§ Order for Consideration read.
§ MR. GRAY (West Ham, N.)
, in moving the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper, said that, though the proposal it embodied was a simple one, it was at the same time one of great importance to the borough which he had the honour to represent. The question at issue was whether a town with 267,000 inhabitants should have the right to establish and control its own market arrangements. He ventured to assert that if such a proposition had been placed before the House in regard to any other town in the United Kingdom, the answer would have been in the affirmative; indeed, the Public Health Act, 1875, declared that the municipal authority should be the market authority. Why could not West Ham enjoy that right? For centuries there had been three prohibitions—there was the common law right enjoyed by the City of London, the charter right also enjoyed by the City of London, and the charter right obtained by the original proprietors of Spitalfields Market. Under those rights no other market was allowed to be established within a radius of 6¾ miles of Spitalfields. West Ham had the misfortune to be within that radius. When the charter of Edward III. was granted in 1327 no one ever dreamed of a huge city like West Ham growing up where it had done. The conditions of life in those days were totally different. The 1425 story of how the radius came to be fixed was exceedingly interesting, as given in the Report of the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls. According to that, Bracton, in his treatise, declared that a market would be a nuisance if set up within 6¾ miles of the existing markets. The reasons for selecting that limit were: that an ordinary day's walk was 20 miles, and the day was divided into three parts, one-third of the time being occupied in going to market, another third in making purchases, and the remaining third in getting home. It was felt it would not be wise to extend the limit as, there being an abundance of robbers, it was desirable purchasers should get home in the light of day. These conditions, of course, no longer obtained. When the Royal Commission made its Report in 1891, it said that it was obvious that the restrictions—the removal of which was now proposed—belonged to a state of society wholly different from that of the present day. The existence of railway communication and the general change in the conditions of modern life had rendered these limitations arbitrary and inconvenient. The Royal Commission laid it down as their opinion that the limitation was one that ought not to be insisted upon. He was told that since the issue of that Report the City of London had never insisted on the right which it had under common law. But history did not bear out that statement. The City of London had again and again endeavoured to put its charter into force. It had resisted the establishment of other markets within the City. It had been defeated, and he hoped that the House that afternoon would compel it to concede what he was advocating. When the Great Eastern Railway Company desired to establish a market in that particular area the City opposed, but the present Home Secretary took the matter in hand, and moved in this House a resolution very much in the terms of the one now proposed. He now came down to the present year. They had had before a Committee upstairs three Bills, two dealing with the purchase of Spitalfields Market. One was promoted by the London County Council and the other by the City of London. And when they were before the Committee both bodies declared that they were prepared to insert clauses under 1426 which the veto exercised by Spitalfields Market over the establishment of a market at West Ham should be removed. The Committee reported in favour of the London County Council Bill, and threw out the City of London Bill, and there had been inserted in the former measure a clause, by means of which the dead hand of Spitalfields Market was taken off the West Ham Corporation. Thus two of the three vetos had disappeared, and they were left face to face with the charter right of the City of London, which was granted so far back as the reign of King Edward III. He asked the House to do what it had done in similar cases, and to give the Corporation the right to hold its market, notwithstanding that charter right. West Ham was young, but during the last ten years its population had increased by 62,000 persons, and there they had right on the borders of the great metropolis one of the largest cities of the Empire, through the streets of which passed along part of the produce which helped to build the metropolis up. Some of its roads had been in existence, no doubt, since Saxon times. But in those days it was a causeway of morasses. Now it was a densely-populated town, through the streets of which market-garden vehicles conveyed produce to the City, much of which had to be brought back again for consumption in West Ham. Time was thereby wasted, and too frequently vegetables were spoiled before they could reach the local consumers. As he had said, the issue was a very simple one, but it was impossible to exaggerate its importance to West Ham. The matter had been considered by a Committee, but he did not think it had received all the consideration it deserved. The Committee had had a prolonged inquiry, and it was only on the last day that this question arose. The Committee were asked to insert a certain clause, and they were told by counsel that the clause was to be similar to that which had been put in the London County Council Bill. That was true, but when the representatives of West Ham used the word "similar" they meant similar in its effects. That would have enabled them to establish their market. But the Committee interpreted the suggestion to mean "similar" in terms. Those 1427 terms removed the veto of the Spitalfields Market, but not that of the City of London. Hence they did not go far enough. He hoped the Home Secretary would help him by now supporting a proposal similar to that which he himself carried many years since. Certainly the Bill then affected was subsequently dropped, and thus they had never been able to receive the full benefit of the action taken. He hoped, too, that the Metropolitan Members would support him, for the same veto was hanging over the constituencies they represented. Why should Battersea and Wandsworth have to go through the same process in order to get rid of a veto created by King Edward III? He appealed finally to the whole House, whose sense of justice would be, he hoped, in favour of a young and struggling community rather than in favour of maintaining in all its literal effect a charter granted so many centuries ago. He was told by those who represented the City that they would never dream of putting the veto in force. He was in fact asked to trust to the honour of the City. Personally he had great faith in that honour, but he was bound to look forward to what might occur a hundred years hence. This was a business transaction, and they wanted the endorsement of Parliament upon their claim. They believed they were putting forward a reasonable claim, and he trusted that the City, which had been always generous, would remember that its vitality in these latter days depended more upon its general action than on the strength of its old charters. If they were to continue building up the glory of the City they must rely on modern action rather than upon ancient charters. Believing that justice was on his side, he had no hesitation in moving the Amendment which stood in his name.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
seconded. It was strange that the inhabitants of a vast district now covered with bricks and mortar should have to go to London to do their marketing. He hoped that the mere antiquity of a charter would not induce the House of Commons to deprive West Ham of a right which was possessed by every other great town in the country.
In page 8, line 17, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or under the Charter granted in the first year of the reign of His late Majesty King Edward the Third.'"—(Mr. Ernest Gray.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ *SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE (London)
said the City, perhaps, had no right to expect gratitude, but the fact remained that, had it not been for the Corporation of the City of London, West Ham would never have become a corporation. The hon. Member had alleged that a Committee of that House had not given due consideration to a Bill which came before it. He did not think the House would approve that charge, especially when he explained the action taken by West Ham. It opposed the Bill of the Corporation of London on the ground that no sufficient facility was given to the borough to establish its own market should it feel so disposed, and provided there was a necessity for it. They asked for the insertion of a clause to enable them to establish a market in the area of the county borough. The Corporation of London acquiesced to the extent that they put in a clause identical with that which was put in by the London County Council in their Spitalfields Market Bill. It would be well for the House to know that that clause clearly and distinctly provided that nothing contained in the Act or done under its powers should be taken to confer on the Corporation of London any right or power to prevent the establishment or holding of any market by the Corporation of West Ham within the county borough, or the acquisition or maintenance of any such market. Surely that was sufficient to meet all requirements. But, although the Corporation had displayed this generosity, the borough of West Ham was now asking Parliament to abrogate the Charter of Edward III. which constituted the Corporation of the City the market authority. That was to be done solely in the interests of West Ham, and, in face of the fact that a strong Select Committee had preserved that right to the City of London, as set forth in Section 141 of the Act of 1851. The chairman of that Committee stated 1429 in the report upon this Spitalsfields Market Bill of the London County Council that he wished it to be understood that this was not to be taken as a precedent, but merely that this particular market should be dealt with by the London County Council. It was a curious fact that the borough of West Ham did not bring a feather's weight of evidence to show that they ever had in contemplation the formation of any market, still less that they or any other portion of the community had ever been adversely affected by the action of the Corporation of the City of London as the market authority of the metropolis. Was it very hypothetical to suggest the possibility that perhaps West Ham was not the prime mover in this matter? He had his views as to who was behind this resolution.
§ *SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE
said that of course he accepted the hon. Member's disclaimer, but it might be possible there were others interested in this matter, and he would not be very much surprised if it was the London County Council itself, which, finding it had been refused by the Select Committee to be recognised as the market authority in the Spitalfields Market Bill, were making a stalking horse of this resolution, so that they might find it easier to coerce the House in regard to Bills which they might bring on hereafter. Something had been said about the antiquity of the City Charter. He failed to see how the antiquity of the House of Commons made it inefficient. The charter had been brought down to date, and the rights of the Corporation of the City of London had been specially reserved. A Select Committee of the House of Commons had clearly shown that they, at least, were not prepared to ask the House to set aside these rights by a side issue. He had shown that the City market authority had given West Ham everything necessary to make a market.
§ *SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE
said that the only question was the sanction of the 1430 market authority. He ventured to say that it was absolutely necessary that there should be a market authority within the metropolis to correct abuses, and the Corporation of London, through the long centuries of its past career, had, in its capacity as the market authority, in no single instance offered opposition to any market that was required for the benefit and happiness of the community. It was true that they opposed this market at Shadwell, but that was because, from their lengthened experience as market authority and of the business of markets, they believed that it was unnecessary. The justice of their contention was proved, for it had been a financial failure from its inception, as was bound to be the case. The only chance of making it a success was to hand it over to business men who had real practical experience of the management of markets.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said that the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed to labour under a misapprehension in regard to this question. He spoke as if West Ham was one of the London boroughs. That was ridiculous. West Ham was not, and never had been, any part of London. The object of the clause in the Bill was to allow the West Ham Corporation to carry on a market if they pleased, and, so far as he could judge, the Amendment moved from the other side of the House was necessary if the purpose of the clause was to be carried out.
*MR. ALEXANDER BROWN (Shropshire, Wellington)
said that he happened to be chairman of the Committee which considered the Spitalfields Market Bill, promoted in 1899 by the London County Council. The Committee passed the Bill, but put in a clause reserving the special rights of the City Corporation. It was, however, thrown out by the House of Lords. In 1900 the Bill was again brought in, and the same course was followed, and again it was lost in another place. This year the Bill came forward for a third time, and was fought in the Committee for a very considerable time on the old question of the market authority. The Committee decided, in view of the circumstances of the case and the facts mentioned by my hon. 1431 friend, that the authority in that case should be the London County Council, but they passed it with a reservation of the City's rights. Now came the Riverside market, proposed by the Bill to be acquired by the Corporation of London, and incorporated with the markets managed by them. The question the House had to decide was whether the charter of the City of London would be abrogated by the Bill in favour of West Ham. The Committee, after careful consideration of the rights of the City, came to the conclusion that in the Riverside Bill they would do exactly, and no more, what they had done in the Spitalfields Market Bill, to reserve the City's rights under their genera] charter. These rights amounted to very little. If a market was proposed to be set up in any of the London boroughs the City would have a locus standi to come before this House and say whether another power of market was necessary. There were many other considerations involved besides those affecting the borough of West Ham. He saw no particular reason why West Ham should be excepted from the rights of the City while the other boroughs were to be under the Bill. He thought the House would do the best thing by passing the Bill as it stood, and he could assure the House that the measure had been most carefully considered.
§ MR. CAINE (Cornwall, Camborne)
pointed out that the original clause intended to provide—that nothing in the Act shall prevent the establishment or holding of a market by the Corporation of West Ham.Surely the Corporation of West Ham ought to be protected in this way. The City Corporation came in by a side issue under a charter granted during the reign of King Edward III., and now they wanted to apply that to the time of King Edward VII. To take an old charter like that and apply it to West Ham, with a population something like six times as large as the population of London was when the charter was passed, was to his mind a monstrous thing. The hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken as if this proposal was one to abrogate the charter. He would remind the House that the proposal was only to 1432 abrogate the charter as far as West Ham was concerned. He sincerely hoped the House would support the hon. Member for North-West Ham in his efforts to protect the borough which he represented. He thought that the one speech which ought to induce the House to support the Amendment was that delivered by the hon. Member for the City of London, who said they had given West Ham everything that they needed. Why should they ask the City of London to give them everything they needed? They ought to come and ask Parliament for that. By preventing the establishment of suitable markets in the metropolis the Corporation of the City of London had practically raised the price of the food of the poor by something like 10 per cent. throughout the metropolis, and it was quite time that this House took every opportunity presented to it to bring about a better state of things, and the Corporation should be deprived of these ancient and practically obsolete rights which they endeavoured to exercise. It was a monstrous thing that the borough of West Ham, which was situated in another county altogether, and was not in the metropolitan area, should be deprived by the City of London of the right to build any markets they pleased. This was an opportunity, and he hoped there would be many others, of preventing these old charters being used in a most objectionable way.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith)
This is a Bill promoted by the Corporation of the City of London for buying up what has in the past proved to be a failure, and it has nothing whatever to do with West Ham. West Ham is not concerned in a riverside fish market. I fail to understand really what the locus standi of West Ham is.
§ MR. GRAY
explained that by this Bill the City pushed itself more to the east, and claimed the right not merely to continue a fish market, but also to hold a fruit and vegetable market. By the exercise of its right under the charter the City Corporation could prevent West Ham establishing a market of its own. Not content with this, the market in the future would come nearer to West Ham than ever it had done before.
*MR. J. W. LOWTHER
This proposal has reference only to a market within the City's own area, and I think the hon. Member for North-West Ham loses sight of the fact that West Ham is the intruder. West Ham seems to me to be taking this opportunity of putting its finger in the pie with a desire to get something out of this Bill. I confess that I have very grave doubts whether Clause 14 ought to be included in this Bill at all, for it does seem to me to be totally irrelevant to the subject matter of this Bill. However, it is there, and it has been accepted by the Corporation at the instance of the hon. Member's clients. It was not in the original Bill, and the petition presented by West Ham contained the very words of this clause. As a matter of fact, the City Corporation went out of their way to meet the Corporation of West Ham and practically said, "If you make this proposal we will accept it." They have put it in their Bill and there it is. Now the Corporation of West Ham come and ask for a great deal more. They now ask that, as far as West Ham is concerned, the City should once and for all tear up its ancient charter altogether. A good deal of ridicule has been poured upon this ancient charter of the City of London. I am not surprised at it from Benches opposite, but I am surprised when it comes from hon. Members sitting on these benches. This ancient charter has recently been before the House of Lords in a celebrated ease, and the House of Lords decided that the charter was good, and that until it was revoked by Parliament it has the effect of a local Act of Parliament. That being so, it seems to me that the Corporation of the City of London are justified in relying upon it, for it is a valuable and useful instrument to them, and I will show why. There was a case a short time ago in connection with the Great Eastern Railway Company who proposed to establish a market in the City of London, or somewhere in the neighbourhood of the City. They proposed
§ to make that market a tied market, but the City of London said, "No; under our charter we are entitled to veto any such market, and in the interests of the public we do veto it, because it is not a free market. If you make it a free market we are quite agreeable." The result was that the proposal of the Great Eastern Railway Company was dropped, very much to the advantage of the public. It is quite possible that on a future occasion West Ham will come forward with a proposal for a market; it may be a very proper proposal to make or it may not. West Ham will bring it before Parliament, and the only result of the charter will be that it will give to the Corporation of the City of London a locus to appear. I am pretty certain if on that occasion the Corporation of the City of London were to attempt, unreasonably, to withhold their consent to any such proposal coming from the Corporation of West Ham this House would very soon know how to deal with it. That is a matter for the future, and does not arise on this Bill. For these reasons I shall certainly support the decision of the Committee which inquired very carefully into this matter, and which seems to me to have given a very proper and right judgment upon it.
§ MR. CHARRINGTON (Tower Hamlets, Mile End)
was understood to say that as chairman of the Riverside Market he hoped the House would agree to the Bill. Quite apart from any merits or demerits of its own, but simply from the possibility of developing a trade which had now almost gone, he hoped the Bill would be adopted. That was all they wished to carry out, and it had nothing to do with West Ham. West Ham was miles away from the Riverside fish market, and they could have a market of their own at West Ham if they liked.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 126 Noes, 166. (Division List No. 183.)1435
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Bell, Richard||Buxton, Sydney Charles|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud.||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Caine, William Sproston|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Boland, John||Caldwell, James|
|Austin, Sir John||Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Burke, E. Haviland-||Carew, James Laurence|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Joyce, Michael||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Kearley, Hudson E.||Rea, Russell|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Labouchere, Henry||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Crean, Eugene||Leamy, Edmund||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Crombie, John William||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Cullinan, J.||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Roche, John|
|Daly, James||Levy, Maurice||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Lewis, John Herbert||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Delany, William||Lloyd-George, David||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Lough, Thomas||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lundon, W.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Dillon, John||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Donelan, Captain A.||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Kenna, Reginald||Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants.|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Elibank, Master of||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Strachey, Edward|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose||Sullivan, Donal|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Murphy, J.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Ffrench, Peter||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Norman, Henry||Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Tully, Jasper|
|Gladstone,Rt.HnHerbertJohn||O'Brien,Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid||Ure, Alexander|
|Hardie,J.Keir Merthyr Tydvil||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wallace, Robert|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Warr, Augustus Frederick)|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.||O'Dowd, John||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Horniman, Frederick John||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Malley, William||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Ernest Gray and Mr. Warner.|
|Joicey, Sir James||Partington, Oswald|
|Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)|
|Archdale; Edward Mervyn||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Cranborne, Viscount||Helder, Augustus|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Crossley, Sir Savile||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Denny, Colonel||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlts, S. Geo.||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Dickson, Charles Scott||Kimber, Henry|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Kitson, Sir James|
|Bignold, Arthur||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Law, Andrew Bonar|
|Bigwood, James||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Bill, Charles||Faber, George Denison||Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Fardell, Sir T. George||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Bowles, T Gibson (King's Lynn)||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Leng, Sir John|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane.||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Fisher, William Hayes||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)|
|Billiard, Sir Harry||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Campbell, Rt Hn J. A (Glasgow)||Furness, Sir Christopher||Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Galloway, William Johnson||Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Garfit, William||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'ml'ts||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Goschen, Hon. George J.||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Graham, Henry Robert||Malcolm, Ian|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds||Maple, Sir John Blundell|
|Chapman, Edward||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hain, Edward||Middlemore, John T.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Reid, James (Greenock)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Moon, Edw. Robert Pacy||Renwick, George||Valentia, Viscount|
|Mooney, John J.||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffi'ld|
|Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.||Rutherford, John||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.|
|Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Schwann, Charles E.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orknev|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Seely, Charles, Hilton (Lincoln).||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Ta'nt'n|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.|
|Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-|
|Parker, Gilbert||Simeon, Sir Barrington||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh, N.|
|Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East||Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Pemberton, John S. G.||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Percy, Earl||Spear, John Ward||Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Plummer, Walter R.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Stroyan, John||Younger, William|
|Purvis, Robert||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Randles, John S.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Joseph Dimsdale and Mr. Cohen.|
|Rankin, Sir James||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Thornton, Percy M.|
§ Bill to be read the third time.