§ Order for Second Reading read.22
§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time.
§ SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE (London)
rose to move that the Bill should be read a second time upon this day six months. 23 He said that the promoters desired to carry out improvements which would give them facilities for the further development of their passenger, goods, and mineral traffic. Clause 23 enabled the two companies, or either of them, to apply for the whole or any purposes of the Act any money they had now in their hands, or which they had power to raise by shares or mortgage, and which might not be required for the purposes for which the same were authorised to be raised. While it was proposed to develop the line, there was no attempt, there was not even a suggestion for enlarging the London stations, where the accommodation was already in some respects inadequate to meet the expected increase in the traffic. It appeared to him that the companies wanted to enlarge their bottle to the size of a magnum or Jeroboam, leaving the neck at its original diameter. The contention of the Corporation of London was that, while these improvements might be necessary, they could very well wait until the companies fulfilled their far more serious obligations to the public by making their London termini adequate to their requirements. He could name a station, a timber structure, badly lighted, which had rather the appearance of a neglected temporary building than of a station of considerable importance. The approaches to the station and the platforms were badly arranged and quite inadequate, and, altogether, the station was not only inconvenient and inadequate for its requirements, but absolutely unsafe for the public. The attention of the Corporation of London was called to this and another station as far back as 1898, and they called the attention of the railway companies to these defects, but up to this moment nothing whatever had been done except to provide a few extra lamps. The Corporation of London endeavoured to bring pressure to bear upon the railway companies, and only withdrew their opposition to the company's Bill of last session on the understanding that these important and serious matters were to have the immediate attention of the directors. But the company, having got the Second Reading of their Bill, practically told the Corporation that they had gained their 24 object and that the Corporation had no locus standi, and in consequence the undertaking of the railway companies was nugatory. Another Bill was now before them, but there was no proposal in it to do anything to further the interests and the safety of the community. The attention of the Board of Trade had been called to the matters of which he had been speaking, but the company had held the Department, as it had held the Corporation, at arm's length for over two years, and now he did not think it was too much to say that they seemed very much disposed to flout the House of Commons. All the Corporation desired was to have a locus standi before the Committee upstairs to which the Bill would be referred, but, as the company refused to meet them in any way, he had no alternative but to move that the Bill be read that day six months.
§ DR. MACNAMARA, (Camberwell, N.)
in seconding the Amendment, said he did not speak on behalf of any municipality, but on behalf of the working class community of South London who used the surburban line of the company. The Bill was one to extend the operations of the company, and to extend the time for the completion of certain works and widening its lines, and by Clause 23 to use the money the company had in hand for the purpose. He should vote against giving this company any extension of power, against giving it any further concession, until it had fulfilled the obligations into which it had entered in respect of previous Acts of Parliament. Its station at Ludgate Hill was a filthy and foul-smelling rabbit hutch, which, being in the very centre of the greatest city in the world, was a scandal to those who allowed it to remain there, was a comment on the happy-go-lucky conduct of the cockney in all things, and ought to be swept away as an insanitary area at the earliest possible date. There were other considerations which applied to those who used the line every day. The rolling-stock of the company was filthy and dirty to the last degree, the carriages were ill-lighted, and the whole machinery was of the most slovenly and slipshod character. He had sat in a compartment in one of the trains 25 of this company at Victoria, and within five minutes of the departure of the train an official came and swabbed the windows of the compartment while the passengers were in it. At one station he had seen the carriages being swept while the people were in them. The dirty and filthy character of the second and third class carriages and their overcrowded condition was well known. At Herne Hill Station, if a passenger took a first-class ticket and afterwards managed to get a seat upon a fish-box in the guard's van he was very lucky indeed. On behalf of the working-people of South London, who were bitterly opposed to any extension of the powers of this company, he objected to this Bill being passed until they had carried out their obligations contained in former Acts of Parliament.
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir Joseph Dimsdale.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ *MR. HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
said he desired to endorse all that had been said by his hon. friend the Member for the City of London in regard to the insufficient accommodation provided by this company. They had been told that this was an innocent Bill, and that it would be unfair for the House to punish the company in respect of this Bill because of its shortcomings in other respects. Though this might be a small Bill, to buy a portion of a biscuit factory, it had underlying it grave questions of public policy. When they came to discuss those questions they were met by the reply of the company that unless they gave them the Bills as they presented them to the House they would withdraw them. In other words, the House of Commons was to be reduced to being the obsequious servant of the directors of this company. His main objection to the Bill was that it was a tinkering Bill. Those who had studied the system of the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway would agree that the only remedy for what were evils so far as the public were 26 concerned was a statesmanlike reform in the affairs of the company, and in its service to the public. Year after year fresh powers were sought in order that a little bit of land here or there might be added to the property of the company, but nothing was done in the true sense to secure for the two millions-of South Londoners adequate and cheap access from their homes to the scene of their labours. He would refer very briefly to the clauses of the Bill. Clauses 15 to 21 by no means showed or justified the allegation of the supporters of this Bill that it was simply a measure to purchase a portion of a biscuit factory. Those clauses altered the time limit in respect of previous Acts of the company, and when they came to consider how far the company had exercised the powers from which it now sought exemption, they would find that even the facilities given on the South Eastern railway for lads to attend cricket matches had been withdrawn. A very large section of people known as the lower middle class, who had to be punctual in their attendance at their work if they were not to lose their means of livelihood, had been absolutely precluded from any possibility of living upon the line of this company owing to the disgraceful unpunctuality in the train service, and which would continue unless the House of Commons pulled up this company sharply, and made it behave itself. This condition of things would be made far graver and more intolerable if they allowed those clauses to pass than would appear at first sight. The company was persistently defeating the efforts of Parliament to promote the industrial and physical well-being of the people, by forcing vast numbers of the industrial classes to reside in crowded inner London owing to the lack of trains to and from the outskirts and the excessive fares demanded. The company thus actively promoted all the evils to the physique and morals of the urban population which are inseparable from overcrowding and unsalubrious surroundings. In proof of this he referred to Clause 19. The company pulled down houses in Bermondsey, and, when the Home Secretary remonstrated with it for evading its statutory obligations, the company made a hasty temporary ar- 27 rangement with the Guinness trustees, who had erected a block of buildings near, to relieve the terrible destitution of the population. This was not only a mischievous evasion by the company of the law of the land, but an injury inflicted upon a densely-crowded area, because the company did not build houses in the neighbourhood, and because it appropriated sorely-needed house room which had been provided for that neighbourhood by a philanthropic body. A further injury which this company had inflicted upon the labouring classes of the community was that caused by a sudden, unjustifiable, and an illegal reduction in the housing accommodation of the district, which had the effect of increasing the already prohibitive rents. An appeal against this state of things was made to the Home Secretary, and then the company bought the site dealt with under Clause 19 of this Bill. The company boasted that it had spent £80,000 in Bermondsey to satisfy the requirements of this House, but the company forgot to say that after having procured that site, and after having obtained all the necessary powers required to deal with it, ever since October last that land had been vacant. He had been told that this land had remained vacant because the company were waiting the approval of the Secretary of State to the whole scheme of which this land formed a part. He thought those who had given any attention to this subject would be very much surprised if his right hon. friend announced to the House that he had been the agency by which for something like nine months this site for the housing of the working classes of London had remained vacant when that site was specifically devoted by him, as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to rehousing those who had been found to have been neglected by the railway company under its legal powers. He hoped that they would be told why the piece of vacant land had been allowed to remain vacant; he believed it was due entirely to the mischievous evasion on the part of the company of its statutory obligations. The efforts of the directorate and the officials of this company seemed to be directed to trying both in spirit and letter to evade the laws of 28 Parliament whenever the housing of the poor was concerned. The population of Bermondsey was a wharfside population. It had to live within hail of its work, which was casual and ill paid, and it was in such a district that this company reduced valuable house room. This district was becoming more and more overcrowded, and the public health of the inhabitants was, consequently, being more and more endangered. The district had been aptly described as a wilderness of poverty, and the reduction of house room there had resulted from the acquisition of property by this company.
§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Gentleman is now entering on the general question of the housing of the working classes in London, which on this Bill he cannot do.
§ *MR. HAY
said that in deference to that ruling he would not pursue the argument he was endeavouring to elaborate. It was obvious, however, that if the land was allowed to remain vacant there would be overcrowding in the neighbourhood. The powers which had been conferred on the company in the immediate past had not been exercised properly or with a due regard to the real intention of Parliament.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)
said he was rather surprised that the extreme strength of the language used against the Bill had not been accompanied by an equal strength of argument. He was afraid they had become accustomed in this House to denunciations of these two railway companies. He was not in any way connected with the railways, but he thought the House ought to pause before taking the extreme step of rejecting the Bill, which carried out the understanding arrived at when the amalgamation was sanctioned two years ago. One of the principal conditions was that the access to London should be improved, so that Kent especially should have the facilities for traffic which it deserved. The widening proposed had nothing to do with Ludgate Hill Station, but it was an essential feature of any improvement in the line. The supporters of the Bill pleaded for it because they believed these two companies could never have a chance 29 of improving themselves unless they were given the powers which were asked for in the Bill. It was on that ground alone that he would ask the House to send the Bill in the usual way to a Committee upstairs for consideration. He did not think this was the time to consider the condition of the stock of the Chatham Company, upon which many Members, perhaps, would have something to say. They had been spending a large amount of money in trying to bring up the arrears of very inefficient management in the past. The question of the housing of the working classes had been raised, and he thought he ought, in fairness to the House, to state how that was affected by the Bill. Although the model clause had been put into the Bill the company need not have put it in, because the powers sought in the Bill only affected six houses, making eleven tenements; therefore they had not the limit of twenty required for the clause. That was the sole interference contemplated in consequence of the arrangements that came under this Bill. Delay had been caused in carrying out part of the work owing entirely, he believed, to protracted negotiations with the County Council in connection with the southern approach to London Bridge. These negotiations were now concluded and the plans had been submitted to the Home Secretary. There was no reason why that statement should not go forth. The provisions of the Bill were of vast importance to the great mass of the public who used these lines, and on that ground he with confidence asked the House to pass the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
said that two years ago he had the pleasure of opposing the amalgamation of the South Eastern and the Chatham and Dover Railways. On that occasion the opponents of the scheme were beaten. Mr. Cosmo Bonsor told them that everything would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds if the amalgamation took place. Since that time things had not changed. The Chatham and Dover was as bad as it was before the amalgamation, and the South Eastern did not appear to have made it any better. The amalgamation of these undesirables seemed to have produced the worst rail- 30 way in the United Kingdom. It had been stated that the object of the Bill two years ago was to improve the London termini. What attempt had been made to do that? Absolutely none at all. Everyone who knew Kent would admit that the way in which these two railways had treated the county was a disgrace to the companies and damaging to the interests of agriculture. The hon. Member for the Ashford Division had spoken about the inefficient management in the past, but in this Bill there was no evidence that the management was going to be rectified. It was a very difficult and, from many points of view, a dangerous thing to throw out a railway Bill. Personally he did not think a railway Bill or a private Bill should be thrown out unless serious reasons were advanced and great causes were stated. The slowness of locomotion, the inconvenience of our railway stations, and the difficulty of housing the poor were serious problems with which the railway companies generally had not grappled as they ought to have done.
§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is aware that he cannot enter now into these general questions, which are common to all the railways of London.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
continuing, said that the South Eastern and Chatham Company had taken no special steps to deal with this problem, but nevertheless they now came to Parliament to seek power to divert the money which they got by previous Bills for the purpose to carry out other enterprises. It was because there was no evidence that the companies were likely to improve their stations that the City Corporation interfered. The Corporation of the City was not in the habit of worrying capital. It had hitherto been a friend of these particular companies, and had given them special facilities, but now the Corporation had taken up a different attitude. It saw that the Ludgate Hill Station was very dark and dangerous, and contended that the money which ought to be spent upon its improvement should not be devoted to other uses. Now, the City Corporation was the statutory authority and guardian of the public welfare in this respect; but the London County Council, although it had no 31 locus standi, joined with the City Corporation in this matter. It would interest the hon. Member who last spoke to know that no less than thirty local authorities outside of London, and the Mayors of Canterbury, Hastings, Maidstone, and Tunbridge Wells, had approached the companies and asked them to carry out the obligations of their previous Bills, to improve their traffic, reduce fares, and grant further facilities to the trade and commerce of the county of Kent, but without result. When he found the City Corporation and the mayors of those towns and cities making a recommendation in favour of pulling the companies up to a proper appreciation of their responsibilities, he could not help believing that there was a strong case made out for action against the companies. Was it fair, he asked, that Ludgate Hill Station should be left as it was? It was the original terminus of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, and it ought to have at least £100,000 spent on it. The company had power to spend that sum, but if the present Bill were passed the money would be devoted to other purposes. The station as it now was was frequently overcrowded, dirty, and dangerous. So overcrowded was it that the usual waiting-rooms and lavatories could not be placed upon the platforms, while the platforms themselves were so narrow that people frequently ran the risk of being forced upon the line by the crowds going up or down. It was true that the Chatham Company said the public had no necessity to go to Ludgate Hill Station. The directors admitted that the station was narrow and inconvenient, but they turned round and said "There is a station at St. Paul's." That was the mischief of the thing. Instead of spending their money on St. Paul's Station the Chatham Company ought to have used the money upon Ludgate Hill Station and enlarged it, thus making one complete and adequate terminus.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I do not understand that there is any money for the improvement of Ludgate Hill Station which by this Bill will be taken and diverted to any other purpose. The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the policy of the railway company in building another station.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said he had no intention to evade any ruling that the Speaker might have made, but there was no schedule to the Bill, or any conditions as to how the money was to be spent. But by sections of previous Acts the company was empowered to raise money for the purposes specified, and his contention was that the companies now had in their hands the unexpended money which they were seeking to divert by this Bill to extra-metropolitan purposes which should be spent upon the improvement of their stations.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! That is the point which I have previously informed the hon. Member is not in order.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
admitted that it would be inadvisable and inconvenient to argue the matter any further, but he hoped the House would, at any rate, see that the Chatham Company carried out their promise of two years ago, and would recognise that it was an abuse of private Bill legislation for the company to divert money that they have for other purposes to extra-metropolitan enterprises. The management of the company had, he said, always been bad, and he did not believe that with the present management the company would be enabled to do better in the future than in the past. The company had abused its power and misused its parliamentary privileges, and he saw no hope but compulsory liquidation. An official receiver ought to be appointed, and then the company should be sold to the London and North Western Company or some other capable company, so that the people dependent upon the line might be sure of proper railway facilities. So long as Mr. Cosmo Bonsor and the other directors were at the head of affairs this valuable railway property would be reduced to sterility simply by the incompetence of its directors.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central)
I do not propose to address the House except for a very few minutes, because I think the consideration of this proposal can be reduced to a very narrow compass indeed. However much I may sympathise with the 33 object of my right hon. friend, I cannot approve or admire the method by which he proposes to attain that object. It is undoubted that the condition of Ludgate Hill Station leaves a very great deal to be desired. That has been proved by the reports of the inspectors of the Board of Trade. But that is not the question which the House has to decide. Because there is an improvement which admittedly ought at some time or other to be made—the sooner the better—is the House to throw out a Bill to the actual provisions of which no objection is or can be made? That is the real issue. It appears to me that if it is to become the established practice of this House to throw out this or any other omnibus Bill on the ground that the clauses of the Bill do not contain something which somebody wants in it, such an alteration of the procedure of the House is not only contrary to the public interests, but is gravely detrimental to those interests. This is not merely a question of the locus standi of the City Corporation before the Committee. My hon. friend must know that, even if the company were willing to grant locus standi to the London Corporation, the question of the condition of the Ludgate Hill Station could not be raised before the Committee. It would be entirely out of order. The question is simply the rejection or the passing of the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for Camberwell stated he was opposed to any extension of powers to the company, and the hon. Member for Hoxton very strongly complained of the general inefficiency of the company concerned. But these omnibus Bills are not merely for the benefit and convenience of the companies promoting them. They are for the convenience and advantage of the public. They are almost invariably to increase accommodation and promote efficiency, and if the House of Commons is to throw them out simply on account of reasons such as have been adduced this afternoon, it is not the railway companies so much as the public that will suffer. In regard to the question of the housing of the working classes, I may say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we do not concur in the view that the various railway companies have not properly fulfilled their obligations in this 34 respect. But, however that may be, I think the House of Commons must look not upon a point of detail, but upon the general principle. The House has already thrown out one omnibus Bill on a similar ground, and if this is also to be thrown out it will be set up as a precedent, and whenever a particular complaint is set up against a railway company it will be considered legitimate to throw out any proposal which they may make, irrespective of its importance. Nothing could be more objectionable. The companies would not then come to Parliament. They would remain inefficient and imperfect, and when complaint was made they would say, "It is not our fault, but the fault of the House of Commons." If we establish this practice—that an omnibus Bill can be thrown out on a question not germane to the Bill itself—it will be the greatest discouragement possible to any company to bring forward proposals to improve the working of their line. It is on this ground, and not on a question of detail, that I earnestly hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)
observed that the Bill was exactly similar to the Bill thrown out by the House a short time ago, and for precisely the same reason. This company had failed in its responsibilities to Parliament and the public. As the hon. Member for the City had remarked, the company by the Bill was coming into conflict with the local authorities. The local authorities by the Bill of 1891 were responsible for the housing of the working classes, but as regarded this company they were absolutely helpless to interfere. Ten thousand people, taking the metropolis as a whole, had been dishoused by the various railway companies. If any large landlord, either in the metropolis or in the provinces, had attempted to dishouse such a large number of people Parliament would have interfered and prevented the project being carried out.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is now discussing the general question of the housing of the working classes. I have several times ruled that that is out of order.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
said he only wished to point out that the company had avoided its responsibilities in this respect. In his own district several families had been dishoused, though he did not mean to suggest that this very railway company was to blame.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The hon. Member is again discussing a matter which I have ruled out of order.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
, concluding, said the President of the Board of Trade had pointed out that if the House were to reject every omnibus Bill it would inconvenience the public, but he would remind hon. Members, on the contrary, that this was the only means whereby the House could protect the public. This was a matter of supreme moment, and he contended that the railway company should be forced to act up to their responsibilities, and he had great pleasure, therefore, in opposing the Bill.
§ SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)
only intervened to point out the absurdity of the argument of hon. Members opposite when they contended that they were acting in the interests of the working classes. Under this Bill the railway company was trying to do its best to widen the lines and increase the number of trains and their speed. That was in the interests of the working men, who would thereby have cheap trains and rapid transit, and it was nonsense to oppose it. Everyone knew that the great thing that was wanted nowadays was wider railway lines and more trains. If the Bill were sent to a Committee upstairs, and it was thought advisable, new clauses could be introduced. He only hoped that the Bill would be passed, and by a large majority.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 166. (Division List No. 243.)37
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H.||Firbank, Joseph Thorn as|
|Agg Gardner, James Tynte||Cautley, Henry Strother||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-|
|Aird, Sir John||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Cawley, Frederick||Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fletcher, Sir Henry|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. (Birm.)||Forster, Henry William|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Charrington, Spencer||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Arrol, Sir William||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Garfit, William|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.||Coddington, Sir William||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop|
|Bain, Col. James Robert||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Goschen, Hon. George J.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Graham, Henry Robert|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B||Cranborne, Viscount||Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants.)||Dalkeith, Earl of||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Gretton, John|
|Bill, Charles||Denny, Colonel||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Blundell, Col. Henry||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Guthrie, Walter Murray|
|Bond, Edward||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Hain, Edward|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd.)|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Duke, Henry Edward||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middl'x)||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W|
|Bowles, Capt. T. B. (King's Lynn||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Brassey, Albert||Ellis, John Edward||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.|
|Brigg, John||Emmott, Alfred||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale|
|Brown, Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Faber, George Denison||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N. W)|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Finch, George H.||Helder, Augustus|
|Carlile, William Walter||Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne||Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.|
|Hill, Arthur||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)||Milton, Viscount||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Homer, Frederick William||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.||Morgan, Hon. Fred. (Monmths.||Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)|
|Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.||Morrell, George Herbert||Smith, H C (North'mb, T'neside|
|Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)||Morrison, James Archibald||Spear, John Ward|
|Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies||Moulton, John Fletcher||Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich)|
|Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Muntz, Philip A.||Stanley, Hn Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bath||Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)|
|Joicey, Sir James||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.||Myers, William Henry||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Kenyon, Jas. (Lanes., Bury)||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Stroyan, John|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Talbot, Rt Hn J G. (Oxf'd Univ.)|
|Kitson, Sir James||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Knowles, Lees||Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Lambert, George||Parkes, Ebenezer||Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Partington, Oswald||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)||Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield|
|Lawson, John Grant||Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm||Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Penn, John||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Leng, Sir John||Percy, Earl||Welby, Lt-Col. A C E (Taunton)|
|Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.||Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Plummer, Walter R.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)|
|Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)||Pretyman, Ernest George||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Lowe, Francis William||Purvis, Robert||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.||Randles, John S.||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Rankin, Sir James||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Rea, Russell||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Reed, Sir Edw. Jas. (Cardiff)||Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)|
|M'Calmont, Col. H L B. (Cambs.||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)|
|M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.)||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (St'lybridge||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|M'Laren, Charles Benjamin||Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)||Wilson, J W. (Worcestersh., N.)|
|Majendie, James A. H.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Malcolm, Ian||Robinson, Brooke||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfd.|
|Maple, Sir John Blundell||Rollit, Sir Albeit Kaye||Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Ropner, Col. Robert||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Mather, William||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Richards.|
|Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Caine, William Sproston||Dillon, John|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Caldwell, James||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Cameron, Robert||Doogan, P. C.|
|Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Duffy, William J.|
|Ambrose, Robert||Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)||Duncan, J. Hastings|
|Austin, Sir John||Channing, Francis Allston||Dunn, Sir William|
|Balfour, Maj K R (Christch'rch)||Cogan, Denis J.||Edwards, Frank|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Craig, Robert Hunter||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Crean, Eugene||Fenwick, Charles|
|Bigwood, James||Crombie, John William||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Black, Alexander William||Crossley, Sir Savile||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Blake, Edward||Cullinan, J.||Flower, Ernest|
|Boland, John||Cust, Henry John C.||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Dalziel, James Henry||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)|
|Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)||Delany, William||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Gibbs, Hn. A G H. (City of Lond.)|
|Burns, John||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Gilhooly, James|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Grant, Corrie||Mooney, John J.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Groves, James Grimble||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)|
|Hammond, John||Moss, Samuel||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Murnaghan, George||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Harwood, George||Murphy, John||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.||Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)||Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants-|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Strachey, Edward|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Norman, Henry||Sullivan, Donal|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Tennant, Harold John|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.).|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.|
|Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Labouchere, Henry||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Langley, Batty||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Laurie, Lt.-General||O'Dowd, John||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth||O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)||Wallace, Robert|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||O'Malley, William||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Leamy, Edmund||O'Mara, James||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Levy, Maurice||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lloyd-George, David||Philipps, John Wynford||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Pickard, Benjamin||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Lough, Thomas||Power, Patrick, Joseph||White, Patrick (Meath, North|
|Lundon, W.||Price, Robert John||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Priestley, Arthur||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|M'Crae, George||Reddy, M.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|M'Dermott, Patrick||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|M'Govern, T.||Redmond, William (Clare)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Joseph Dimsdale and Mr. Hay.|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Minch, Matthew||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
Resolutions agreed to.