§ (3.10.) MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)
intimated that he did not propose to proceed with his Motion for the rejection of the measure now, as it dealt with a large number of schemes other than the one to which he had to call attention, but he would ask permission after the Second Reading to move the Instruction which stood in his name.
§ Bill read a second time.
§ MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)
said the first Instruction on the Paper in regard to this Bill stood in his name, but as he willingly admitted his hon. friend the Member for East Marylebone could move it more effectively, he withdrew in his favour.
§ MR. BOULNOIS
then moved that it be an Instruction to the Committee to omit Tramway No. 7 (Victoria Embankment). He said he was only concerned with this particular clause of the Bill, which he might well describe as an emasculate measure, seeing that in consequence of the action of certain local authorities, many of the proposals of the London County Council had had to be dropped. The clause in question sought power to run tramway cars on tramway lines along the Victoria Embankment, and he would not have taken this action had it not been for the fact that owing to this road being under the sole control of the London County Council, the people of London generally had no locus standi before the Committee upstairs, and although they objected to this scheme, if this clause were not taken out this afternoon the measure would go forward as unopposed. The proposal to construct a tramway along the Embankment had been rejected nine times. It had been before the House for thirty years, and it was last before the House in 1898, when it was rejected by a very large majority. The scheme introduced then was a much more sensible one than the present, for it proposed to join the junction of the lines on the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge. The present scheme started from nowhere and led to nowhere. It started from the foot of the Houses of Parliament, and landed people at the foot of Blackfriars Bridge. He did not think this was really a desirable project. It was ridiculous to suppose that anybody on the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge who desired to go to Blackfriars Bridge would cross Westminster Bridge, 779 and take a tram along the Embankment. The Embankment was used for what might be called swift traffic. It was intended to relieve the congestion of the traffic along the Strand, and he had no doubt it had greatly had that effect, but if Parliament were to sanction a tramway scheme along the former, cabmen and coachmen would again resort to the latter, and the congestion there would become as bad as ever. With regard to what might be called the sentimental objection to the scheme, one of the few things of which the people of London had reason to be proud was the Thames Embankment. It was the finest boulevard of the kind in the world, and when the trees along it came to maturity, there would be nothing to compare with it in Spring and Summer. It was really used by the people as a recreation ground in the widest sense. The London County Council itself had done a great deal to beautify and adorn it; it kept it up in a very costly manner; it had created gardens in which bands played; it had put up a kiosk for refreshments. The enjoyment of those who used the Embankment would be destroyed by the everlasting clang of the gong and the grating of wheels attached to the trains. The beauty of the Embankment, too, would be greatly discounted by the hideous overhead wires. If a plebiscite of the inhabitants of London were taken he would undertake to say that there would be an overwhelming majority against this vandalism and vulgarity. He did not believe that a tramway on the Embankment was desired by the greater portion of the working classes. It would not solve in the slightest manner the problem of their transit from their dwellings to their work, and of their housing. The people of London, who, he believed, were generally against the scheme, could not appear on the Committee upstairs and have their views represented. He therefore asked the House to reject the clause in question by accepting the Instruction he now moved.
§ * SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)
in seconding the Instruction said he had for many years taken a great interest in this part of London. He was one of the Committee appointed by the House many years ago, who had 780 laid before them the various disputes in regard to the title and laying out of the estates between the House and Charing Cross Station, a duty which he believed that Committee accomplished very much to the satisfaction of the House at the time, and this led the way to the excellent series of gardens and other grounds by which the Embankment was embellished. The æsthetic qualities of the embankment were a source of considerable pride to all of them, and they gladly took their friends along the thoroughfare in order to show the vast improvements which had been effected since the time, he well remembered, when the site was nothing but a gravel and mud bed occupied by barges and small craft. He had no objection to an electric tramway in its proper place. In Glasgow they could see how well tramways might be conducted, and how convenient they were. But they were not ornamental, nor did they form part of a pleasure garden, and to lay a tramway along the Thames Embankment would, in his opinion, be an act of the grossest vandalism. The gardens and avenues in that neighbourhood were of great credit to the London County Council, and he could not understand how a body which had shown so much taste in that direction, could bring forward again and again such a proposal as that before the House. Members would for ever regret their action if they allowed the Embankment to be covered by that which was not an amenity, hardly useful in that situation, and certainly not required. He, therefore, seconded the proposed Instruction.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to omit Tramway No. 7 (Victoria Embankment)."—(Mr. Boulnois.)
§ (3.30.) MR. BARTLEY
said that tramways might not be very attractive things, but in London, with its narrow streets and congested traffic, they were—if one liked so to regard them—a necessary evil. If the question was whether London was suitable for tramways, he might be found amongst those who were doubtful on the point; but, things being as they were, if there was one thoroughfare in London suitable for such a line, it was the Thames Embankment, and he certainly failed to understand how such a tramway would ruin 781 the beauty of the gardens. The Embankment, as a rule, was very little occupied, and a service of trams would relieve the congestion of the Strand. Recognising that they must put up with the inconvenience of trams and omnibuses, it was really extraordinary that year after year the attempt should be made to prevent almost the only thoroughfare suitable for this mode of locomotion being so used. He acknowledged that the plan was not a very satisfactory one, as the line did not lead from or to anywhere, but it was rather hard to use that argument, seeing that Parliament had prevented the Council carrying out the proper scheme by running the lines across Westminster Bridge. In 1899, because he believed the proposal to be a most reasonable one, he supported the scheme for carrying the tramway over Westminster Bridge, and inasmuch as this was a step in that direction he could not oppose it. It was certainly a proposal which should go before a Committee for consideration, and he should, therefore, vote against the Instruction.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said the hon. Member for East Marylebone seemed not to have overcome his archaic objections to everything beyond the old-fashioned mail-coach. Underlying his speech was a desire to hark back to the days of Sam Weller, a desire which was incompatible with the need in London of rapid transit as a contribution towards the solution of the housing problem. He appealed to the House to dissociate itself from the antiquated views of the hon. Member. The Embankment, on account of its width, was perhaps the most suitable road in London for a tramway. Its average width, between the walls on either side, from Westminster to Blaek-frairs, was over 100 feet. That would permit of an electric tramway being worked, not by the overhead system of traction—as the County Council had decided against that—but by a noiseless system of conduit traction, with the electric contact between the two rails, unseen by anyone, thus doing away with the aesthetic objections piled up by the hon. Member on that hypothesis that the over hea trolley system was to be adopted. The Embankment had cost £2,000,000, and was relatively little used. No sensible bus proprietor, running between; Westminster and Charing Cross, would think of taking his buses along the 782 Embankment, with its macadamised roadway, when he could go along Parliament Street, with its wood-paving or asphalte, and consequently considerably less friction against the horses. The hon. Member for Marylebone had said that the 1898 scheme was better than the one before the House. But the House rejected that scheme, and since then many important things had happened. The County Council had acquired 48 miles of Tramway in North London, and intended to electrify it as soon as possible, for the present system of horse-traction in London was a scandal and reproach. The Council had also been granted powers to spend £6,000,000 on a new street from Holborn to the Strand, and they desired to link up the northern tramway system to a junction on the Victoria Embankment by a shallow tramway along the line of the new street, which the House had already sanctioned. The constituents of the hon. Member for North Islington would then be able, for a universal penny fare, to get from the Angel to the Embankment, listen to the band on a Summer evening, and return in the same way. It was believed that there would be sufficient passengers between Westminster and Blackfriars alone to make the line yield a profit to the ratepayers, and the Council hoped, as Parliament had sanctioned a shallow tramway from the Embankment to Theobald's Load, to be able to connect the northern tramways with the Embankment, and ultimately, with Parliamentary sanction, to complete the communication between North and South by carrying the lines over Westminster Bridge. The objection raised by the hon. Member for East Marylebone that the present proposal was not as good as that of 1898, in that it did not go over the Bridge, could soon be surmounted. If the hon. Member would withdraw his Instruction, and move another compelling the Council to carry the line over the Bridge, he, on behalf of the Council, would at once accept it. Unless the hon. Member did that, his objection would appear to be entirely based on the old-fashioned view that tramways were a nuisance.
As to the æsthetic objections, he agreed that the Embankment was one of the finest boulevards in the world. But everywhere, along the boulevards of 783 Paris, Berlin, Vienna, and Buda-Pesth, trams could be seen running at reasonable speed on the conduit system. The electric trams of Glasgow had been justly praised. If Glasgow had a road anything like the Thames Embankment, they certainly would have a tramway along it; and the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division would doubtless have praised them for looking after the ratepayers interests. As to the suggestion of vandalism, was it likely that a body which, since it had had control of the Embankment, had so dealt with it as to earn the encomiums which had been bestowed upon it, would vandalise that thoroughfare unless it was for the popular advantage? The hon. Member for East Marylcbone was hardly correct in saying the ratepayers had not been heard on this matter. The proper body, with all respect to Parliament, to determine whether or not there should be a tramway along the Embankment, was the body elected by the ratepayers for that particular purpose. Progressives and Moderates were practically unanimous in favour of the proposal. ["No."] The proof of that statement was to be found in the fact that two of the three names on the back of the Bill were those of Moderates. The Council were willing to defer to public opinion, if the tramway were sanctioned, as to whether the rails should be on each side of the roadway or in the centre. They did not want the Embankment to be occupied solely by people listening to the band, or by their electric tramways. They were willing to cater for the cab and carriage traffic, especially that which obtained between four and six o'clock in the afternoon, when there bowled along that thoroughfare from the city, stockbrokers and merchants, like the hon. Member for Peckham, in smartly-harnessed hansom-cabs, reminding him of Goldsmith's lines in "The Traveller"—Pride in their port, defiance in their eye. I see the lords of human kind pass by.After the tramway was constructed, there would still be forty feet left for cabs, motor-cars, bicycles, and so on; and in the interests of rapid Communication between North and South, and as an element in the solution of the housing problem, he appealed to the House to reject the proposed Instruction.
§ (3.48.) MR. BANBURY
said the hon. Member who had just sat down said the Embankment was comparatively little used for heavy traffic, but this was not so, because all the heavy traffic which did not require to stop in the Strand used the Embankment in passing from East to West and West to East. If he thought this tramway would be of any use to anyone, he would not oppose it; but no passengers desired to go along the Embankment to Black-friars Bridge. The only result of this Bill would be that the traffic over Black-friars Bridge, which was at the present time very heavy, would be made worse. With the underground railway, and the steamboats in the bummer, there were already ample facilities for travelling along the Embankment. If this tramway was agreed to, it would not be used, and it would entail a great and useless expense upon the ratepayers. The tramways always blocked up the road, and the consequence of this proposal would be that, instead of the light traffic passing along the Victoria Embankment to the different stations, it would be diverted to the Strand and Fleet Street, where blocks and stoppages were already too frequent. Those hon. Members who had supported this scheme had not given any reasons whatever to show why it was wanted, and it would not be of any advantage whatever to the people of South London.
* SIR J. DICKSON-POYXDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)
said that he was sorry to find himself at variance with the Member for Peckham upon this question. The argument that this tramway would disfigure the Embankment was not borne out by the experience of similar tramways in other places, and he did not consider that any reason whatever for rejecting this proposal. Because this tramway had been rejected nine times by the House of Commons, that was no reason why hon. Members should continue to reject it. He hoped the House would look at this question in a thoroughly impartial spirit and judge it from the actual facts before the House. The Victoria Embankment was the hiatus between the two great metropolitan tramway systems of North and South London. It had been estimated that no less than 476 785 omnibuses and 5,348 people passed over the three bridges per hour. It was not simply local traffic, but those people dispersed themselves all over London. It was well known that wherever they increased facilities for locomotion they always increased the number of the travelling public. As to the suggested alternative of constructing a subway, the London County Council considered that it would be very much cheaper to construct this tramway, because a subway would cost over £200,000. Upon these grounds he asked the House to consider this proposal in an enlightened spirit and look upon it as a comprehensive scheme for the general locomotion of London which would help to solve the housing problem.
§ MR. MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe)
said he should give his hearty support to the Bill. He had given his earnest attention to the development of electric power as applied to the rapid locomotion of the people since his introduction to that house of the "Lancashire Electric Power Bill," which was made a test case upon which the Durham and South Wales Electric Power Bills depended. This Bill being carried through both Houses of Parliament, gave an enormous impetus to all the electric power Bills then before the country and Parliament. He had witnessed the working of tramways in Budapest and other places on the Continent, and was greatly struck with the case and certainty with which they worked, but still more so, with the grace and beauty of their appearance, especially so in Budapest where most elegant tramcars, without the overhead trolly wires, wheeled all over I the city without in the least detracting from the unique charm of the surroundings. We had here, in England, very handsome electric tramcars—in Liverpool, and running from Shepherd's Bush to Ealing and Kew Gardens—so beautifully constructed and comfortably fitted up as to be nothing short of being the paradise of the poor man outside, and the palace of the poor man inside.
§ * SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)
said that from what fell from previous speakers, that was only an attempt to get over the bridges by a 786 side wind, and if once made, the argument would be used that it would only be effective by their use. Upon previous occasions this subject had been thoroughly threshed out, and it was stated that the engineer who built Westminster Bridge said it would not be strong enough to take the tramway traffic. At the present time the Victoria Embankment relieved the Strand traffic, but if the greater portion of the Embankment was taken up with this tramway the Strand would again be blocked with traffic. Before agreeing to the Instruction, the House should be assured that the bridges were sufficiently strong to carry the tramway traffic, and a comprehensive scheme should be brought before them.
§ (4.6.) MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.)
said that those who wished to solve the problem of the housing of the working classes failed to realise that the great object was to take population away from the centres, and not to bring it across the bridges to the middle of the city.
§ * MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)
said that he desired to call attention to a curious proceeding on the part of the County Council in this matter. The locus standi of the local authority before the Committee had been contested by the County Council. It was a remarkable fact, of which the House, which had passed a Bill to add to the dignity and powers of these local authorities should take note, that the local authority most affected by the proposal before the House should have been opposed by the County Council in its attempt to obtain a locus standi before the Committee. He therefore felt compelled to speak on behalf of the local authority of the city of Westminster, which was unanimously against the proposal. He thought one might obtain some light on this curious position of the London County Council and the locus standi of Westminster when they remembered that this very proposal of the County Council had generally been defeated by the opposition of the local authorities. On the merits of the case he did not think that any good reason had been shown for this act of vandalism on the Embankment. The County Council had over and over again brought before the House the proposition to run tramways over Westminster 787 Bridge, and on the last occasion it was defeated by a majority of 119. So, very ingeniously, the County Council turns the process round and begins at the other end. At present the tramways came to the south end of Westminster Bridge, and it was perfectly obvious that the real object of the County Council scheme was to get this tramway along the Embankment to this end of the bridge, in order then to say that it was only reasonable to connect the two points and bring them over the bridge. The hon. Member for Battersea had talked about connecting the North-East and the South-West of London. The real object was to run tramways where there was traffic—to the West End. When they got tramways over Westminster Bridge, the County Council wished to carry them up Northumberland Avenue, through Trafalgar Square, and along Piccadilly, Regent Street, and Victoria Street. He was somewhat surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea, because be was under the impression that he came down to the House to give up that part of the scheme on behalf of the County Council. He did not know what malign influence had changed his wiser intention. The case had been clearly proved that at present, so far as existing traffic was concerned, there was no demand for the proposed tramways along the Embankment, If the House wanted further proof, he could give it by this illustration. When the proposal to run tramways across Westminster Bridge was rejected in 1898 the County Council adopted what they considered a relief by starting their halfpenny buses.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
Oh, no ! The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. The buses had been running for many years before the County Council took them over.
§ * MR. BURDETT-COUTTS
asked the hon. Member whether, in order to serve the traffic which it was now claimed justified the present proposal, these 'buses were run along the Embankment when the County Council took them over.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
if the County Council had had power to run a tramway 788 from Westminster to Blackfriars it might have been unnecessary to have halfpenny buses at all.
§ * MR BURDETT-COUTTS
thought the House would see that the bon. Member had eluded his question. What he asked was whether the County Council having control of these buses over Westminster bridge, had realised this enormous demand for conveyance along the Embankment, and had turned them to the right and run them towards the City. No. The buses went by Charing Cross, and that was exactly where the County Council wanted to carry the tramways if they got this scheme. The hon. Member for Battersea came down to this House claiming to represent the masses. Was there no place in the economy of their lives for the beauty, quiet, and serenity of a popular boulevard like the Thames Embankment? With the exception of the parks, it was the only fine promenade they had in London. In conclusion, he earnestly hoped that the House would look beneath the surface of this proposal and consider what its real object was and what it would mean to the future of one of the greatest possessions of modern London.
§ LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)
said it seemed to him that it would be vandalism to cut up the Embankment with tramways. The hon. Member for Battersea had referred to Berlin and other capitals of Europe, but there was a public boulevard in Paris, which might be compared with the Thames Embankment, namely, the Champs Elysées, where the tramways did not run. Speaking as a country Member, he hoped that hon. Members would vote against this act of vandalism in London. He hoped there were some places still to be preserved in their beauty, and which were not to be exposed to the noise of tramways. Places like the Thames Embankment should be preserved intact, and kept from the spoiler and vulgariser who wished to introduce tramways.
§ (4.18.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 178. (Division List No. 123.).791
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Calloway, William Johnson||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Garfit, William||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn||Myers, William Henry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Graham, Henry Robert||Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Gunter, Sir Robert||Penn, John|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Hain, Edward||Percy, Earl|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Balcarres, Lord||Hanmiton, Rt Hn LordG (Midd'x||Pilkmgton, Lieut.-Col. Richard|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Hammond, John||Plummer, Waiter R.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manenr||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Hardy, Lanrence (Kent, Aslif'rd||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Purvis, Robert|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Banes, Major George Edward||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.||Randles, John S.|
|Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)||Heaton, John Henniker||Rankin, Sir James|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Helder, Augustus||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Big-wood, James||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Blake, Edward||Higginbottom, S. W.||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Bond, Edward||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Hope, J. E. (Sheffield, Brightside||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)||Horner, Frederick William||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Cumpbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg'w||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Round, James|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire||Kenyon-Slaney, Col W.(Salop)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Knowles, Lees||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Scote, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Lawson, John Grant||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r||Leveson-Gower. Erederick N. S.||Simeon, Sir Harrington|
|Chapman, Edward||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Codding, on, Sir William||Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Valentra, Viscount|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Dixon-Hartlaud, Sir Fr'd Dixon||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Doriagton, Sir John Edward||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinliurghW||Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Birm|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||M'Laren, Charles Benjamin||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Malcolm, Ian||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Mey-ey-Tliomp-on, Sir H. M.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boulnois and Sir Joseph Pease.|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Miiddlemore, J'hn Throgmorton|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon||Mitchell, William|
|Flower, Ernest||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Caine, William Sproston||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Caldwell, James||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Cameron, Robert||Delany, William|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Austin, Sir John||Causton, Richard Knight||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Cawley, Frederick||Dillon, John|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Doogan, P. C.|
|Bell, Richard||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Edwards, Frank|
|Bignold, Arthur||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Ediot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Boland, John||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Ellis, John Edward|
|Brook Held, Colonel Montagu||Crean, Eugene||Emmott, Alfred|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Cremer, William Randal||Evans, Sir FrancisH (Maidstone|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Crombie, John William||Farquharson, Dr. Robert|
|Burns, John||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Fenwick, Charles||Macdona, John Cumming||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Fergussom, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane'r||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Robert-on, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Macneill, John Gordon Swift||Roche, John|
|Field, William||Macveagh, Jeremiah||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||M'Cann, James||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Flynn, James Christopher||M'Govern, T.||Runciman, Walter|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Russell, T. W.|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||M'Kean, John||Scott, Chas. (Prestwich, Leigh)|
|Gilhooly, James||M'Kenna, Reginald||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Markham, Arthur Basil||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||Massey-Mainwaring,Hn. W. E.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Mather, William||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Mooney, John J.||Soames, Arthur (Wellesley)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Murphy, John||Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Norman, Henry||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'nN|
|Holland, William Henry||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Thomson, E. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Horniman, Frederick John||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Wallace, Robert|
|Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Jones, William C'rnarvonshire||O'Dowd, John||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Maliey, William||Weir, James Galloway|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||White, Luke (York, E R.)|
|Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Lambert, George||Parker, Gilbert||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Langley, Batty||Partington, Oswald||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Law, Andrew Bonar||Paulton, James Mellor||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Leamy, Edmund||Pirie, Duncan V.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Power, Patrick Joseph||Young, Samuel|
|Lens, Sir John||Price, Robert John||Younger, William|
|Levy, Maurice||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Rea, Russell|
|Lloyd-George, David||Reddy, M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir John Dickson-Poynder and Mr. Lough.|
|Lundon, W.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison||Rigg, Richard|