful about employing this great company to carry out the work suggested in the Bill, because they could not trust it. He had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
§
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. Hay.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)I cannot recommend the House to reject this Bill on the Second Reading, because, in my opinion, it is necessary for the carrying on of the duties of the London and North Western Railway Company, and there is nothing in its actual provisions which is open to objection. At the same time, I share the views of those who sympathise with the gallant struggle which my hon. friend behind me has made under adverse circumstances to protest against certain proceedings of this company. Profiting by his example, I do not intend to deal with that subject, beyond alluding to the question in dispute between the Home Office and the London and North Western Railway Company, in order to show the necessity for a proposition which I shall suggest to the House in a moment. The 189 clauses inserted in this Bill are the usual clauses inserted in Bills applying to railway companies when they ask for powers, and they are framed in accordance with the Standing Order. They are drafted to carry out what is undoubtedly the clear intention of Parliament, and they enact that when a railway company comes to the House asking for powers to acquire land, and when that land is occupied by persons of the working classes, adequate and proper provision shall be made for the people who are displaced. That, undoubtedly, is the intention of Parliament, and that is what is supposed to be carried out by the clauses inserted in this Bill. But although, in my experience, these clauses have hitherto been sufficient to secure fairly well the object which the House has always desired to secure, and hopes to secure, by them, there is a particular case in dispute between the Home Office and the London and North Western Railway Company, which shows that there is a great difference of opinion between the London and North Western Railway Company and the House as to what is really secured by these Standing Orders. This dispute has, unfortunately, been going on between the Home Office and the London and North Western Railway Company for more than twelve months, but we have been unable to obtain from the London and North Western Railway Company what we consider a proper scheme under the provisions of their Act of 1898 for the rehousing of the working classes who have been displaced by them; and one of the most important questions at issue between the Home Office and the company is whether or not, under these clauses, railway companies, in providing housing accommodation in cases of clearances, are bound to fix a scale of rents which shall meet with the approval of the Home Office. The railway companies have taken up the position, I understand, that under these clauses they are not so bound, but I am not here to express any dogmatic opinion on the subject.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in going into the general question of the Standing Orders on this particular Bill.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman has somewhat gone beyond the question before the House, but what I understood him to be doing was that he was referring, by way of illustration, to the inadequacy, in his opinion, of the present Standing Orders, with a view to making some suggestions as to how those Standing Orders might be improved.
§ *MR. RITCHIEThat is exactly my object. I wanted to show the House that as these particular clauses are now framed they leave serious doubt as to whether or not they secure that which the House desires. As an illustration of that I would merely say one of the disputes between the London and North Western Railway Company and the Home Office is whether these clauses place upon railway companies the obligation of fixing such a scale of rents for the new dwellings as will secure that the same class of persons who have been displaced by the clearances will be able to occupy the new dwellings. If the court should decide that the interpretation put upon these clauses by the London and North Western Railway Company is correct, every railway company in the kingdom would at once avail itself of the decision, and there would be an end to the provisions which the House of Commons has passed in order to provide fresh housing accommodation for tenants displaced by railway companies. I feel very strongly the desirability of seeing that these clauses shall be of such a nature as to make it clear that the railway companies are bound to do what the House of Commons desires should be done; and I have been in consultation with my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, who is responsible for these matters in the provinces, as I am in London, and we have come to the conclusion that it is desirable that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should be appointed to inquire into the very important point whether or not the House, in order to attain that which it desires to secure, should make any alteration in the existing Standing Orders or the clauses based thereon, so that we should feel sure that in granting powers to railway companies to displace people belonging to the working classes we were placing a corresponding 191 obligation on them, from which they could not escape, to provide for the rehousing of any people who might be displaced under these powers.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)I have listened with some satisfaction to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I think the proposal he has made is one that will meet with general satisfaction. It is perfectly obvious that there have been occasions on which the provisions of the Acts have not been properly carried out by the railway companies concerned, and I think we will all hail with satisfaction the statement that the Government intend to alter the Standing Orders—(Mr. RITCHIE dissented)—well, to recommend the appointment of a Committee to consider the question, and we may be quite certain that on the evidence placed before the Committee they will alter the Standing Orders, so that this point cannot again arise on any particular Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the points raised in connection with the Bill before the House. I doubt whether the recommendation of the Committee to be appointed by the right hon. Gentleman can possibly be made retrospective, so as to affect an Act of Parliament which has actually been passed, and, therefore, having a suspicion of the London and North Western Railway Company as to the way, if the Bill were passed, they would provide housing accommodation, I will most certainly vote for the postponement of the Bill until after the Report of the Select Committee, or for the rejection of the Bill at the present moment.
§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)said a question had arisen in the course of the debate on which he desired to say a few words—the question whether the London and North Western Railway Company had come under any obligation in regard to the re-housing of the working classes. Speaking as a director of the London and North Western Railway Company, he pointed out that the Bill before the House was an ordinary omnibus Railway Bill. With regard to the question of the displacement of the working classes under its provisions, the total number of tenements that would be 192 touched in the county of London under the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary was forty-three. The company was obliged to do no less and no more with respect to these tenements than the Standing Orders obliged them to do. He was prepared to say on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company that they would not have the slightest objection to a general inquiry as to whether the Standing Orders were adapted to securing the end in view, or adapted to modern requirements, and needed alteration. But he submitted to the House that it would be hardly fair to deal with a large general question of that character in connection with an ordinary omnibus Bill which affected, in a small way indeed, the rehousing of the working classes. He would only say with regard to these particular tenements that the company came under the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, and his right hon. friend had often shown the House that he was not a man to be trifled with. He would not enter into the dispute between the Home Office and the London and North Western Railway Company, as that would be settled elsewhere. He would only say that clouds of suspicion had been raised against the railway company in reference to the acquisition of another property not affected by the present Bill. But that property was not to be acquired under any parliamentary powers whatever, and in reference to it the railway company had not attempted to evade any Act or any regulation in any Act.
§ *MR. RITCHIEThat is the point. You have attempted to secure the property without parliamentary powers.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid his right hon. friend seemed to have a charge behind his statement, which if he was permitted to go into the question he would not shrink from dealing with. He would, however, only say that the contract had been made in the Court of Chancery, and the railway company had nothing in the least to conceal with regard to it. The company had no objection at all to join in the inquiry into the general suitability of the model clauses which they were obliged to insert in their Bill. He denied, as the representative 193 of the London and North Western Railway Company, that the company had evaded or tried to evade any obligation thrown on them by Act of Parliament, and he thought the House would not be justified in dealing with this general question upon the omnibus Bill now before the House.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim had stated that there was nothing in the Bill which was open to objection. The objection was that the company were permitted by the Bill to deal with certain tenements—forty-three in number—within the area of the city of London. He was not going into any technical detail, but if the Bill were passed the working people who would be displaced within that area would be absolutely in the hands of the railway company. That was the broad issue before the House. He therefore had great pleasure in supporting the motion for the rejection of the Bill.
§ MR. FLOWERpointed out that while everyone had heard with the greatest satisfaction the statement of the Home Secretary, the proposal did not help the House very much in the particular matter under discussion. This Bill had to be either read a second time or rejected, and he could not help thinking that the position taken up by the Home Secretary was rather an illogical one. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman disapproved of the Bill as it stood, distrusted the clauses relating to rehousing, and desired that those clauses should be altered, and yet he was unwilling to advise the House to reject the Second Reading of the Bill. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was really a strong argument in favour of the rejection of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim had spoken of the willingness with which the railway company, of which he was a director, would co-operate with such a Committee as was suggested. No doubt the company would be willing to co-operate, and the right hon. Gentleman was to be congratulated upon the somewhat altered manner which the company had adopted through its spokesman in the House and in the conduct of its affairs. The 194 Bill certainly proposed to dishouse a certain number of people; it was not possible to say exactly how many. It was easy to quote the number of houses to be demolished, but, in regard to a neighbourhood like Hammersmith, who would say how many were the persons to be displaced? Under the ruling of the Speaker, it was not possible to discuss the past history of this company, and it would probably also be out of order to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the euphemistic expression he used in regard to the company being "under a cloud." "Under a cloud" was a very delicate euphemism for "having received a writ." This Bill should, once for all, be rejected. A protest should he recorded against what seemed to be the growing tendency of the great railway companies to domineer the House. A great many Members felt that that kind of thing had gone on for too long, and that it was high time for Members to say whether they were going to be masters in their own House, or merely the registrars of the decrees of the great railway companies. That clear and straight issue was before the House, and he appealed to Members to deal in summary fashion with the Bill, because it would show that this young House of Commons was really in earnest on the great question of the housing of the people, and that it was resolved to use every possible means in its power to insist upon the great public monopolies being faithful to their trust and obligations.
§ *MR. RITCHIEMay I rise, with the indulgence of the House, to make an appeal to those who represent the London and North Western Railway Company here. I am bound to say that I think the argument which has been used, that the Bill with these clauses ought not to pass, is by no means a weak one. But, as I believe that the Bill is one which contains much of value and much that is necessary, I would appeal to my right hon. friend who has spoken on behalf of the railway company whether he will not now assure the House that in Committee he will be prepared to drop the portion of the Bill to which objection is taken.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid he had already stated on behalf of the railway company 195 that they would be quite willing to join in any inquiry in regard to this matter. The House, being extremely suspicious of the London and North Western Railway Company, might possibly suspect, if they insisted on retaining the clauses, that the company desired to evade any alteration which might hereafter be carried out on the recommendation of the proposed Committee. Under those circumstances he was quite willing to assent to the omission from the Bill of these particular clauses, so that those matters would be dealt with in the future under any fresh model clauses which might be recommended to Parliament by the Committee.
§ *MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the offer of the right hon. Gentleman really did not touch the point at issue. The opponents of the Second Reading desired that the Bill should be brought up to the level which the Home Secretary had said should be the state of things in future. If the company were really anxious to meet the views which had been expressed in the debate, they would agree to let the Bill stand over until the Select Committee had reported, in order that any recommendations of that Committee might be incorporated into the measure. His experience of railway companies was that, while they were ready to act up to their legal obligations, they were also quite ready to take the alternative of their legal obligation. To put a case: If a railway company failed to comply with a provision of an Act of Parliament it might have to pay a penalty of £10. That company might find that it answered its purpose to pay the penalty in order to obtain an advantage equal to £100. It would have then performed its legal obligation, as it would have paid the penalty, and that was all it was obliged to do by Act of Parliament. That was the sort of spirit in the action of the railway company which was resented by Members of the House, and was the reason of the opposition to this Bill. Personally he was anxious not to do anything which was unjust to the railway company, and it would be unjust to reject the Bill because of that objection. He should, however, vote against the Bill, because he felt that the company ought not to put Members in the position of having 196 to reject the measure because they could not come to terms as to these particular clauses and powers. As he had already suggested, he thought the Second Reading should stand over until the Select Committee had reported. The Bill need not be blocked to any serious extent, as the evidence was all to hand, but the recommendations of the Committee, if any, could then be incorporated, while, if the Committee made no recommendations, the Bill would not suffer by the delay.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith)said he failed to see how the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down was applicable. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill should be hung up until such time as the Select Committee had reported. Supposing the Select Committee reported that the model clauses should be altered. What then? The railway company had dropped the clauses to which the schedule referred, and therefore what was the good of holding up the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman who spoke in behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company had just told the House that he was prepared to drop all that portion of the Bill which proposed to take lands situated in Hammersmith and elsewhere in the county of London at present occupied by working class dwellings. very well, there was an end of that. But supposing that the Select Committee sat, and assuming that it was very expeditious in the consideration of this matter, and that it reported in a month, how could the new model clause be made applicable to a Bill which did not contain any proposal to take any working-class houses? He could understand that hon. Gentlemen proposed to read the London and North Western Railway Company a lesson—
§ *MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he did not understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had absolutely withdrawn the clauses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim suggested that he would withdraw the clauses if that would meet the wishes of the House. What he (Mr. Grant) said was that they should keep these clauses in until the Select Committee had reported.
*MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid he would much rather that the clauses were rejected altogether, and he understood that that was the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, so far as the House was concerned, they might consider these clauses gone. That being so was there any good result to follow the hanging up of the Bill? He thought it was unfair to the railway company, because if the House were to reject this omnibus Bill, which contained proposals for widening reads, building bridges and substituting them for level crossings, improved stations, and so forth, they would not be punishing the London and North Western Railway Company but the public. When the clauses objected to were dropped, the least thing the House could do was to pass the Second Reading of the Bill, which, in other respects, was unobjectionable.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)said that there were many things in this particular Bill to which, in the interests both of the public and of the London and North Western Railway Company, they could not take any reasonable exception. And in so far as the House of Commons wanted to help a railway company to confer a public benefit, such as a railway company ought to seek to confer, there there was nothing in the Bill worthy of opposition except that which related to dishousing and rehousing. In connection with any Bill which sought to widen lines, to substitute bridges for level crossings, to give passengers and traders greater facilities both as regarded fares and freights, the House of Commons would support the railway company within reason. So they could support nine-tenths of this Bill, but not the essential tenth on which the discussion had taken place. He had been positively delighted to hear the way in which Member after Member had stood up and said what eight or nine years ago he had to state humbly and quietly, as "a voice crying in the wilderness." Railway companies were incidentally becoming a public nuisance in promoting their private ends, and he welcomed the speeches made from the other side of the House. Daniel was coming to judgment; the brands were being snatched 198 from the burning every time, and he congratulated some of the London Members on their conduct that afternoon. The point they had got to deal with was, should they, by this Bill, confer upon the London and North Western Railway Company—the wealthiest railway company in England—the power to continue to dishouse the working classes, and to evade rehousing, as this and every other London railway company had been allowed to do?
§ MR. MACARTNEYNo.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the right hon. Gentleman would pardon him if he preferred experience to the suggestion of a director. His brief was not marked, as was that of the right hon. Gentleman. This Bill sought to give the London and North Western Railway Company the power under model clauses—he called them immoral clauses—to dishouse and rehouse. Now, under these clauses it was possible for the London and North Western Railway Company, where it had power to pull down twenty houses, to pull down nineteen, leaving only one, and thus technically comply with the conditions of the clause. That was, the company could dishouse 430 persons without making any provision for rehousing them. Private Bill legislation of that kind was getting an overwhelmingly serious matter. Last year 120 clauses were passed by the House of Commons in various Bills relating to London to dishouse London people. During the past twelve months railway companies in London had dishoused between 8,000 and 9,000 persons in advance without making provision for rehousing them. Well, that was a condition of things which was becoming intolerable in a city which suffered so much from overcrowding and congestion; and the House of Commons was now practically unanimous in saying that that condition of things must cease. The Home Secretary, judging from his remarks that afternoon, had, like St. Paul, been wrestling with the wild beasts of Ephesus—the wild beasts of Ephesus consisting of the hon. and gallant Members at Euston. And the Home Secretary had indicated that he had had the hardest possible task in bringing the London and North 199 Western Railway Company up to the level of their obligations. He wanted the Home Secretary to see that the House of Commons shared his views. The right hon. Gentleman who represented the railway company had declined to comply with the sensible request of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He ought to have been glad to support the hon. Member in the suggestion that the two directors should do everything in their power to interpret the feeling of the House.
§ MR. MACARTNEYI did not say anything of the kind.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSNo, the right hon. Gentleman did not. He was too wise. Having been a soldier, his fellow director's knowledge of tactics was greater than his. The kind of tactics and strategy the House of Commons should impose on the London and North Western Railway Company was a strategic movement to the rear, and the sooner they were compelled to do it the better. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the company would interpret the wishes of the House of Commons in spirit and in letter; but the right hon. Gentleman gave a more generous interpretation, and said that they would withdraw the clauses objected to altogether. The Chairman of Committees, to whose appeals to the House he was generally deferential, but who had not that day given to the House that clearness of vision which he generally did, had said that the clauses were dropped. But he (the hon. Member for Battersea) emphasised and repeated the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Rugby, that there was no reason why the Bill should be lost. He did not want to impose any inconvenience on either the public or the railway company, whose interests ought to be identical. But it was possible for the Second Reading to be suspended for a month or six weeks until the Select Committee had reported to the House. The Home Secretary would say to the Select Committee, "Strike out of the model clauses the twenty houses and substitute one." That would meet the case. The railway companies should also be made to rehouse the people in advance of their dishousing, 200 and they should likewise be compelled to clearly indicate in every way in their Bills the number of people that were going to be dishoused. If these three points were decided upon at the Home Office and adopted by the Select Committee, and if the Bill came up amended on the lines of the recommendations of the Select Committee, he would be delighted to let the London and North Western Railway Company have the Second and Third Readings of their Bill all in one day—before Derby day. He urged the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill to consent to this reasonable, practical, and modest proposal. He represented a London constituency through which the largest number of trains went every day in this great city. From 1,700 to 2,000 trains went through Clapham Junction, which was in the heart of his constituency, and time after time the London and South Eastern, the London and South Western, and the London and North Western, which all had lines there, under the twenty-house clause had been able by only displacing nineteen houses to dishouse in the past ten years thousands of persons and subject them to great inconvenience. The fact was that the railway companies had incompetent men in the House to represent them and transact their business. [Cries of "Oh."] That was so, and one of these days they would sack the ornamental guinea pigs.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThat is not a proper way to speak of hon. Members of this House, and it must be withdrawn.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he withdrew the expression. When would the railway companies see the unwisdom of proceeding with Bills of this character and wasting the time of the House, as it was wasted time after time by discussing Bills of this nature, to the exclusion of other business? He believed if such Bills were sent to a Select Committee they could deal with them and bring in their Report in twenty-four hours, and the railway companies would get the Bills passed. The only way in which the House could teach the railway companies the way in which they ought to proceed was either to suspend the Bill or to reject the Second Reading, and show the London 201 and North Western Railway that they could not with impunity transgress the conditions imposed upon them in reference to the housing of the working classes.
MR. MACONACHIE (Aberdeenshire, E.)said he would not detain the House more than a few moments. But, taking considerable interest in these matters, he hoped the House would not allow the Bill to go through until they were thoroughly satisfied that the conditions would be fully carried out. His experience was a unique one, and he regretted to have to state that in no case where the London and North Western Railway had made arrangements with him had they carried them out. They consistently contravened their Act of Parliament whenever it was needful. Some years ago they agreed to act up to the clause in their agreements winch prohibited them from giving preferential rates to traders; but after carrying out that agreement for two years they broke it.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not in order in discussing that question.
MR. MACONACHIE, judging from his experience of the company, trusted that the House would see that any clause that was put into the Bill to deal with this matter should be of such a nature that the company would have no way of getting out of it.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)said he took a great interest in railway matters, and entirely concurred with what had been said by hon. Members generally upon the subject. He appealed to the House not to allow the Bill to pass until the Select Committee had sat and reported upon it. The time of the House ought not to be occupied to such an extent by discussion upon private Bills. With regard to the remarks of the Chairman of Committees, he would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that railway companies were not philanthropic institutions. They promoted Bills for the purpose, not of benefiting the public, but of earning dividends for their shareholders, and to extend 202 their facilities for so doing; and they did not care how many people they inconvenienced for that purpose. He thought some system should be adopted by which railway Bills should be sent to a Grand Committee. He was against the Second Reading of the Bill, and he trusted it would be suspended until such time as the Report of the Select Committee was brought to the House. He believed in these cases that "right of way" was an important element to the public generally, and all those matters ought to be considered before the House agreed to read the Bill a second time. He hoped on this occasion the Government would not attempt to sway the House, but would allow the House to express its view.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said that had the opponents of the Bill suggested that the discussion upon this matter should be adjourned he would have certainly supported them in the attitude which they had taken up, but having regard to the fact that the promoters of the Bill had now expressed their willingness to drop the obnoxious cause, and the only parts of the Bill which remained were parts to which no objection could be taken, he was not prepared to vote for the rejection of the Second Reading.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)said he was unaware that there was anything disgraceful or improper in his representing his position with regard to the London and North Western Railway, and he thought he had deserved better treatment at the hands of the hon. Member for Battersea. The right hon. Gentleman had already stated that, in deference to the opinion of the House, the company wished to withdraw the clauses relating to the housing of the working classes. The hon. Member for Battersea had said the company might attempt to avoid this obligation in some underhanded manner. On behalf of the company he would undertake that they would not displace any of the working class at Hammersmith. The company had no intention of avoiding their ob igations. It was not the company's fault that the time of the House was taken up on private Bills. The House must alter 203 its procedure in order to get relief. Seeing that the company had met the House, he asked them to pass the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ DR. MACNAMARAsaid that Clause 4 having been deleted, the question of housing or dishousing could not now arise, but he would just like to know how the matter stood. He pointed out that the company had large unexpired powers in other Acts, and he thought the time had come when railway companies ought to receive a salutary lesson; therefore he hoped the House would not allow the Second Reading, but would reject the Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)appealed to the House not to be led away by passion. There appeared to him to be a very strong feeling against this company; whether that was because it had declined from its former eminence in respect of its management or its directors
§ he was unable to say. When, in pursuance of parliamentary practice, the company came to the House of Commons for powers to do necessary work, a tremendous case was made against it. But that case had disappeared with the exclusion of the model clause. The whole case made against the London and North Western Railway Company was that it was unwilling to fulfil its obligations because it had neglected to do so in the past. It was quite clear that the model clause would have to be reconsidered at some future period, but in the meantime, it having been dropped, the Bill was not affected by it, and he thought the House would not act wisely if it were to allow itself to be persuaded to reject the Bill. He hoped they would think twice before they took that course.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 210. Words added. (Division List No. 162.)
205| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Henderson, Alexander |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Higginbottom, S. W. |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Hornby, Sir William Henry |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry |
| Arrol, Sir William | Fardell, Sir T. George | Hoult, Joseph |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward | Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Hughes, Colonel Edwin |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finch, George H. | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Fisher, William Hayes | Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Fison, Frederick William | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton |
| Banbury, Frederick George | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) |
| Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W. B. (Hants | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Kitson, Sir James |
| Bill, Charles | Forster, Henry William | Knowles, Lees |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Garfit, William | Lawrence, William F. |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Gibbs, Hn. vicary (St Albans) | Lawson, John Grant |
| Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) | Graham, Henry Robert | Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Green, Walford D (Wednesbu'y | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow | Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs. | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Gretton, John | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | Long, Col. Charles W (Evesharu) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Groves, James Grimble | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Lowe, Francis William |
| Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r | Hall, Edward Marshall | Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (Cum. Penr. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Chapman, Edward | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth |
| Coddington, Sir William | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E. |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Haslett, Sir James Horner | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W |
| Cranborne, viscount | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.) | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Helder, Augustus | Malcolm, Ian |
| Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe | Purvis, Robert | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Ratcliffe, R. F. | Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.) |
| Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William | Rea, Russell | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Reid, James (Greenock) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Renshaw, Charles Bine | Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Milward, Colonel victor | Rentoul, James Alexander | valentia, viscount |
| Mitchell, William | Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. |
| Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| More, Robert J. (Shropshire) | Ropner, Colonel Robert | Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunt'n) |
| Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W. | Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd |
| Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Whiteley, H (Ashton-u.-Lyne) |
| Mount, William Arthur | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Muntz, Philip A. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tynes'd | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Smith, James P. (Lanarks.) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Parker, Gilbert | Spear, John Ward | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Younger, William |
| Penn, John | Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart | |
| Pierpoint, Robert | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Cohen. |
| Pilkington, Richard | Stock, James Henry | |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Stone, Sir Benjamin | |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Stroyan, John | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Crean, Eugene | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Cremer, William Randal | Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Crombie, John William | Harrington, Timothy |
| Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud | Cullinan, J. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cust, Henry John C. | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- |
| Asher, Alexander | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Ashmead-Bartlet, Sir Ellis | Delany, William | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. | Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S Geo | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) |
| Austin, Sir John | Dickson, Charles Scott | Holland, William Henry |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Barry E. (Cork, S.) | Dillon, John | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Donelan, Captain A. | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Doogan, P. C. | Jones, William (Carvarvonsh. |
| Bell, Richard | Duffy, William J. | Jordan, Jeremiah |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Duke, Henry Edward | Joyce, Michael |
| Bigwood, James | Duncan, J. Hastings | Kennedy, Patrick James |
| Black, Alexander William | Dunn, Sir William | Langley, Batty |
| Blake, Edward | Edwards, Frank | Law, Andrew Bonar |
| Boland, John | Elibank, Master of | Leamy, Edmund |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Ellis, John Edward | Leng, Sir John |
| Boyle, James | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Levy, Maurice |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Lough, Thomas |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Farrell, James Patrick | Lundon, W. |
| Burns, John | Field, William | Macdona, John Cumming. |
| Burt, Thomas | Flavid, Michael Joseph | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Flower, Ernest | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Caine, William Sproston | Flynn, James Christopher | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Caldwell, James | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Cameron, Robert | Fuller, J. M. F. | M'Cann, James |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Furness, Sir Christopher | M'Crae, George |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Gilhooly, James | M'Eadden, Edward |
| Carew, James Laurence | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | M'Govern, T. |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T'rH'm'ts | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- | Milton, viscount |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Grant, Corrie | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Greville, Hon. Ronald. | Mooney, John J. |
| Colville, John | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Hammond, John | Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose |
| Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Priestley, Arthur | Sullivan, Donal |
| Moss, Samuel | Randles, John S. | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Moulton, John Fletcher | Reckitt, Harold James | Tennant, Harold John |
| Murphy, J. | Reddy, M. | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. |
| Newnes, Sir George | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings |
| Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) | Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff) | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gowr |
| Norman, Henry | Remnant, James Farquharson | Tomkinson, James |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Renwick, George | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Rigg, Richard | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Tully, Jasper |
| O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Robson, William Snowdon | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan |
| O'Brien, P. J (Tipperary, N.) | Roe, Sir Thomas | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Russell, T. W. | Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.) |
| O'Doherty, William | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Schwann, Charles E. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| O'Dowd, John | Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Partington, Oswald | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N. |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Pemberton, John S. G. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Pickard, Benjamin | Soares, Ernest J. | |
| Pirie, Duncan v. | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (North'nts | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hay and Mr. Warner. |
| Plummer, Walter R. | Stevenson, Francis S. | |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Strachey, Edward |
§ Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Second Reading put off for six months.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)said he now moved that the votes of Mr. William Ellison Macartney and Colonel Amelius Richard Mark Lockwood be disallowed. The House had seen by the division the immense value which attached to every vote, and if the votes of the gentlemen he named were disallowed the majority against the Bill would be ten instead of eight. They were directors of the London and North Western Company, and they used their power as Members of the House to vote for a Bill promoted by that company, of which they were the paid agents. He moved as a matter of principle, because he was of opinion that the sacred trust given to hon. Members by the people should not be exercised by agents of a monopolist company. The trade of Parliament must cease. He had all the greater pleasure in moving that Mr. Macartney's vote be disallowed because after he had become a Minister of the Crown he was appointed a director of the London and North Western Company.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he would second the motion willingly, although he 208 supported the Second Reading of the Bill. He was of opinion that no shareholder, and certainly no director, of any company, ought to vote for a Bill promoted by his company. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim, whose vote was challenged, described himself during the debate as the representative of the London and North Western Company, and he spoke avowedly as the representative of the company, and not as representing his constituents. A company ought not to have any representative in the House. He regretted that in recent years the high code of honour which the House had set up in these matters in times past, and had acted upon with strictness, had been greatly relaxed, and he thought the time had come when the House should revert to its ancient habit of imprisoning, without any considerations of party whatever, hon. Gentlemen who, as shareholders, and certainly as directors, voted for a Bill in which they had a personal concern. He therefore supported the motion.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe question that each vote be disallowed must be put separately.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLmoved that the vote of Mr. William Ellison Macartney be disallowed.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the vote of the Right honourable William Ellison Macartney be disallowed."—(Mr. MacNeill.)
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe question is that the vote of the right hon. Member for South Antrim be disallowed. The right hon. Gentleman will make any statement he wishes to make, and then withdraw from the House.
§ MR. MACARTNEYI have only a very short statement to make. On a previous occasion when my vote was challenged, I ventured to point out to the House that the action of a director voting on a Bill promoted by his company had been brought before the House many years ago, and had been defended by one of the greatest parliamentary authorities that ever sat in the House. My predecessor, the present Lord Rathmore, on that occasion voted for a Bill promoted by the London and North Western Company, he then being a director of the company, and a member of the Government. His vote was challenged and was defended by Mr. Gladstone, who argued, and successfully argued with the House, that it was not an occasion on which Lord Rathmore should not have voted, having regard to his personal honour, and to his position as a member of the Government. I simply submit to the House, that the House and its predecessors have always vindicated the right of a Member in my position to vote as I have voted, and that in voting, I have done nothing derogatory to the interests of the honour of the House, or to that regard for it which every Member of the House ought to have. Had I supposed that in giving this vote I should have served my own private interests, I would admit that I had done something which merited the reflection of the House. But in casting this vote I can in no way advance my private interests either as a director of the company or as a shareholder, which I am in a small way. I submit that the point raised is not one in which the House of Commons should deviate from 210 the invariable decision it has come to on similar occasions under the guidance of the highest parliamentary authorities that have adorned this Assembly.
§ The right hon. Gentleman then withdrew.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)I hope the House will quite clearly express on this occasion, as it has on previous occasions, its dissent from the principle underlying the motion of the hon. Member opposite. We have had this question up before us in many previous Parliaments over and over again, and I do not hesitate to say that the balance of Parliamentary authority and tradition, as well as of common sense, is altogether against the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite. One of those Gentlemen—I did not hear the whole speech, but I heard enough to see that he was sufficiently logical to endeavour to extend his proposal, not merely to directors of companies, but to shareholders of companies.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI never said anything of the kind.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI refer to the hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, and I compliment him when I say he was sufficiently logical to carry his argument to its proper conclusion. The hon. Member told the House that if the vote of a Member was to be disallowed because he was a director, so also it should be disallowed if he were a shareholder. We all know that the pecuniary interest of a shareholder in a company may be, and very often is, greater than that of a director of the company. Is it not evident that in an assembly like this you would only land yourselves in a hopeless difficulty if you attempt to press to its conclusion any such principle as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite? We are on the eve of the discussion of the coal tax. Are you going to exclude from the debate and the division lobby every Gentleman who has an interest in coal mines?
MR. BRYN ROBERTSThat is a public Bill affecting public interests. 211 Here is a private Bill affecting the private interests of shareholders.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAre public Bills to be decided by private and corrupt interests, and not private Bills? Is that the principle the hon. Gentleman lays down? A public Bill comes before us affecting the interests by taxation of the whole community. On that you may be influenced by the most corrupt and personal motives. But let it be a private Bill affecting only the interests of a particular company, then the whole motive is altered, and those considerations which are legitimate when you are dealing with a public Bill are to be rigidly excluded.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLIt is the Parliamentary rule.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThere the hon. Member comes to a direct question of fact. He should put it to the Speaker whether it is in defiance of Parliamentary rule. If it is so, I have nothing more to say. I am only arguing the question to the best of my humble ability as to what is the custom and practice of Parliament in this matter. If the hon. Member desires I will sit down for him to test the point by putting a question to the Speaker.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI accept the challenge. Mr. Speaker, the rule, with great respect to you, has been laid down repeatedly, that in a public Bill the question of personal interest cannot arise. In private Bills, on the contrary, it has been held in reference to Members sitting on Committees and voting upstairs that any direct pecuniary interest invalidates the vote.
§ *MR. SPEAKERIn dealing with public Bills the consideration comes in with greater force whether it is not the public duty of a Member to vote, although he may have some private or pecuniary interest. The question is not one of order. It is for the House on each occasion to weigh the advantages. It is for the House in this matter to say whether or not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim has any such direct private 212 pecuniary interest as should prevent him from voting.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSIs it not the case that in public Bills the interests of an individual are only concerned as a member of a class, or as a member of the public; but that in private Bills, such as this, the interests of shareholders and directors only are affected?
§ *MR. SPEAKERIt is impossible for me to say as a matter of order to what extent, or under what circumstances, hon. Members may be interested in a public Bill. An individual Member may be very largely interested in such a measure.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is evident from what has fallen from the Chair that I was not incorrect in saying that there is no such practice as that which hon. Gentlemen opposite have laid down. If they will look back to the debates, which have arisen on the occasions when the hon. Member for South Donegal took the part he has taken to-day—for I give him credit for the virtue of consistency—they will see that the House has decided, as I hope they will decide to-day, that there is no case for disallowing the vote. It is evident that if the House were to lay down the other principle they would involve themselves in endless disputes both as to private and public Bills. The honour and credit of the House, I venture to say, will not suffer by the action taken by my right hon. friend the Member for South Antrim, when his motives are known. If the hon. Member for Durham were to get up this afternoon, as probably he will, to object to the coal tax, in which he is personally and largely interested, everyone knows his personal interest, and everyone also knows his integrity and honour. They may think him biased, but they will not think him corrupt. If he votes, as he probably will vote, against the coal tax, it will be open to say that, if he had not been a coal-owner, he would not have taken that view; but no one will attribute corruption to him, or say that his vote should be 213 disallowed. The same broad principle of equity ought to guide us in the case now before the House. I am only asking the House to do on this occasion what they have always done on the many occasions this question has been brought before us in similar circumstances. I ask them not to put a personal slur upon my right hon. friend the Member for South Antrim—for that is what it amounts to—by disallowing the vote he has just given.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)The right hon. Gentleman is quite accurate in saying that this is a question which has often come before the House on similar occasions in previous years, and that the decision of the House has generally, though not universally, been in the direction he urges the House to take on this occasion; but I cannot help thinking that there has been of late years a somewhat altered feeling on the subject in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has ingeniously brought in the action of Members with regard to public legislation and public Bills, and has represented that as if it were on the same footing exactly as the action of a Member when deciding on the merits of a private Bill. The House will see that there is a great difference between the two actions. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the case of taxation. The great business of this House is to levy taxation, or to take it off whenever the opportunity arises to do so, and there is no taxation which can be imagined which will not affect a larger or smaller number of Members, directly or indirectly. Taxation is a part of our regular duty, and it is our business to disregard our personal interest and to look to the interest of the public. As public men and public servants we are quite capable of doing so, but that is an entirely different case from that of a director of a company who comes here to advocate the case of the company, and who has had a part in preparing the Bill which he submits to the House, and which is submitted to the House in order that the House may impartially Judge as between the public and this very company as to what is right and what is wrong. In almost every case, in the smallest petty sessional division 214 in the country, a justice who is interested in any case which comes on leaves the bench. Another attempt is made to confuse the issue by introducing the shareholder. He, again, differs from the director in this, at all events, that he has no part in the Bill. He may ultimately benefit or suffer by the Bill, but he, at all events, has no part in preparing and promoting the Bill. But the director is the main person. He is the governing influence in the very party which is coming to the House to ask something of Parliament. I began by saying that in these days, I think, and am glad to think, public feeling in this matter, and all cognate matters, has been somewhat quickened. There is no slur on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim. The right hon. Gentleman is above suspicion. He has only acted, as the First Lord of the Treasury says, in accordance with precedent, but that is no reason why we should not now express our opinion that in future, in order to save ourselves, at all events, from imputations that are sometimes cast upon us, the vote of a director in regard to a measure promoted by the company of which he is a director ought not to be allowed.
§ MR. BARTLEYthought this was an occasion upon which the House might set an advanced precedent. It was all very well to say that similar votes had been recorded on previous occasions. No doubt they had, but he believed that the country, with its growing intelligence and knowledge of these matters, would consider whether it was really well that directors should have the right to take a prominent part in voting for measures such as the one just disposed of. It seemed to him to be altogether a mistake for an hon. Member who was a director to vote on a measure affecting the company with which he was connected. He did not for a moment suggest that the Member was not strictly honourable in doing so, but certainly it was a much better thing that the idea of the House should be that on such occasions a director should walk out. That course had often been taken; it had been taken this session. He thought the House should in some way or another announce that they considered it wiser and better 215 that a Member who was a director should retire when a division on a Bill, in which his company was interested, took place. This was especially the case now when it was continually thrown at the Government that a number of those who had seats in it were directors of companies. It was unfortunate that that should be the case, and it was also unfortunate that when a question of this sort came up they did not take the highest and strictest view of the matter. He should be sorry to vote against his right hon. friend, because he had acted in accordance with many precedents, and, he believed, strictly in good faith; but he thought it was desirable that the House should express its opinion that, in all matters concerning private companies, it should be considered etiquette and high tone that Members interested as directors should retire.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)desired, at the outset, to challenge the statement of the Leader of the House, that it was entirely unprecedented for a vote to be disallowed upon an occasion such as that under discussion. On the 11th March, 1892, the hon. Member for South Donegal made the following motion—
That the votes of Sir Lewis Pelly, Mr. Burdett-Coutts, and Sir John Puleston, given on Friday, the 4th day of March, in favour of the grant in aid of the cost of a preliminary survey for a railway from the coast to Lake victoria Nyanza, be disallowed.After a prolonged debatev that motion was carried, by 154 against 149 votes, after receiving the support of the greatest authority on parliamentary procedure and propriety who ever sat in the House, namely, the late Mr. Gladstone. This was an a fortiori case, because in the case of the Mombassa Railway it was pleaded that a great question of national policy was at stake. What was proposed then was a grant of public money for the purpose of making a preliminary survey for the construction of a railway to the victoria Nyanza, and it was contended that the three gentlemen, whose votes it was sought to have disallowed, had a direct pecuniary interest in the scheme, inasmuch as they were directors of thev In the course of this debate the precedents were gone into very fully. See Debates, Fourth Series, vol. ii., pages 323 and 640.216 East African Company. On that ground by a majority of six, the House disallowed the votes. It was not then contended that it would be throwing any slur upon the gentlemen in question, but the matter was debated on the broad ground of principle and policy. The contention of the Leader of the House that, if this principle was affirmed, the House would be irresistibly drawn to the position that no man should vote on a great question of taxation who might have a personal interest in it was, if he might say so with respect, mere clap-trap. It would simply mean that nobody at all would vote, because many questions of taxation affected every single Member of the House. The right hon. Gentleman also sought to do away with the distinction between public and private Bills in this regard. But that distinction was recognised in the Standing Orders of the House, because there was a rule that no Member who had a direct pecuniary interest in a Bill should serve on the Private Bill Committee by which that measure was considered, whereas there was no corresponding rule with regard to Public Bills. The real and actual distinction was this—no matter whether a measure was in form a private or a public Bill, the real distinction was, did it apply to a certain specific enterprise or to the general public interest? The true principle should be that, where any proposal was brought before Parliament, whether in the shape of a private Bill or of a motion in Committee of Supply, nobody should vote who was a director of the company concerned. If, unfortunately, that precedent had been departed from more than once, that was all the greater reason for the House to lay down a wholesome rule for the future. The precedent of Lord Rathmore had been alluded to. He was a very honourable man, but his case formed a very bad precedent, for his was a most striking case of a Minister of the Crown uniting with that position the directorship of innumerable companies. According to the Directory of Directors, that gentleman was a director of no less than ten companies.
§ *MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he must confine himself to the particular case before the House.
§ MR. DILLONthought this was an extremely proper occasion for the question to be raised and decided by the House. It would have been a perfect scandal if this Bill had been carried by the votes of railway directors, and yet the difference of a very few votes would have brought about that result.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)said this was not the occasion upon which a question of this kind ought to be decided or ought to be raised. He agreed that there was a strong and growing public opinion that directors would do well to abstain from voting upon an occasion of this kind, when they might be supposed to have a private interest in the matter. He had just left a case in the law courts in which the learned judge was a shareholder in the company concerned. He at once told counsel that he had an interest in the matter, and counsel said that that did not make any difference. He thought it would be better for directors to abstain from voting, and if the House thought it was right to decide in that sense the proper course was to pass a Standing Order to provide that a director, and he would like to add a shareholder, should not vote on any question in which he was privately interested. No doubt his right hon. friend and others in the same position thought that they would be guilty of some laches in the matter if they did not exercise their right to vote upon this question. The only way to decide the question was by a motion for a Standing Order to give effect to what he thought was the growing feeling of the House in respect to this matter. He submitted that this was not a proper way to raise the question, and they were all bound to feel that the right hon. Gentleman had voted in a perfectly honourable and straightforward manner.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURBy leave of the House, may I be allowed to say one word. I am reminded by what has fallen from my hon. friend of a circumstance which ought to be in hon. Members' minds. On the last occasion on which this question was discusssed. I think it was in 1896, on the motion to disallow the vote of my right hon. friend the Member for North-East Manchester, there was a debate 218 similar to this, and at the conclusion of the debate it was agreed that a Committee of the House should be appointed to consider whether any alteration should be made in the Standing Orders with regard to the voting of Members on questions in which they were interested. That Committee was a strong one, and it reported against any alteration of the Standing Orders.
§ MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)thought a good many Members of the House were of opinion that such a rule as had been suggested ought to be made. He quite remembered the debate of 1896 upon this question, and he believed the First Lord of the Treasury had used almost exactly the same arguments this day as he did in 1896. He stated that if they attempted to do anything of this kind they would land the House in tremendous difficulties, but he wished to point out to the House that in almost every municipality of the land this rule was strictly observed. If it could be carried out in a municipality, why on earth could it not be carried out in a large and more important body? In a municipal council, if a question of purchasing tramways or public lighting came forward in which any members of the council were directors, or even shareholders, or in which they were pecuniarily interested in any way, they would not even take part in the debate or in the division. There was no difficulty whatever in carrying out such a rule. In matters where a member of a corporation was personally interested he was prohibited either from taking part in the debate or voting upon the question, and if he did either he would be liable to some penalty. It seemed to him to be a reasonable and righteous rule, and he could not see why there should be any difficulty in carrying it out in the House of Commons.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)said the hon. Member for North Hackney had based his argument upon the case of a judge admitting that he was interested in the company concerned in the case, and who would not act unless both sides agreed. He would remind the hon. Member that both sides did not agree upon this question. The hon. Member 219 had told the House that the right hon. Gentleman was not so keen about voting as a director, but it was the sacred rights of directors he was looking after. What could be worse than that? He thought the right hon. Gentleman had been most unfortunate in the protector and defender of this case. He had considerable doubt as to what had been put forward as the result of the inquiry made by a Committee upon this question. But, whether that Committee reported or not, the matter was not in the hands of any small Committee. The dignity and honour of the House were the possession of the House itself, and without casting any slur upon the right hon. Gentleman—and be hoped he would not take it personally, because they were enunciating a principle—the House ought to assert its real opinion upon this subject.
§ *MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydfil)said that there was no intention of casting a slur on the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he thought they should take care not to cast a slur upon the House itself, as would be the case were the motion to be rejected. The distinction attempted to be drawn between a private and public Bill was altogether fallacious. The House existed to protect the public; the directors of a railway company existed to protect their own interests. Every Member of the House knew that nineteen times out of twenty the interests of railway directors conflicted with those of the public at large. Quite recently two aldermen of the City Council of Manchester were compelled to resign their seats for having taken part in transactions as aldermen in which they had a direct pecuniary interest, and he hoped the House would not rest content to set up a lower standard of purity than that which obtained in a municipal council. The great charge brought against politicians in America was that of corruption, especially that the legislative powers of the Senate were controlled by persons financially interested in its decisions. As had already been stated, the power of companies was growing in the House, and if they did not pass such a motion as the one under discussion, it would go forth to the country and to the world that the House of Commons was less concerned about its own honour than about the 220 interests of the directors of public companies. Hon. Members were aware that there was no more serious charge which could be levelled against politicians than the statement that the House of Commons was simply an annexe of the Stock Exchange. There was a growing feeling in the country in that direction, and the House of Commons in its own interest, and to preserve its own good name, would do well to pass the motion under discussion. But there was a wider aspect to the question. As the days went by Bills directly affecting the pecuniary interests of hon. Members would become more and more common, and if it was to be taken for granted that a Member of this House might use his influence in the Lobby, as he saw the right hon. Gentleman doing, to persuade hon. Members to vote for him and the company in which he was interested, the chance of a straight and honourable consideration for Bills affecting the pockets of the well-to-do would become very remote. As an act of public policy, and as a safeguard against the House of Commons being made more corrupt than it was in matters of finance, he strongly supported the motion. [Ministerial cries of "Withdraw!" and Nationalist cheers.]
§ MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stowmarket)On a point of order. Has any hon. Member of this House the right to suggest that the House is in any degree corrupt?
§ *MR. SPEAKERI did not catch the expression of the hon. Member. There was a great deal of noise in the House at the time. I hope the hon. Member will use language respectful to the House of Commons.
§ *MR. KEIR HARDIE (who was received with Ministerial cries of "Withdraw!")I do not withdraw anything. If I had said anything untrue I would at once withdraw it. My statement was that by passing this motion we would safeguard the House of Commons against becoming more corrupt financially than it is. [Nationalist cheers and Ministerialist cries of "Order!"] If the rules of the House permitted, I could give case after case to prove the point that is in my mind, and one great illustration—
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not at liberty to discuss—even if he thinks the House of Commons is corrupt, and I do not understand that he has said it is—that question.
§ *MR. KEIR HARDIEI understood so, Mr. Speaker, and I shall continue my support of the motion. I want hon. Members to understand that there is a strong and growing feeling amongst the working classes of this country that the House of Commons is an annexe to the Stock Exchange—[Ministerial cries of "Order!"]—controlled by the Stock Exchange in Stock Exchange interests, and that, by passing this motion, the House will disabuse the public mind of that impression, and safeguard the purity of the House.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid)said he had one suggestion to make to the House. It was a very inconvenient thing for the special votes of individual Members to be disallowed by the House of Commons. Every time a discussion of this kind arose they had to take great pains to explain to the House and the country that the conduct of the individual whose vote was to be disallowed was not impugned at all. It was in the necessity of the case that that should be so, for they had no Standing Order on the subject. On this occasion they desired to say clearly that they did not impute misconduct of any kind to the right hon. Gentleman whose vote they were discussing, but, in order to make the decision of the House on this occasion more impersonal than it would otherwise be, he ventured to suggest that everyone in the House who was a director should refrain from voting upon the motion.
§ *SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)said he had a strong objection himself to voting as a director, and if it should ever happen that it lay upon him to give a casting vote on a railway Bill promoted by a company of which he was a director, and in that way carry the Bill against the wishes of a considerable portion of the House, it would be a difficult position. It would be to him, and he believed to many hon. Members around him, a painful thing that 222 they should lay down what maybe called a sound principle by throwing blame upon an individual who had only followed the custom usual in the House for many years past, He should decline to vote for passing that motion, for, as it stood, it seemed to him to place many of them in the difficult position of establishing a sound principle at the expense of punishing the individual. He should prefer that the debate should be adjourned with a view to the Standing Order being altered, so as to lay down clearly the line that those who were directors should pursue in relation to those Bill in which they were interested.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said he had before him the Report of the Committee which was appointed in 1896 to consider this question, and from that it appeared that since 1837 the House had never disallowed the vote of a director in circumstances similar to those now under consideration. That was a very strong Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other eminent Members of the House were upon it. It seemed to him that, if the House were to disallow the vote of a director, it must also disallow the vote of every Member who was a shareholder in the company concerned. This was not the case of a resolution to make a grant in aid of the company of which the right hon. Gentleman was a director. It was the case of a private Bill to grant the company powers to spend its own money in doing certain works which might conceivably ruin it. That was not a Bill that gave any direct pecuniary advantage or interest to any shareholder or director who voted for it in this House, and therefore it seemed to him, under these circumstances, not admissible to exclude a Members vote, whether he were a director or a shareholder. If the House disallowed the vote of the light hon. Gentleman it appeared to him that they would have to go a great deal further and deal with the case of those Members of the House who were contractors, or associated with firms of contractors, and also with the question of Minister-directors.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThat is a different question.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would leave that, and say generally that the question they were discussing was, in fact, only a small part of the much larger question. He was, personally, sorry that the director voted. That was a question of taste, but he thought that, because the director had not observed that fine taste the House would like to see observed, it would be a little hard to pass upon him a vote of censure of an altogether unexampled nature.
§ MR. FIELDsaid the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had expressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim would have shown more taste if he had not voted. He would ask what was the reason why the right hon. Gentleman should abstain from voting. Was it not because it was considered wrong that a director should vote? They all knew perfectly well when a railway Bill was
§ coming on, because the railway directors who were Members of the House came there prepared to support the Bill. Whenever a railway Bill came on they saw every railway director rushing thereto support it. He entirely agreed with the proposal, and intended to support it. The hon. Member for King's Lynn said that this was only the fringe of a great question, but they must begin to attack it some time, and this was the first opportunity. They who intended to vote for disallowing the votes of the two hon. Members had no idea whatever of assailing or impugning their integrity, but they thought it was wrong for them to vote, and he trusted that the House, by the result of the division, would put an end to this system.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 268. (Division List No. 163.)
225| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Crombie, John William | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Cullinan, J. | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud | Delany, William | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Asher, Alexander | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hobhouse, C. F. H. (Bristol, E.) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Dillon, John | Holland, William Henry |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Donelan, Capt. A. | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Austin, Sir John | Doogan, P. C. | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Barry; E. (Cork, S.) | Duffy, William J. | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Duncan, J. Hastings | Jones, William (Carnarvons.) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Dunn, Sir William | Jordan, Jeremiah |
| Bell, Richard | Edwards, Frank | Joyce, Michael |
| Black, Alexander William | Elibank, Master of | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U |
| Blake, Edward | Ellis, John Edward | Kennedy, Patrick James |
| Boland, John | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Langley, Batty |
| Boyle, James | Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Brand, Hon. Arthur G. | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Leamy, Edmund |
| Brigg, John | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Leng, Sir John |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Farrell, James Patrick | Levy, Maurice |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Fenwick, Charles | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Field, William | Lloyd-George, David |
| Burns, John | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Lough, Thomas |
| Burt, Thomas | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lundon, W. |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Flower, Ernest | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. |
| Caine, William Sproston | Flynn, James Christopher | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Caldwell, James | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Cameron, Robert | Fuller, J. M. F. | M'Cann, James |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Furness, Sir Christopher | M'Crae, George |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Gilhooly, James | M'Fadden, Edward |
| Carew, James Laurence | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. | M'Govern, T. |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Grant, Corrie | Mansfield, Horace Rendall |
| Cawley, Frederick | Griffith, Ellis J. | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hammond, John | Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. | Mooney, John J. |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) |
| Colville, John | Harrington, Timothy | Morley, Rt Hon John (Montrose |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Harwood, George | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) |
| Crean, Eugene | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Moss, Samuel |
| Moulton, John Fletcher | Reckitt, Harold James | Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings |
| Murphy, J. | Reddy, M. | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower |
| Newnes, Sir George | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.) |
| Nolan, Col. John. P (Galway, N. | Redmond, William (Clare) | Tomkinson, James |
| Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Norman, Henry | Rickett, J. Compton | Tully, Jasper |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs. | Wallace, Robert |
| Nussey, Thomas William | Robertson, Edmond (Dundee) | Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S. |
| O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Robson, William Snowdon | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid | Roche, John | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Russell, T. W. | Weir, James Galloway |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Schwann, Charles E. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| O'Doherthy, William | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| O'Dowd, John | Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| O'Kelly, James (Rosscomn., N. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid. |
| O'Mara, James | Soares, Ernest J. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham | Spence, Rt. Hn. C. E. (Northnts | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N. |
| Partington, Oswald | Stevenson, Francis S. | Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Strachey, Edward | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) | Sullivan, Donal | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Pickard, Benjamin | Taylor, Theodore Cooke | |
| Pirie, Duncan v. | Tennant, Harold John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Bryn Roberts. |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | |
| Priestley, Arthur | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. | |
| Rea, Russell | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Cavendish, Y. C. W. (Derbysh. | Fletcher, Sir Henry |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Forster, Henry William |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Garfit, William |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. | Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon. |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Gibbs, Hon. vicary (St. Albans) |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick |
| Arrol, Sir William | Chapman, Edward | Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn) |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Charrington, Spencer | Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'ml'ts |
| Atkinson, Rt Hon. John | Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E. | Gore, Hon. E. S. Ormsby- |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Coddington, Sir William | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Colomb, Sir John Charles R. | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Grenfell, William Henry |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Gretton, John |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Cranborne, viscount | Greville, Hon. Ronald |
| Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor) | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick), |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton | Groves, James Grimble |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B (Hants. | Cust, Henry John C. | Gunter, Sir Robert |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hall, Edward Marshall |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Halsey, Thomas Frederick |
| Bigwood, James | Dewar, T R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo. | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x |
| Bill, Charles | Dickson, Charles Scott | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd |
| Bond, Edward | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Harris, Frederick Leverto |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Haslett, Sir James Homer |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley |
| Brassey, Albert | Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart | Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Fardell, Sir T. George | Holder, Augustus |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Henderson, Alexander |
| Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. | Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Bull, William James | Finch, George H. | Higginbottom, S. W. |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead |
| Butcher, John George | Fisher, William Hayes | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow | Fison Frederick William | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. |
| Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Hornby, Sir William Henry | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Hoult, Joseph | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow | Simeon, Sir Harrington |
| Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham) | Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh. | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East) |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Smith, H C (N'rth'mb., Tyneside |
| Hughes, Colonel Edwin | Mount, William Arthur | Smith, James P. (Lanarks.) |
| Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Spear, John Ward |
| Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Muntz, Philip A. | Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk) |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh | Myers, William Henry | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) | Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Stock, James Henry |
| Keswick, William | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Parkes, Ebenezer | Stroyan, John |
| Knowles, Lees | Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Law, Andrew Bonar | Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Lawson, John Grant | Pemberton, John S. G. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uni. |
| Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm | Penn, John | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Percy, Earl | Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Pierpoint, Robert | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S | Pilkington, Richard | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Platt-Higgins, Frederic k | Valentia, viscount |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H. |
| Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Warde, Col. C. E. |
| Lowe, Francis William | Purvis, Robert | Wason, John C. (Orkney) |
| Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (T'nton |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Randles, John S. | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Ratcliffe, R. F. | Whiteley, H. (Aston-und.-Lyne |
| Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Reid, James (Greenock) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Remnant, James Farquharson | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) |
| MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Renshaw, Charles Bine | Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell- (Bir. |
| M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, K.) | Rentoul, James Alexander | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W | Richards, Henry Charles | Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.) |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlinghsh. | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Rigg, Richard | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Malcolm, Ian | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n | Robinson, Brooke | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Melville, Beresford valentine | Ropner, Col. Robert | Wylie, Alexander |
| Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Rothschild, Sir Lionel Walter | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Milton, viscount | Rutherford, John | Younger, William |
| Milward, Colonel victor | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | |
| Mitchell, William | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Cohen. |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. M. | |
| Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | |
| Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would now move to disallow the vote of Colonel Amelius Richard Mark Lockwood, who was also a director of the company. After that he would move to disallow the vote of another hon. Gentleman. He did not exercise his right to reply on the previous motion, and, therefore, he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would permit him to give a better version of what took place on the Personal Interests Committee which he so airily disposed of. He sat for many hours on that Committee. The Report presented to the House was a colourless Report, but in the documents which were incorporated with it there was a record of a particular Amendment to which he desired to direct the attention of right hon. 228 Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. The Amendment was as follows—
That the following paragraphs be inserted: Your Committee think it desirable that the position and votes of Members who are directors or shareholders in companies affected by private Bills should be regarded more strictly than has been the case of late years. Such instances as those of directors and shareholders who have undertaken to represent companies and to conduct Bills through this House would appear to come within the spirit if not the letter of the rule.The Amendment was proposed by Mr. Haldane, and on a division was defeated by six votes to five. The ayes were Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. MacNeill. The noes were Mr. Bonsor, Sir W. Hart-Dyke, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. Solicitor General, 229 and Mr. Woodhouse. He knew as a fact that two Members of the Committee who were, absent would have voted in the affirmative had they been present. Among the ayes there was only one directorship, that held by Mr. Courtney in a small company in Cornwall, whereas among the six noes there were no fewer than sixteen directorships. One hon. Member in the last debate in supporting the Government mentioned that a learned judge in the courts stated that he was interested as a shareholder in a company before him and that he would withdraw if it were desired, but the case wont on. There was, however, the well-known case in which Lord Campbell, then Lord Chief Justice of England, reversed the decision of Lord Cottenham. Lord Campbell said that no one would accuse Lord Cottenham of being influenced by personal motives, but that the administration of justice should be above suspicion and that, therefore, the decision would be reversed. So far as Colonel Lockwood was concerned, there was no one in the House who had an atom of personal ill will or bitter feeling against him. He begged to move that Colonel Lockwood's vote be disallowed.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he would have contented himself with formally seconding the motion were it not that he desired to reply to the argument advanced by the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no distinction whatever between a private and a public Bill, and tried to score a point off him by suggesting that he argued that on a public Bill a man could act from private interest, whereas he could not do so on a private Bill. The distinction was as clear as any distinction which had ever been drawn in the House. With reference to a private Bill the House acted judicially, and the principle which regulated private Bills was the principle which regulated the conduct of judicial functionaries in the courts. A public Bill did not confer a private advantage on any individual, though it might necessarily affect the pockets of the country at large, but if hon. Members were excluded from voting on such Bills they would necessarily be excluded from voting on almost every public Bill, certainly 230 on every Bill with reference to taxation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the coal tax. If an hon. Member happened to be a colliery proprietor it was not suggested that he would not have a perfect right to vote against the coal tax, but if a Bill were brought forward to give that hon. Member's colliery special advantages he should not vote for it. The distinction was perfectly clear. Suppose, again, a general railway consolidation Bill were introduced, it was not suggested that a railway director would not have a perfect right to vote on such a Bill. It would be a Bill affecting all railways, not his own railway particularly, and he would be interested in it as a member of the public. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that he laid down the proposition that shareholders should be also excluded from voting. He, however, expressed a doubt in that matter. He was doubtful as to whether shareholders should vote, but he was certain with regard to directors. He would point out that a shareholder might only have an infinitesimal interest in a company, whereas, a director was a paid official, and in a special sense the representative of the company. It was of course perfectly true that a shareholder might have a larger interest in a company than a director, but when a line had to be drawn some cases were excluded which ought not to be excluded, and other cases were included which ought not to be included. The line should be drawn somewhere, and because it could not be drawn to exclude every possible case, it was argued it should not be drawn at all. It would be admitted that infant children ought not to be bound by contracts, but a person of eighteen might be more sensible in the management of his business than a person of thirty. But if the argument that had been used were relied on, a mere child might be held to a contract. He thought the House ought to return to its ancient practice.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the vote of Colonel Lockwood be disallowed."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
§ COLONEL LOCKWOODI beg to state, in placing myself in the discretion of the House, that I voted in a way which I 231 believe is according to precedent for a Bill of public and general convenience, and that in doing so I was not actuated by any corrupt motive.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLNo one suggested it.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOODI do not insinuate that for a minute, but that was my reason for voting. I did so in what I believed to be the exercise of my right, and I was not actuated by any private, or corrupt motive. I believed it to be according to precedent, and that I had the right to vote, and in that I believe I shall be sustained by the House.
§ The hon. Member then withdrew.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he thought it was hardly necessary for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain that he did not vote from any private or corrupt motive. He did not believe there was a Member of the House who would for a moment suggest such a thing. This was a question of principle, and if it had not been that the men against whom this motion was directed were honourable men, like the right hon. Member for Antrim and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just left, the House would not tolerate the motion for a moment. It was the fact that men like the hon. Members, whose actions were beyond reproach, lent themselves to such a practice that caused the rule. He was a Member of the Committee appointed in 1896 to consider this matter, and the rule laid down by that Committee was that the House should go into each particular case, and that rule was only adopted by a majority of one. A very much more drastic rule came within one vote of being adopted by the Committee, and he thought that it was to be regretted that that ride was not adopted. It was hardly necessary to argue that there should be a difference between a shareholder and a director.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman is referring, I believe, to the motion made by the hon. Member for South Donegal. In the drastic rule to which the hon. Gentleman refers no such distinction was made.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not refer to the motion made by the hon. Member for South Donegal, but to a motion made by the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire. It was quite true that the more drastic rule did not draw a distinction if a shareholder undertook to pilot a Bill through the House; in that case he put himself in the same position as a director, and a distinction should not be made between a shareholder and a director who undertook to pilot a Bill through the House. The directors were the promoters of these Bills. The Bills had to be submitted to the board of directors. [A vOICE: And the shareholders.] He submitted that such a remark was based upon a misconception; the Great Western Railway Company had 70,000 shareholders, and it was idle to suggest that they were all responsible. When a Bill was submitted it came before the board of directors, and the policy was considered by them, and if there was an important matter likely to raise opposition in the House it was considered by the board of directors, and the board of directors alone, and to suggest that men who had fully considered a Bill would come here as Members of Parliament and act purely and simply in the public interest was absurd. He did not think that any man ought to put himself in a position where his private interests conflicted with his public duty. He would put it higher. He did not think a man ought to put himself in a position where his duty as trustee for a corporation conflicted with his duty as trustee for his constituents. Hon. Members on the Government side of the House had argued as if the motion imputed sordid motives; that was not so. It was because the men against whom the motion was made were honourable men, and they knew they had a duty to their board, that this question was so difficult. If they had not been upright men there would not be the same difficulty in the matter. In this particular case, the Bill introduced by the railway company dispossessed working men. That was a matter in which the public interest and the fiduciary interest of these directors were in conflict. All they had to consider as directors was that it was necessary to dispossess these men and pull down their cottages in order that 233 their railway might be able to pass through the district; but as Members of Parliament they had to consider what right they had to dispossess these poor people. They knew as directors that the building of other cottages would entail a much larger cost in extending the line, and that was the reason that no directors should place themselves in this position in the House of Commons No solicitor could act for a railway company in this House He did not know if there were a Standing Order against it, but he did know it was the practice. A solicitor in this House at the present time had given up a practice worth thousands a year upon entering the House of Commons; but suppose he had given up his practice and become a director of a company, he could promote Bills, argue on them, lobby for them, go into the Committee for them, and, in short, do everything that was necessary. In the case of a company Bill the solicitor was the servant of the directors, and he failed to see why an employer should be allowed to do that which his servant was precluded from doing. It was not only railway companies who were the delinquents; the House was overrun with directors of various kinds. First it was a railway Bill, and then it was a water Bill, and then—
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Gentleman is now arguing against the presence of directors in this House, not against their voting, which is the question before the House.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid if it was well known that the votes of directors would be disallowed he believed there would be fewer directors in the House. The predominant element in selecting hon. Members as directors was not their knowledge of rolling stock, but that they were popular and respected Members of this House, and those Gentlemen could not meet their colleagues on the board unless they did something, unless they did their best in the interests of the company.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question whether the vote should be 234 disallowed on the ground of personal pecuniary interest.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would not pursue that subject any further. It was, however, very important that it should be made as difficult as possible for hon. Gentlemen to vote in regard to Bills in which they were pecuniarily interested. These Bills were becoming more and more important, and every year they came more into conflict with the public interest. It had been contended that these railway companies simply came to Parliament for powers to spend their own money. That really was a sophistry. They came for privileges and compulsory powers to dispossess people of legal rights, and they asked Parliament to confer upon them valuable monopolies. It was, therefore, most essential that the House should be in a position to judge these matters impartially, without any suggestion of taint or of personal or private interest.
§ SIR SAMUEL HOARE (Norwich)thought that many Members had not fully realised the position of the Bill in regard to which this discussion arose. The question was not one of very great importance; it rested with the director himself as to whether or not he thought it desirable to vote. The question with regard to the Bill was only whether it should go to a Committee upstairs, and he would remind the House that every precaution was taken that upon such a Committee no men having any interest whatever in the Bill should sit. Each Member signed a paper stating that he had no interest whatever in the Bill. An hon. Member had said that the shareholders had no voice in regard to these Bills, but it was one of the duties of Committees upstairs to see that the shareholders had approved of the Bill, and, according to law, steps had to be taken that they should approve. The House might therefore rest assured that every precaution was taken to prevent any private interest whatever interfering with the carrying through Parliament of Bills of this character.
§ MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)emphasised the fact that there was a great distinction between shareholders and directors. 235 The question before the House was one not of private corruption, but of official position. Many Members on both sides of the House who were shareholders in the company voted in the division on the Bill, but he did not suppose that one of those Members considered that fact in the vote he gave. But what about the case of a director? Did the House ever know of a director of a private company voting against a Bill promoted by his company? The objection was that directors of private companies wore pledged by their official position; they did not come to the consideration of the question with an open mind. In any case where Members could not give a free vote
§ upon a Bill the House would do well to disallow the vote.
§ MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)said the atmosphere downstairs was like the atmosphere upstairs. The same influences, suspicions, and difficulties in forming an accurate judgment existed in the House as in the Committees upstairs, and all they desired was that the same precautions which Parliament had thought fit to take with reference to the constitution of Committees upstairs should be taken by the House in forming its judgment downstairs.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 202;. Noes, 287. (Division List No. 164.)
237| Power, Patrick Joseph | Smith, Samuel (Flint) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Price, Robert John | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Priestley, Arthur | Soares, Ernest J. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan |
| Reckitt, Harold James | Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Reddy, M. | Stevenson, Francis S. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Strachey, Edward | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Sullivan, Donal | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Reid, Sir R. T. (Damfries) | Taylor, Theodore Cooke | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Tennant, Harold John | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid) |
| Robson, William Snowdon | Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Roche, John | Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings | Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Russell, T. W. | Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Schwann, Charles E. | Tomkinson, James | |
| Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Bryn Roberts. |
| Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Tully, Jasper | |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wallace, Robert | |
| Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh. | Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Chapman, Edward | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Charrington, Spencer | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Aird, Sir John | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y) |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Coddington, Sir William | Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Grenfell, William Henry |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Colomb, Sir John Charles R. | Gretton, John |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Greville, Hon. Ronald |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Groves, James Grimble |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Gunter, Sir Robert |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Cox, Irwin Edward B. | Hall, Edward Marshall |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Cranborne, viscount | Halsey, Thomas Frederick |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'dnderry) |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd) |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Gust, Henry John C. | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Dalkeith, Earl of | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Haslett, Sir James Homer |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Dewar, T. K. (TrH'mlts, S. Geo. | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.) |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) | Dickson, Charles Scott | Helder, Augustus |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Henderson, Alexander |
| Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Dimsdale Sir Joseph Cockfied | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter |
| Beach, Rt Hn. W. W. B. (Hants. | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D. | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Higginbottom, S. W. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Doughty, George | Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead) |
| Bigwood, James | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) |
| Bill, Charles | Duke, Henry Edward | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside |
| Bond, Edward | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Hornby, Sir William Henry |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Fardell, Sir T. George | Horner, Frederick William |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Hoult, Joseph |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r | Howard, John (Kent, Faversh. |
| Brassey, Albert | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Finch, George H. | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Finlay Sir Robert Bannatyne | Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawles |
| Brown, A. H. (Shropshire) | Fisher, William Hayes | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Fison, Frederick William | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Bull, William James | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H |
| Butcher, John George | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh) |
| Campbell, Rt Hn. J A (Glasgow) | Forster, Henry William | Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Garfit, William | Keswick, William |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Gibbs, Hn A. G. H (City of Lond. | Kimber, Henry |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Gibbs, Hon. vicary (St. Albans) | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Cavendish, v. C. W. (Derbys.) | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Knowles, Lees |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Law, Andrew Bonar |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlts) | Lawson, John Grant |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- | Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLmoved that the vote of the hon. Gentleman Sir William Houldsworth, Baronet, he disallowed. This was, in reality, a matter of the strictest principle, because the hon. Baronet was intensely respectable. He was the ideal of respectability, and that was what made it much more dangerous. Having regard to the manner in which the Government had been wasting public time, he would be as brief as possible. He wished to draw public attention to the fact that this company had wasted entirely a whole Parliamentary day by this Bill.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That is not relevant to the motion before the House.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLread the Order of the Irish Local Government 240 Board prohibiting a county councillor from voting in any matter in which he was personally interested, and said that every vote which had been given upon this question had been a party vote, and although the Whips of the party had not acted, they had certainly voted in the lobby for the Bill, and brought their influence to bear in favour of the company. He thought the Opposition had done a good day's work in shaking the Unionist Government, and they had not been wasting time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the vote of Sir William Houldsworth be disallowed."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 289. (Division List No. 165.)
239| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Donelan, Capt. A. | Leng, Sir John |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Doogan, P. C. | Levy, Maurice |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Duffy, William J. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud) | Duncan, J. Hastings | Lloyd-George, David |
| Ambrose, Robert | Dunn, Sir William | Lough, Thomas |
| Asher, Alexander | Edwards, Frank | Lundon, W. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Elibank, Master of | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H. | Ellis, John Edward | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Austin, Sir John | Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone | M'Crae, George |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | M'Dermott, Patrick |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Farrell, James Patrick | M'Fadden, Edward |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Fenwick, Charles | M'Govern, T. |
| Bell, Richard | Field, William | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Black, Alexander William | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Mansfield, Horace Rendall |
| Blake, Edward | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe- |
| Boland, John | Flynn, James Christopher | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Boyle, James | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Mooney, John J. |
| Brand, Hon. Arthur G. | Fuller, J. M. F. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Brigg, John | Furnesss, Sir Christopher | Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Gilhooly, James | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Moss, Samuel |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Grant, Corrie | Moulton, John Fletcher |
| Burns, John | Griffith, Ellis J. | Murphy, J. |
| Burt, Thomas | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Newnes, Sir George |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Hammond, John | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. |
| Caine, William Sproston | Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) |
| Caldwell, James | Harrington, Timothy | Norman, Henry |
| Cameron, Robert | Harwood, George | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) |
| Carew, James Laurence | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry Mid |
| Carvill, Patrick George H. | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N. |
| Cawley, Frederick | Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Holland, William Henry | O'Doherty, William |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Horniman, Frederick John | O'Dowd, John |
| Colville, John | Jacoby, James Alfred | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N |
| Crean, Eugene | Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Malley, William |
| Crombie, John William | Joyce, Michael | O'Mara, James |
| Cullinan, J. | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U | Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham. |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Kennedy, Patrick James | Partington, Oswald |
| Delany, William | Kitson, Sir James | Panltnn, James Mellor |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Langley, Batty | Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Layland Barratt, Francis | Pickard, Benjamin |
| Dillon, John | Leamy, Edmund | Pirie, Duncan v. |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Smith, Samuel (Flint) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Price, Robert John | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Priestley, Arthur | Soares, Ernest J. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan |
| Reckitt, Harold James | Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Reddy, M. | Stevenson, Francis S. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Strachey, Edward | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Sullivan, Donal | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Reid, Sir R. T. (Damfries) | Taylor, Theodore Cooke | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Tennant, Harold John | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid) |
| Robson, William Snowdon | Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Roche, John | Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings | Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Russell, T. W. | Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Schwann, Charles E. | Tomkinson, James | |
| Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Bryn Roberts. |
| Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Tully, Jasper | |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wallace, Robert | |
| Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh. | Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Chapman, Edward | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Charrington, Spencer | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Aird, Sir John | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y) |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Coddington, Sir William | Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Grenfell, William Henry |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Colomb, Sir John Charles R. | Gretton, John |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Greville, Hon. Ronald |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Groves, James Grimble |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Gunter, Sir Robert |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Cox, Irwin Edward B. | Hall, Edward Marshall |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Cranborne, viscount | Halsey, Thomas Frederick |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'dnderry) |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd) |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Gust, Henry John C. | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Dalkeith, Earl of | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Haslett, Sir James Homer |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Dewar, T. K. (TrH'mlts, S. Geo. | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.) |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) | Dickson, Charles Scott | Helder, Augustus |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Henderson, Alexander |
| Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Dimsdale Sir Joseph Cockfied | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter |
| Beach, Rt Hn. W. W. B. (Hants. | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D. | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Higginbottom, S. W. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Doughty, George | Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead) |
| Bigwood, James | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) |
| Bill, Charles | Duke, Henry Edward | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside |
| Bond, Edward | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Hornby, Sir William Henry |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Fardell, Sir T. George | Horner, Frederick William |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Hoult, Joseph |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r | Howard, John (Kent, Faversh. |
| Brassey, Albert | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Finch, George H. | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Finlay Sir Robert Bannatyne | Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawles |
| Brown, A. H. (Shropshire) | Fisher, William Hayes | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Fison, Frederick William | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Bull, William James | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H |
| Butcher, John George | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh) |
| Campbell, Rt Hn. J A (Glasgow) | Forster, Henry William | Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Garfit, William | Keswick, William |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Gibbs, Hn A. G. H (City of Lond. | Kimber, Henry |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Gibbs, Hon. vicary (St. Albans) | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Cavendish, v. C. W. (Derbys.) | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Knowles, Lees |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Law, Andrew Bonar |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlts) | Lawson, John Grant |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- | Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Parkes, Ebenezer | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington) | Spear, John Ward |
| Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley | Spencer, E. (West Bromwich) |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Pemberton, John S. G. | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) | Penn, John | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. | Percy, Earl | Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart |
| Lowe, Francis William | Pierpoint, Robert | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Pilkington, Richard | Stock, James Henry |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Stroyan, John |
| Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison | Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Purvis, Robert | Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Pym, C. Guy | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | Tollemache, Henry James |
| M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.) | Randles, John S. | Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire | Ratcliffe, R. F. | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Malcolm, Ian | Reid, James (Greenock) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Manners, Lord Cecil | Remnant, James Farquharson | Valentia, viscount |
| Martin, Richard Biddulph | Renshaw, Charles Bine | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. |
| Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F | Rentoul, James Alexander | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n | Richards, Henry Charles | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Melville, Beresford valentine | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd |
| Middlemore, John T. | Robinson, Brooke | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne) |
| Milton, viscount | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Milward, Colonel victor | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Mitchell, William | Ropner, Colonel Robert | Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm |
| Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W. | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.) | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Wilson, A. S. (York, E.R.) |
| Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Rutherford, John | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh | Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles | Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Mount, William Arthur | Seton-Karr, Henry | Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Young, Commander (Berks, K.) |
| Muntz, Philip A. | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Younger, William |
| Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Cohen. |
| Myers, William Henry | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) | |
| Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Smith, H. C. (N'rth'b., Tyneside | |
| Parker, Gilbert | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. |
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E. | Gilhooly, James | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud | Grant, Corrie | O'Mara, James |
| Ambrose, Robert | Griffith, Ellis J. | Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) |
| Asher, Alexander | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Partington, Oswald |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Hammond, John | Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) |
| Austin, Sir John | Harcourt, R. Hon. Sir William | Pickard, Benjamin |
| Harry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil | Pirie, Duncan v. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Harwood, George | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Price, Robert John |
| Bell, Richard | Hayden, John Patrick | Priestley, Arthur |
| Black, Alexander William | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Blake, Edward | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Reddy, M. |
| Boland, John | Helme, Norval Watson | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Boyle, James | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries |
| Brigg, John | Holland, William Henry | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Burns, John | Horniman, Frederick John | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Burt, Thomas | Jacoby, James Alfred | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Caine, William Sproston | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. | Roche, John |
| Caldwell, James | Jordan, Jeremiah | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Cameron, Robert | Joyce, Michael | Russell, T. W. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U. | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Kennedy, Patrick James | Scott, Charles P. (Leigh) |
| Carew, James Laurence | Langley, Batty | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Carvill, Patrick George H. | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Leamy, Edmund | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Leng, Sir John | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Levy, Maurice | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northnts. |
| Cogill, Douglas Harry | Lloyd-George, David | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Colville, John | Lough, Thomas | Strachey, Edward |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Lundon, W. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Crean, Eugene | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Cremer, William Randal | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Cullinan, J. | M'Crae, George | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | M'Dermott, Patrick | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | M'Fadden, Edward | Thomas, Dav. Alfred (Merthyr |
| Davies, M. vaughan- (Cardigan | M'Govern, T. | Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings |
| Delany, William | M'Kenna, Reginald | Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower) |
| Dewar, John A. (Invernes-sh.) | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Thomson, E. W. (York, W.R. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe | Tomkinson, James |
| Dillon, John | Markham, Arthur Basil | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Mooney, John J. | Tully, Jasper |
| Doogan, P. C. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wallace, Robert |
| Dully, William J. | Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) | Warner, Thomas (Courtenay T. |
| Dunn, Sir William | Moss, Samuel | Wason, Eugene Clackmannan |
| Edwards, Frank | Murphy, J. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Elibank, Master of | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Ellis, John Edward | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Norman, Henry | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid |
| Field, William | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'fi'ld |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | O'Doherty, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Bryn Roberts. |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | O'Dowd, John | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Allsopp, Hon. George | Arkwright, John Stanhope |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Anson, Sir William Reynell | Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Anstruther, H. T. | Arrol, Sir William |
| Aird, Sir John | Archdale Edward Mervyn | Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Finch, George H. | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Fisher, William Hayes | Macartney, Rt Hn A v. G. Ellison |
| Baird, John George Alex. | Fison, Frederick William | Macdona, John Gumming |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Forster, Henry William | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Garfit, William | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.) |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Gibbs, Hn A G H. (City of London | M'Killop Jas, (Stirlingshire) |
| Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor) | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Malcolm, Ian |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants | Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'ml'ts | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n |
| Bigwood, James | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. |
| Bill, Charles | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Melville, Beresford valentine |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Graham, Henry Robert | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Bond, Edward | Green, Walford D (Wednesbury | Middlemore, John T. |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs. | Milton, Viscount |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Grenfell, William Henry | Milward, Colonel victor |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Gretton, John | Mitchell, William |
| Brassey, Albert | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John | Groves, James Grimble | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Gunter, Sir Robert | Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants) |
| Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire) | Hall, Edward Marshall | Moon, Robert J. (Shropshire) |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) |
| Bull, William James | Hamilton, Rt Hn. Ld. G (Midd'x | Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry | Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh. |
| Butcher, John George | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Mount, William Arthur |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Heath, James (Staffords., N. W. | Muntz, Philip A. |
| Cecil, Evelyn, (Aston Manor) | Helder, Augustus | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Henderson, Alexander | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. | Myers, William Henry |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Higginbottom, S. W. | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Chapman, Edward | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | Parker, Gilbert |
| Charrington, Spencer | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de | Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley |
| Coddington, Sir William | Horner, Frederick William | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hoult, Joseph | Penn, John |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles R. | Howard, John (Kent, Faversh. | Percy, Earl |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. Athole | Howard, John (Midd., Tottenham) | Pierpoint Robert |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Pilkington, Richard |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Purvis, Robert |
| Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton) | Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh) | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) | Randles, John S. |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Keswick, William | Ratcliffe, R. F. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kimber, Henry | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham | Knowles, Lees | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Law, Andrew Bonar | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lawrence, William F. | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lawson, John Grant | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T. |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Lee, A H. (Hants., Fareham) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Robinson, Brooke |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Doughty, George | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Rutherford, John |
| Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S. | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Lowe, Francis William | Sandys, Lieut.-Cl. Thos. Myles |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane. | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Seton-Karr, Henry | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ | Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Bi'm |
| Simeon, Sir Barrington | Thorburn, Sir Walter | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | Thornton, Percy M. | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R. |
| Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Tollemache, Henry James | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Smith, H C (Forth'mb. Tyneside | Tritton, Charles Ernest | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. | Tufnell, Lieut. Col. Edward | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Valentia, viscount | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Spear, John Ward | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich) | Wanklyn, James Leslie | Wylie, Alexander |
| Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk | Warde, Colonel C. E. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart | Webb, Colonel William George | Younger, William |
| Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Cohen. |
| Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd | |
| Stroyan, John | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne) |
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLMr. Speaker, I beg to direct your attention to the fact that an hon. Member who I understood was Sir William Houldsworth voted in the "No" lobby.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThat is too vague a statement for me to take any notice of it.
§ MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)I was one, of the tellers in the "No" lobby, and I can only say, Sir, that I did not see Sir William Houldsworth in the "No" lobby.
§ SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.)No, Sir, I certainly did not vote.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLMay I apologise to the right hon. Baronet? I mistook him for someone else. [Ironical laughter.] I consider that a most ample and absolute apology is due to him, and I beg to tender it.