HC Deb 03 July 1902 vol 110 cc759-75
*(9.0.) SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

, in moving that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re-committed Bill to consider their decision upon the preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House, except in so far as the same relates to Railway No. 1, said that so far as the action of the Committee was concerned he had no criticism whatever to make. He had no doubt that action was taken after full consideration of the facts, and hearing of evidence, and therefore it was not his intention for one moment to question that decision. He was now asking the House to reconsider the unopposed portion of the Bill and to except the opposed portion, which he admitted was an exceptional course for the House to adopt. He did not wish to weary the House with a long history of this matter, which, related to a bridge that connected Kent with the Isle of Sheppey. It was considered that the time had arrived when the bridge should be substituted by another. The Company lost their Bill, but, so far as the bridge was concerned, time was of great moment, and the Company, immediately on losing their Bill, placed the matter in the hands of Sir Benjamin Baker, the eminent engineer, who had advised that, with the aid of an engineering invention which had come from America, the old bridge could be removed and a new one put in its place with the minimum disturbance of traffic. He would, therefore, like the whole matter referred back to the Committee this session, with the one reservation that they should be allowed at once to renew this old bridge, and not have to wait for the sanction of Parliament. With regard to the opposed part being recommitted, he was quite prepared to leave that to the House. He asked for the recommittal of the unopposed part, which was a matter of vital importance to the Company and the traffic of the Company, which was a matter in which the House was interested, inasmuch as when they sanctioned the amalgamation of the two Companies they insisted on the expenditure of a large amount for widening the lines and the improvement of the traffic. Since then the Company had spent £2,000,000 in making improvements to carry out these obligations.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the recommitted Bill to reconsider their decision upon the Preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House, except in so far as the same relates to Railway No. 1."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)

*MR. DE TATTON EGERTON (Cheshire, Knutsford)

, as chairman of the Committee which considered this question, said he did not, unfortunately, read the Report, which was an omission upon his part; but the decision arrived at by the Committee was that the preamble as a whole was proved, subject to the inclusion of a clause to carry out the compromise already offered to the railway company. That gave rise to the question as to whether the chairman of the Commiteee had a right to take the preamble of an omnibus Bill as a whole. The whole matter was submitted to the officers of the House, who placed it before the Committee, with the result that the Committee adhered to its decision. Counsel on behalf of the railway company then refused to accept the proviso on behalf of the company, and laid a trap for him (Mr. de Tatton Egerton) by saying, "Then the preamble is not proved." He, unfortunately, agreed, but he should have read and revised the Report had he done his duty. The Bill was divided into two parts, one opposed and one unopposed. With regard to Railway No. 1, which was the subject of this Instruction, that had reference to the renewal of a bridge across the Swale. That bridge, when originally sanctioned in 1856, was a swing bridge open to all craft, but in 1861 further powers were given, which restricted the traffic to those vessels which had masts which could not be taken down. Since that time the traffic had increased enormously. According to the evidence brought before the Committee, no loss than 12,000 journeys a year were made by barges carrying 800,000 tons of commodities to and from the manufacturers in Milton Creek; and evidence came before the Committee of the damage accruing to these craft in getting under the closed bridge. The railway company, having the power of restricting the opening of the bridge to barges not lowering their masts, carried it to a very fine point indeed. It was practically impossible for barges with deck loads to lower their masts, but because they could, on occasion, lower them, the bridge would not be opened to them. In 1898 the bridge was absolutely closed to all traffic; and since then the railway company were perfectly satisfied to buy out all those who had a right to use the bridge. The railway company knew that the bridge would have to be renewed, but they took no steps to come to Parliament at all until the Milton Creek Conservancy took the matter up. Even then the railway company did not bring in a Bill to replace the bridge as it existed under the Bill of 1856 as amended by the Bill of 1861; but tried to obtain a fixed bridge in 1900 and having an injunction served on them, they came to Parliament this year with an omnibus Bill, and quietly asked the House to sanction the new bridge on the terms they obtained without challenge in the Bill of 1861. The Committee unanimously passed the preamble of the Bill, with a proviso that the railway company should have absolute priority of the right to keep the bridge closed; that the bridge should never be opened for more than twenty minutes at any one time; and that half the cost of keeping a man night and day to open the bridge, and half the cost of the electricity for opening and shutting it, was to be paid by the local conservancy. The Committee thought that the compromise was one which the railway company might accept. The company never attempted to show to the Committee that it was impossible for them to carry it out; and the Committee were perfectly satisfied that they had a right to retain that proviso as a portion of the Bill which the company had to accept. The company did not choose to accept it, and the Committee accordingly felt that they were not justified in passing the preamble of the Bill.


said he considered the matter at issue a very simple one. The Committee had to consider an omnibus Bill, which contained, among other things, a clause with reference to the rebuilding of a certain bridge. He did not intend to pronounce any opinion as to whether the Committee were right or wrong in the course they adopted with regard to that particular bridge. He did not feel bound, nor would he be justified in forming an opinion, and he would assume that the Committee were perfectly right. But, in addition to the Swale bridge, which, no doubt, occupied the greater part of the attention of the Committee, there were other matters in the Bill, the preamble relating to which was proved in due form. What eventually happened, according to the hon. Member, was that he intended to pass the preamble of the Bill, and that it was really the fault of counsel for the promoters that he threw it out. He did not think that the hon. Member was justified in suggesting that counsel laid a trap for him. He would quote a few sentences from the shorthand notes of the proceedings— The CHAIRMAN: The preamble of the Bill will stand or fall as a whole. Therefore, the Chairman himself was the first person who used the words "as a whole." Then Mr. Littler said that as the Bill was to stand or fall as a whole, they would be prepared to strike out of the Bill the clause or clauses relating to Swale bridge. Then the Chairman replied— The preamble of the Bill will be taken as a whole, and you had better consult your principals, and see us on another day. On the final occasion the Chairman said— The Committee have had the benefit of the advice of the officers of the House, and they stand by their decision.


said that that was revised.


said that that looked as if the Committee had consulted the officers of the House, who had confirmed their opinion. What was said, however, was, as was suggested by the hon. Member, that the Committee had consulted the officers of the House, "but" they stand by their decision. Mr. Littler on that occasion said— I understand the decision of the Committee to be that, not with standing that the unopposed portion of the Bill has been proved, you will find the preamble has not been proved. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we take the preamble as a whole. MR. LITTLER: Then the whole preamble is not proved. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, the whole preamble. He ventured to say that the Committee in that matter had fallen into an error. The proper course would have been to have said that the preamble, as far as it related to the Swale Bridge, was not proved. It seemed to him that it was impossible to say that the preamble relating to other matters was not proved, because it was proved, and clearly proved, and the Chairman of the Committee stopped counsel from proceeding with it because he said he was satisfied. He was concerned on behalf of omnibus Bills generally. It was perfectly obvious that if railway companies and corporations had to introduce every one of their proposals as a separate Bill the cost would be gigantic, the mass of documents which the House would have to struggle through would be piled mountains high, and the whole system, which had worked effectively and well, would be destroyed. He was sure the House would not desire to do that. As far as he had been able to search the records of the, House, there was no precedent for the action of the Committee. For these reasons he thought it was desirable that the House should accept the Instruction, and he thought the Committee, on consideration, would see that the proper course to take would be to report to the House as proved the portions of the Bill that really were proved, and to reject that portion of the Bill which in their opinion should not be passed. He wished to repeat that he expressed no opinion on the decision of the Committee with reference to the Swale bridge.

(9.40.) MR. T.F.C.E. SHAW (Stafford)

said he thought there were one or two points which the House should bear in mind in dealing with the question. Promoters had many advantages with reference to omnibus Bills; but it was never intended that highly contentious matter should be included in them. In 1861 a Bill was brought in, called the Sittingbourne and Sheerness Increase of Capital Bill, and the promoters slipped into it a clause whereby the freedom of the public was very materially abrogated, and the railway company obtained a practical monopoly of the waterway. That continued until 1889, when the bridge was regarded as unsafe. Then the railway company, in defiance of its statutory obligations, closed the river traffic in its entirety. The traders of the district protested, but the railway company disregarded all the protests laid before them, until the Milton Creek Conservancy took action. When proceedings were threatened, the railway company came, to Parliament for powers to build a new bridge, and the question was decided by the House of Lords without hearing the traders of the district or the Milton Creek Conservators. When the Bill came before the House of Commons Committee, the railway company endeavoured to rule the Milton Creek Conservancy out of order, as they had succeeded in doing in the other House. But the Court of Referees decided that the Committee to which the Bill was referred should hear the Conservancy and the traders of the district. The Committee spent many anxious days in considering the matter. The Chairman and the Committee proposed a clause which was in the nature of a compromise as between the rights of the public and the desires of the railway company, and counsel for the company refused to accept it, and gave no reasons whatever for that course. The statement that the Committee had exceeded their rights was not in accordance with the facts; as counsel to Mr. Speaker was of opinion that the Committee were entirely within their rights in the action they had taken, although it was without precedent. He wished to know whether Committees of this House were always to be governed by precedent, or whether in times of commercial stress, when it was desirable that their waterways should be absolutely free, Committees were not to exercise some amount of judgment and common sense. The railway company did not in any way endeavour to meet the difficulty. Counsel for the company practically said that they did not care for the public or for the Committee, that they would fall back in their rights and build a new bridge over the old bridge. He maintained that as the company had broken their statutory obligations, the Committee were right in penalising them—he used the word deliberately—to the extent of refusing their omnibus Bill. After that decision was given, it was suggested that a compromise might be effected by the Committee passing the rest of the Bill, the company on their part undertaking not to build a new bridge over the old bridge without coming to Parliament. He thought that would meet with a favourable reception from the Committee, but the company, believing that they were strong enough in this House, refused it. He trusted that the House would endorse the decision of the Committee.


said the debate was of an unprecedented character. He had searched the records of the House, arid he could not find any precedent for the action of the Committee in refusing to pass the preamble of a omnibus Bill. There had been cases where the preamble had not been proved, but they were totally different from the case now before the House. One case occurred in 1836, when the members of the Committee were themselves divided; but he understood that, in the present case, the decision of the Committee was unanimous, and he had no doubt that the House would give the greatest attention to it. The hon. Member opposite stated that it was never intended that contentious matter should be introduced into omnibus Bills, but in his experience he found that omnibus Bills very frequently dealt with most contentious matter. While the House should pay great attention to the decision of the Committee, they should be very careful. They should not in any way interfere with the conduct of private Bill business or with the freedom and independence of the Committees to whom were entrusted the responsibility of considering private Bills. His hon. friend the Chairman of the Committee showed that he and the Committee believed that there were certain matters in connection with the Bill which the House ought to know; and they believed that the best way of carrying that out was to adopt the course they did. Therefore, the House ought to give the Committee every credit for taking an exceptional course, when they thought that course was the best means of bringing certain matters before the House. He was very anxious, whatever decision might he arrived at, that it should not be supposed that they did not fully realise the responsibility of the Chairman and of the Committee; for it would be a serious thing indeed if it were to be concluded that all the Clauses in an omnibus Bill which were not opposed should be passed without consideration by the Committee. The Committee was responsible for every Clause in the Bill, even though there was no petition against it. Even where no petition was presented there might be reports from Government offices, and also the financial arrangements for carrying out the scheme, to be considered. while he felt that the Committee were justified in the course they had taken, he was sorry that they had not taken the course suggested by the Chairman of Committees, and omitted the Clause about which there was a dispute, or, better still, put in the Clause they wanted counsel to accept and let the House decide. The system of omnibus Bills was of very great importance to the House, and it would be a serious thing if any decision of the House rendered it more difficult than it now was for public bodies to promote such Bills. Of course, circumstances might occur which would render it absolutely necessary for a Committee to refuse to pass the preamble of a Bill, and circumstances might also occur which would justify the action which had been taken in the present case. But it seemed to him that the Committee should have no objection to the Instruction, as it appeared to carry out the very views expressed by his hon. friend. The House by passing the Instruction would confirm the decision of the Committee that there was something unsatisfactory with reference to particular Clauses which required further consideration. The House would in effect say that they agreed with the decision of the Committee with reference to such Clauses, but that they asked them to reconsider the unopposed portions of the Bill. There was no necessity to have a division of opinion in such a matter, and if his hon. friend and the other members of the Committee were satisfied with that view, he thought the instruction might be unanimously agreed to.


said he agreed that there was no need for a division of opinion on the matter. The first question was whether there was any need at all to fetter the discretion of the Committee, and, on general principles, it appeared to him that there was not. The second question was whether there was any utility in the Instruction at all, as it was the duty of the Committee when a Bill was recommitted to reconsider the whole of the preamble, and, therefore, it appeared to him that the Instruction would be of no value, although it would be a slight on the Committee to pass it. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Instruction set a most excellent example by announcing his intention of not taking part in any division, a course which he trusted would be followed by other Members who were railway directors.

(10.0.) MR. RENSHAW (Renfrewshire, W.)

said that after the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Norwich he was in great hope that the Instruction would be accepted without a division. During the ten years he had been in the House he had invariably supported the decisions of Committees, and it was a matter of the greatest regret that hon. Members should be asked to divide on a question which was of the greatest importance as regarded their system of private Bill legislation. The details with reference to the Swale bridge had nothing to do with the question at issue, which was a question of procedure with regard to private Bill legislation. Omnibus Bills were of great importance, not only to hon. Members, b, t to railway companies and corporations; but if promoters were to be penalised, as the hon. Member opposite stated, because a Committee took an adverse view with regard to one particular part of the Bill, it would practically be the end of the system. He did not believe that an hon. Gentleman with the long and ripe experience of his hon. friend the Member for the Knutsford Division would desire such a change. He deprecated the discussion of the merits of the Swale bridge. What the House was asked to decide was whether they would or would not estab- lish a new treatment for omnibus Bills. That was the issue, and he hoped that even at the last moment his hon. friend the Member for Knutsford would accept the Instruction.

* MR. MANSFIELD (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

said there were certain facts admitted, and certain facts disputed in the case. The facts admitted were that in 1856 a certain bridge was erected across the Swale river on condition that it was to be open to all traffic. In 1861, in a Bill not ostensibly for the purpose, powers were obtained to shut the bridge against all vessels the masts of which could be lowe ed. The facts not admitted were that that new condition constituted a great hardship and that the lowering of the masts was a great danger to life and property. The railway company did not agree with this statement and witnessed the damage which was being inflicted without any compunction at all. The point that now had to be considered was whether the Committee were within their right in refusing to pass the preamble unless they passed it as a whole. The Committee, of which he was a member, were told by the law officers that they were within their right in doing so, although there was absolutely no precedent for the course they had adopted. But a precedent had to be made some time or another, and they considered that this was a case in which it ought to be made. After all, the Committee did only what the House did a year or two ago. A Bill was promoted by the London and North Western Railway Company, nine-tenths of which was undisputed matter; but it was refused by the House because they did not agree with the company with reference to the re-housing of the dishoused people. On that occasion they heard very little about the sacred rights of omnibus Bills; and, therefore, all the arguments they had heard tonight fell to the ground. It might be asked why the Committee had refused that part of the Bill which was unopposed. It was because they saw on the part of the company a disposition to wriggle. The Committee suggested a compromise, but it was rejected scornfully and even menacingly; and it was suggested that they would get over the difficulty by building a bridge on the present site. When, therefore, the Committee saw a disposition on the part of the company to circumvent their wishes, they decided to let the preamble stand or fall as a whole. The hon. Member for Norwich suggested that the members of the Committee should have really no fault to find with the Instruction; but he, as a member of the Committee, had great fault to find with it. If the House put aside the decision arrived at by a Committee, Committees would be much less in favour with hon. Members than they were at present. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford said that he had carefully abstained from speaking to Members on the subject, and he regretted that the railway company for whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke had not adopted the same course. There had been very systematic and thorough lobbying on the question. He himself had been asked to vote for the Motion. [An HON. MEMBER: By whom?] He did not take the trouble to inquire, but simply replied, as a member of the Committee he was the wrong man to approach. He hoped the House would stand by the Committee and not pass a Motion which would be practically a vote of censure on it.

sir JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire, Honiton)

said he desired to entirely repudiate the suggestion just made by the hon. Member that there was any idea of censuring the Committee. He fully believed that the Committee went into the matter with an earnest desire to do what was right both to the railway company and to the traders in the locality; and he was very glad that there had been no attempt to discuss the details of the question. The House entrusted large powers to its Committees, it reposed great confidence in them, and it was very unwilling to disturb their decisions. At the same time it was right that there should be an appeal to the House when new precedents were created, and there was a possibility of injustice being done. The present was a case in which not only would extreme injustice be done to a railway serving important interests, but great in- convenience inflicted on the public. The Committee were apparently of opinion that some twenty years ago the company secured advantages which it was not to the public interest they should retain, and that the present was an opportunity of obliging them to disgorge their plunder. But the question was whether the company had broken their statutory obligations, and, as far as he could gather, they had not. He thought it was a matter for a fair compromise, and he hoped the Chairman of the Committee would see his way to accept the Instruction. The Committee would then be able to reconsider the question, to pass the preamble so far as the uncontentious matters were concerned, and, if they thought fit, insert a clause dealing with the Swale Bridge. The House would then be able to reject that Clause if they considered it not in the public interest.


reminded the right hon. Baronet that the Committee were willing to pass the preamble of the Bill if a Clause such as he had suggested were inserted, but the company refused to accept the compromise. This matter realised a very important principle. In his view, when a railway company came to the House for extended facilities and privileges, it was not only the right but the duty of the Committee to inquire into all the circumstances of the case. As far back as 1856 and 1861 this company was bound to provide free navigation along this arm of the sea. It existed until 1899 when the bridge was closed. In 1900, proceedings were taken against the company, and the company promised to apply to Parliament for power to build a better bridge. In 1901, when they pretended to fulfil that promise, they asked for a fixed bridge, which was of no use whatever. Proceedings were at present pending against the company, and it was a somewhat high handed proceeding on their part to ask the House of Commons practically to defeat the Conservators in their action. The Committee was simply asking the company to carry out a statutory obligation fifty years old, and he hoped they would be supported by the House.

(10.30.) MAJOR RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)

said he should vote against the Bill with much regret but great alacrity. In his opinion, the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company was the worst managed line running out of London. The company had not carried out the promise made for them by their sponsors four years ago, when the amalgamation was permitted. The line also was the worst offender in the kingdom in the matter of differential and preferential rates for agricultural produce. Parliament did not give these great corporations a monopoly of the carrying trade in order that they might penalise the home producer and bolster up the foreigner. For these reasons he should vote against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and, as the agricultural interest was very seldom able to show its hand in the House, he hoped every agricultural Member would do his duty by going into the same Lobby.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

said his only interest in this matter was that of having been chairman of the Referees who decided against the company on a preliminary point. They decided that the barge-owners and the Conservators were entitled to be heard with regard to the construction of the bridge, and he was quite prepared to believe that the Committee were right in acceding to the views which were urged. But that was not the point now before the House. The issue was as to whether or not the system of omnibus Bills was to be continued. It had been argued that if the Committee differed from the promoters, and sought to impose a condition which the promoters were unwilling to accept, the Committee were entitled to use the threat that unless the condition were accepted they would throw out, not merely the part of the scheme to which the condition related, but the whole of the Bill. That he contended was not the function of the Committee. The Committee was a judicial body, and was bound to go into the various points and give a judicial decision upon them. The House was in an entirely different position, and was fully entitled to look into all the circumstances of the case, and if it thought the company were not fit to be entrusted with further privileges, to reject the scheme. But the only excuse which would justify a Committee in taking that course would be some gross breach of faith on the part of the promoters, and there was no such suggestion in the present case. If the decision of the Committee were upheld, a railway company would be bound to break up its omnibus Bills into a dozen pieces, and submit each one separately. The present system was most convenient not only to the promoters, but also to the House, and should be maintained. He believed the additional power claimed by the Committee, and for which no precedent whatever could be found, would lead to mischievous and far-reaching consequences, and therefore he hoped the Instruction would be accepted.

MR. BRYNROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)

challenged the distinction drawn by the hon. Member between the powers and duties of the House and of the Committee in this matter. The duties and powers of both, whether they were called judicial or not, were identical. The question refereed to the Committee was the expediency of granting further powers to a company, and to that every consideration was germane, and the discretion of the Committee was as unfettered as that of the House. The issue before the House was not that of whether the system of omnibus Bills should be continued. That question would have been affected if no alternative had been offered by the Committee to the promoters. But the Committee offered to pass the whole scheme subject to one alternative, and the company preferred the rejection. It was generally admitted that the proposal of the Committee was a desirable one, and the only question before the House was as to the method by which it could be made a part of the law. Although the Committee had power to enforce this they had not done so because nobody had done the same thing before. The illustration given of the London and North Western Railway Company was identically on all fours with this. It involved outlays in Wales and in different parts of England, but the Committee were dissatisfied with the proposal for the housing of the working classes in the London scheme alone, and the company were willing to withdraw the whole London scheme just as this company was prepared to withdraw the scheme to which he had alluded. The precedent had been created by this House, and although he voted against that precedent before he should adopt it now. He accepted then the decision that this House and its Committees had a right to take the scheme as a whole and enforce legitimate and

proper reforms upon a recalcitrant railway company.

(10.45.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 169; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 263.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E) Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) O'Malley, William
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex.F. Gore, Hon. S.F Ormsby-(Line. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Goulding, Edward Alfred Palmer, George Wm.(Reading
Anstruther, H. T. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry Parker, Sir Gilbert
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Grenfell, William Henry Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Arrol, Sir William Gretton, John Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Hain, Edward Pemberton, John S. G.
Baird, John George Alexander Hall, Edward Marshall Penn, John
Baldwin, Alfred Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lond G (Mid'x Perks, Robert William
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard
Banbury, Frederick George Harris, Frederick Leverton Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir MichaelHicks Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Pretyman, Ernest George
Bignold, Arthur Haslett, Sir James Horner Purvis, Robert
Bigwood, James Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale- Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Bill, Charles Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Reid, James (Greenock)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. Richards, Henry Charles
Bond, Edward Helder, Augustus Rickett, J. Compton
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Henderson, Sir Alexander Ridley, Hn.M.W.(Stalybridge)
Brassey, Albert Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Carlile, William Walter Higginbottom, S. W. Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hoare, Sir Samuel Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Causton, Richard Knight Hogg, Lindsay Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cavendish. V. C. W.(Derbysh. Hornby, Sir William Henry Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Horner, Frederick William Runciman, Walter
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hoult, Joseph Rutherford, John
Chamberlain, J. Aust.(Worc'r) Houston, Robert Paterson Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Clive, Captain Percy A. Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cochrane, Hn. Thos, H. A. E. Johnston, William. (Belfast) Simean, Sir Barrington
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Johnstone, Hevwood (Sussex) Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Keswick, William Spear, John Ward
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Cranborne, Viscount Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Stock, James Henry
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Tollemache, Henry James
Dalkeith, Earl of Llewellyn, Evan Henry Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dickson, Charles Scott Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Valentia, Viscount
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lowther, RtHn J W (Cum. Penr. Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Loyd, Archie Kirkman Warde, Colonel C. E.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowesteft Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Man. Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund. Lyuo
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Macartney, Rt Hn W.G. Ellison Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Finch, George H. MacIver, David (Liverpool) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.
Fisher, William Hayes M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edmburgh W Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Fison, Frederick William M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh. Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-
Flannery, Sir Forteseue Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Wylie, Alexander
Fletcher, Kt. Hon. Sir Henry Morrell, George Herbert Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Flower, Ernest Morrison, James Archibald Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Forster, Henry William Morton, ArthurH.A.(Deptf'rd)
Furness, Sir Christopher Mount, William Arthur TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gardner, Ernest Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute Dr. Farquharson and Mr.
Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Renshaw.
Gordon, Hn.J.E(Elgin & Nairn Nicol. Donald Ninian
Allan, Sir William(Gateshead) Hayden, John Patrick O'Mara, James
Allan, Chas. P.(Glouc., Stroud Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Chas, H. O'Shee, James John
Allhasen, Augustus Hry. Eden Horniman, Frederick John Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Barlow, John Emmott Howard, John(KentFaversham Percy, Earl
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Jones, William(Carnarv'nshire Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Black, Alexander William Joyce, Michael Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Boland, John Kearley, Hudson K. Reddy, M.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Labouchere, Henry Redmond, William (Clare)
Burke, E. Haviland- Langley, Batty Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Burns, John Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Caldwell, James Leamy, Edmund Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Lloyd-George, David Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Cawley, Frederick Lough, Thomas Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Lundon, W. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Channing, Francis Allston MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Spencer, RtHnC.R.(Northants
Churchill, Winston Spencer MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Strachey, Sir Edward
Cremer, William Randal MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sullivan, Donal
Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Delany, William M'Govern, T. Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. M'Kean, John Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Wallace, Robert
Donelan, Captain A. Mooney, John J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Doogan, P. C. Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)
Duncan, J. Hastings Moulton, John Fletcher Weir, James Galloway
Dunn, Sir William Murphy, John Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Edwards, Frank Nannetti, Joseph P. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nussey, Thomas Willans Wood, James
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'rary Mid
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Mr. Charles Shaw and
Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Connor. James(Wicklow, W. Mr. Mansfield.

Now that this; Instruction has been passed, the other Motions standing in the name of the hon. Member for Woodbridge will not be in order.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re committed Bill to reconsider their decision upon the Preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House, except in so far as the same relates to Railway No. 1.

Forward to