HC Deb 05 June 1902 vol 108 cc1618-35

As amended, considered.

(9.0.) MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

said the new clause which he proposed to move was in connection with the Subways and Tramways Bill of the London County Council. The ostensible and primary object of the Bill was to enable a subway to be made under the new street to be made from Theobald's Road to the Strand. Nobody could take any exception to such a proposal as that; on the contrary, London Unionist Members were very glad to see that the County Council were proposing to make this subway. It was a good and thoughtful proposal to relieve surface traffic, and they were glad to see the experiment made. Therefore, the Bill was allowed to pass its Second Reading without opposition. The Bill also enabled the subway to be prolonged as a tramway on to the surface of the Embankment by the Savoy. The Tramways Bill had also been passed, which sanctioned the building of a tramway on the Embankment between Waterloo and Westminster, and the junction of this with the tram from Theobald's Road; and there was no doubt this was part of a big scheme to connect and link up the trams in North London with those of South London by means of a tramway over both Westminster Bridge and over Black friars Bridge. He had stated these facts in order to justify the somewhat unusual course of asking the House to reverse the decision of the Select Committee. He would be the last person, under ordinary circumstances, to ask the House to reverse their decision, but the Committee had had to deal with particular evidence given in the particular cases dealt with by these two Bills as they stood, while in reality the proposals of the two Bills were but a part of a much larger scheme. He submitted that upon this question they should take a large view of the matters involved, and not a narrow view based upon evidence given with regard to particular proposals. The scheme as a whole was one to give facilities for locomotion between North and South London, and if it was possible to give those facilities without having a tramway running down the Embankment, there could be no doubt that that would be the most desirable course. If it was necessary for the convenience of the public that a tramway should run down the Embankment, he did not suggest that they should in any way prevent it; but if it could be shown that the embankment was not wanted for any tramway system then it would be most desirable to keep it as an alternative route for lighter and more rapid traffic. He contended that the underground and tube railways already sanctioned or about to be sanctioned would supply the most efficient arterial communication between the north and the south. And until a powerful Committee had reviewed this large alternative as a whole, he should ask the House to prevent the Embankment being used by a circuitous tram-line. He did not want to interfere with the proper provision of communication between the north and south of London. He was not, however, convinced that this scheme was the most satisfactory that could be adopted to secure that end. He held that they could not bring two lines of tramways along the Embankment without impairing its utility as an alternative route to the City.

New Clause (Southern Limit of Tramways) (Mr. Whitmore), brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W)

said it seemed to him quite clear that the House must set aside most of the arguments of the hon. Gentleman in support of the new clause, and confine itself to the one point; whether the House was to re-affirm or reverse the decision of the Select Committee. It was all very well for the hon. Member to indulge in ingenious conundrums, and ask the House not to sanction the scheme unless it was satisfied that this was the best way of establishing communication between North and South London, but that was a question it was quite impossible to decide at the moment. London would no doubt want tubes in the future; at the present time it wanted a tramway-down the Embankment. The lines referred to over Black friars and Westminster Bridges were not in the Bill at all. The tube connecting Islington with South London did not in the least remove the necessity of this proposal already sanctioned by the House. The question the House had to consider was whether the best boulevard in London would be ruined by this tramway. They had considered that question for nine years, and eventually had come to the view held by the Municipality of London that it would not. It was wrong in the case of London for the House to make exceptions that they did not make in the case of other towns. He considered that it was a shameful waste of the public time that the House should be called upon again to discuss a question it had already twice decided, and, in his opinion, if the House did not cease acting in this way as a kind of wet nurse to the London County Council, great injury would result to London. The suggestion of the hon. Member was that the House should interfere in the work of the London County Council. The works of taste and high art which the London County Council had already been responsible for along the Embankment surely should be a perfect answer to anyone who thought it would not be safe to trust them in this matter. The London County Council had purified the river, which was the greatest beauty of the Embankment; it had purified and beautified the river, and brought fish and beautiful birds up from the sea; it had constructed beautiful gardens on the embankments; it had provided bands to play in those gardens; it had supplied electric light, and the building which had been erected to manufacture the electric light was so beautiful and artistic in itself that that alone should be an assurance that the interests of the Embankment were safe in the hands of the County Council. He congratulated the hon. Member on the fact that he had finally broken away from his ingenious conundrums and come to the point, which was that he desired the House to reverse the decision of the Committee. He (Mr. Lough) hoped the House would do nothing of the kind.

*(9.28.) SIR JOHN DICKSON POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)

said he hoped the House had no intention of revoking the decision at which it had arrived two months ago when these Bills were passed through their Second Reading. If they passed these Bills then, it was because the House had decided that in principle they agreed with those measures. Since then the Bills had undergone a very careful scrutiny and examination upstairs at the hands of a most able Committee, and there could be no reason for now reversing the decision that Committee had come to. The specific motion before the House was to lop off about thirty yards of the subway proposed to be constructed from Theobald Road in the north of London to the Embankment in the south, so that instead of coming out on the Embankment the subway should stop at Lancaster Place. If this scheme were merely a local matter, he would not support it. One of the Committees which had been investigating the "tube" schemes this year had taken expert evidence on the question of subways in London, and it had been clearly shown that in consequence of the complication of pipes and drains under the surface of the old roads it would be practically impossible to construct such subways. In this case, however, the matter was perfectly simple, as the Holborn Road was an entirely new road, and, therefore, free from that difficulty. But even so it was a very expensive business, it being estimated that the tramway - subway scheme would cost £300,000 per mile. The scheme would form the sole connecting link between the Northern and Southern tramway systems, and it was because it would form such a valuable element in locomotion in London that he so strongly advocated it. There was a weak point in the present Bill, inasmuch as it contained no provision for extending the tramway over either of the bridges, but he hoped that, if the House reaffirmed its decision of two months back, such a proposal would, at no distant date, be projected. The Amendment of his hon. friend would really render nugatory this expensive subway scheme, because if the thirty yards in question were knocked off it would be impossible to form a junction between the Embankment scheme and the subway, and both schemes would be ruined. No obstruction would be caused by this junction, because, owing to the gradient of the Holborn street, the point at which the tram would emerge from the subway would be exactly on the Embankment level, nor would it emerge even in the middle of the road, because, under an agreement with the Duchy of Lancaster, the tram would emerge under a house belonging to the Duchy, so that it would merely form a curve on the surface of the Embankment, just as though it was coming out of an ordinary tramway depôt. The objections to the proposal were those which were always brought forward on aesthetic lines, or those urged by his old-fashioned hon. friends, who apparently thought that because the Bill had been rejected before it ought to be rejected now. But since the proposal was first made, the conditions of London had greatly altered, and some of the great social problems of the day could be solved only by a system of cheap and rapid locomotion. A large scheme was being carried out in South London, and there was a growing system in North London, but this hiatus existed in the middle. He asked the House to sanction these schemes in order that that hiatus might be closed up, so that all classes would have the opportunity constantly throughout the day of moving rapidly between north and south or east and west.

(9.43.) MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

pointed out that the question upon which a division was taken two months ago was not the one now being considered, but as to whether there should be a tramway from Black friars to Westminster Bridge. As to the question of obstruction of traffic, there was nothing more likely to cause a block than a tram-car suddenly emerging from a house and cutting across the stream of traffic. It had also to be remembered that a tram-car was, so to speak, immovable; it could not pull a little to the near or to the offside to let other vehicles pass, and all who were accustomed to driving horses knew that nothing conduced to congestion of traffic more than a tramcar stuck in the middle of the road. If he believed that any advantage would accrue to the majority of the population of London by a tramway running down the Embankment he would not object to it, but because he believed the reverse of that would occur he strongly opposed the scheme. Possibly something might be said for a tramway from Black friars to Westminster Bridge; people might prefer to go overground rather than underground. But the present Bill would not give them that facility; all it did was to make a connection between Waterloo Bridge and Westminster, and that, he contended, was of no use to anybody. The hon. Member for the Chippenham Division had said that he should vote for the scheme because it meant an extension over the river in the future. But what about the evidence given before the Committees which had considered that question? In 1892 the whole of the police evidence was against the tramways running over Westminster Bridge, because of the obstruction to traffic that would be caused.


That is ancient history.


admitted that it was some years ago, but if the argument had weight then, its force was increased tenfold now, when the traffic was so much greater. The only object of the scheme was to give the London County Council an opportunity of coming to the House on a subsequent occasion to ask for powers to take the tramways over the Westminster Bridge, down Victoria Street and other places, on the ground that hundreds of thousands of pounds having been spent on the Embankment scheme, it was necessary to make these further extensions to prevent that money being wasted.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

said the Committee had given these Bills a very careful consideration, and, so far as they passed them, they did so by unanimous votes. The particular Bill under discussion, and the No. 7 tramway in the other Bill, were passed as one continuous line. The Embankment tramway would form a link with the whole system in the north of London, and it was as a through line, and not as a local line, that it was passed. Little opposition was offered to the Subway Bill. The scheme for a tramway through a subway was a novel and interesting one, and it was a plan which seemed more likely to solve the difficult problem of locomotion in London than any other yet adopted. In Boston similar schemes had assisted immensely to clear the streets of traffic and to facilitate locomotion generally. They were altogether different from "tube" railways, and should not be confused therewith. The subway would run from the north tinder Holborn and the Strand, and come out on the level of the Embankment by Waterloo Bridge, and from there a tram line would run to Westminster. The two schemes would form one continuous line, and would have to be worked as such. There was no street in London along which a tram could run with less difficulty or inconvenience than the Embankment. On each side of the lines there would be room for three vehicles to pass abreast. The trams would be run by electricity, on some system other than the overhead, the cars would be "single deck" cars—they would have to be quite low to get through the shallow subway, and they would run along a part of the Embankment where there were extremely few frontagers. The Committee had removed the portion of the line that would have given the greatest offence to the frontagers, viz., the portion from Waterloo Bridge to Blackfriars, a strong argument against which was that, it would merely be a competing line with the District Railway. There was also an apprehension that that part of the line would be the first step towards a tramway over Blackfriars Bridge, but with the scheme as it now stood, no such apprehension could be felt. Much of the opposition to the scheme arose from the fear that the tramways would be taken over Westminster Bridge. That matter was not before the Committee; if it had been, there might have been a great deal more opposition than there was to the present proposal. The impression produced on his mind by the sketch of a subway under the river at Waterloo Bridge was that there would be far greater difficulties in crossing the river there than at Westminster. But that was not the question before the Committee, and he would recommend the House to look at the scheme as it stood. The scheme was one for connecting a central part of London—Westminster—with the whole of the north of London, and from that point of view alone it formed a most useful addition to the facilities of locomotion in London. He hoped the question would be decided on its merits, not simply because it was promoted by the London County Council. There had been too many schemes decided not according to their merits, but according to whether or not they were promoted by the London County Council. There could not be a tramway along the Embankment without the agency of the London County Council, because that body were not only the owners of the embankment but also the tramway authority under the Act of 1870. The adoption of the Amendment might stop the subway altogether, and possibly that was its object. If in time the line was to be connected with the South London tramway system, the exact means of the connection would have to be determined by Parliament when that time came, but the present scheme, he thought, was not open to any serious objection. The Embankment ought not to be treated simply as a quick route between Westminster and the City for a certain limited number of cabs and carriages; it was intended for the general public, and there was no better way of making it useful for the general public than that of providing along a portion of the roadway a means of locomotion useful and convenient to everybody and hurtful to few.

(10.2.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

desired to affirm from personal knowledge the remarks of the last speaker as to the success of the subway system in Boston. The experience of Boston ought to be a very valuable guide for London, and he hoped the experiment now to be tried would be so successful as to lead to the further adoption of the principle in order to relieve our most congested thoroughfares.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

thought the underground system would be a solution of many of the present difficulties with regard to the congestion of traffic, and it would be a great pity if the House took the retrograde step of discouraging the only possible solution. He was surprised, however, to hear that his hon. friend had been misled into asserting that the London County Council was the tramway authority for London, an assertion which carried with it the contention that no tramways could be built by anybody else, or without their sanction. ("No.") If it did not mean that, what did it mean?


It meant that they were the owners of a large portion of the tramways, that they might become the owners of many more, and that they actually had Parliamentary authority to work those tramways.


said that did not alter the fact that Parliament had given to the Corporations of the boroughs in London a complete veto in regard to any tramways within their respective areas. Why was the Corporation of the City of Westminster in the position of having a coach and six driven through its power of veto by the London County Council? It was because the Metropolitan Board of Works—a far more efficient body than that which succeeded it, although he admitted it was not a perfect body—built the Embankment, and the persons who succeeded to the ownership of that magnificent thoroughfare retained the power conferred upon the original constructors, and that was the power they were now exercising. Tramways were no longer seriously regarded by those who really considered the question of City traffic. With the enormous advances already made with the motor system, tramways would, soon he practically superseded, and yet Parliament was being asked to allow one of the finest thoroughfares in the world to be used for the purposes of an exploded system. He sincerely hoped the House would set its face against the proposal thus to destroy that spendid roadway.

* MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

said that so many excellent speeches had been made in support of these Bills, that all he desired to do was to correct one or two unintentional misstatements. To begin with the hon. Member for Peckham, the House knew that it was very difficult for the London County Council, in whatever it attempted, to please that hon. Gentleman. If the London County Council introduced any instalment of reform, they were told by him that it was scrappy and fragmentary, and that it lacked the statesmanship of the Metropolitan Board of Works. If it brought in a complete scheme, the hon. Member saw in this another evidence of the over-bearing mind of the London County Council, who wished to get everything in their own hands. The result was that they could not please the hon. Member for Peckham whatever they did. If the hon. Member thought that the defect of the Bill was that the tramway did not go over Westminster Bridge he could remove his own objection by putting down an Instruction to the Lords to allow the tramway to go over the bridge.


I did not know that I had any power to instruct the Lords.


Well, I never found the hon. Member short in instructing any-body. The suggestion that they wished to go over Blackfriars Bridge was out of the question, as the bridge belonged to the Corporation. He believed, however, that one day the Corporation would give permission for the tramways to cross that bridge. The County Council were spending £6,000,000 on a street, and the subway would pass under it to the Embankment. The hon. Member for Peckham was anxious that there should be no congestion of traffic, particularly on the Embankment, but he knew that one reason why there was congestion on the Surrey side was that the tramways were allowed to stop short instead of coming over Westminster Bridge. The result was that noise, danger, and disorder occurred, which were necessarily disturbing both to the staff and the patients of St. Thomas's Hospital. He pointed out advantages which would accrue from having a tramway over Westminster Bridge, by which a connection would be established between the south of London and Hampstead Heath. He was sure no one would enjoy that more than the hon. Member for Peckham. With regard to the argument that a tramway would spoil the Embankment, he said if there was one thing which the County Council had done, it was to improve the Embankment. Having stated what had already been done to make the Embankment more attractive, he said these improvements might be regarded as indications that the County Council wished to render it a pleasant resort for the people. They were told that the tramways would not be used. That was the business of the County Council, but they were convinced that they would be used to a most profitable extent. He appealed to the House to give the County Council this opportunity of linking up the north with the south of London by a tramway system, which it was desired should be creditable to London, on a fine but relatively unused embankment, which, properly equipped for locomotion, would be the envy of the world.

(10.28.) MR. BURDETT - COUTTS (Westminster)

said his objection to this tramway scheme was that it was a fundamentally retrograde policy. If there was one change which had come over London in the course of the last two or three years, it was the establishment of the policy of underground communication between distant points. It was absurd to say that owing to the pipes under the roads, subways were impossible when Committees of the House of Lords had been sitting on twelve or thirteen subway propositions going through the busiest parts of London and when three at least of these propositions had been sanctioned. [AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty feet deep.] He did not care how deep they were; they did the work and the reason why by common consent the underground system of transit had been accepted was that it enabled passengers to be conveyed at a far greater speed than they could be conveyed overground, and that was a matter directly affecting the housing problem. In the face of that development he ventured to submit that it was a retrograte policy to make a proposition to spend a vast sum of money on tramways which would interfere with the traffic passing through crowded streets, and which would in the opinion of many destroy the amenity of the most beautiful thing in London—namely the Embankment. He did not think they ought not to shut their eyes to the real nature of this Bill. It was brought in with the one great object of eventually getting the tramways across Westminster Bridge in order that later on, they should proceed along Victoria Street, Regent Street, Piccadilly, and in every possible direction. It would have been far straighter for the County Council to have put the proposal for a tramway over Westminster Bridge in the Bill so that the House might have come to a decision on its true merits.

SIR F. DIXON-HABTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)

said the hon. Member for Battersea had as good as admitted that the object was eventually to bring the tramways over Westminster Bridge. When the bridge was to be built there was considerable discussion amongst architects as to the form it should take so as not to destroy the view of the Houses of Parliament. After a good deal of trouble the height originally proposed was reduced and modifications were made in the design so that the view would not be interfered with. He had examined the plans of the bridge with one of the architects and he was informed that the bridge would not bear the weight of the tramways. The House ought to keep that fact before it when the real object of the promoters of the Bill seemed to be ultimately to get the tramways over the bridge. He did not think it was honest that the project should be brought forward in parts.

MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU (Hampshire, New Forest)

said the great question they had to look to at the present time was that of locomotion, and as the proposal now before the House would increase the facilities he would support the Bill. He thought that in process of time motor cars would take the place of tramways in many parts of London. If there was any place in London where they could put a tramway without inconvenience to the other traffic it was the Embankment. He should like to see the tramways extended over Westminster bridge.

(10.48.) SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I do not intend to go into the merits of this scheme. I have listened carefully to the whole of the debate, and I am sure the House will be of opinion that it has been sufficiently discussed. But I wish to call the attention of the House to a matter of even greater importance, as I think it, than the merits of this particular tramway proposal. Let the House consider how it is spending its time at this moment. Here is an overburdened Parliament wondering whether we shall be able to escape an autumn session, there being such a vast amount of work before us. The House of Commons has today voted thanks to the soldiers for their conduct in a great war. We are engaged in the consideration of a new system for educating the people of the country, and the means of laying on taxation to raise money for the cost of the war. In the middle of all this, a large portion of the sitting of one day is taken up in doing nothing but re-hearing a case which comes before us with the unanimous approval and desire of the municipal authority. This is a question from the London County Council, which is surely responsible for locomotion and general communication all over London. It is not a party question. I was absent from the House at the time, but my recollection is that the Bill was carried to its second reading without a division. [An HON. MEMBER: "By a majority."] It was referred to an unusually competent Committee, with a most competent Chairman, which had examined it thoroughly; and now when it comes back to the House the same old battle is fought over again and the same old arguments are brought forward. I do not know if a cure is to be found for this state of things, but I think it ought not to be possible for the House of Commons to spend and re-spend its time in such a way on such a subject as this. I venture to think that the remedy for the evil must be in the direction of some sort of devolution of business of this character to the care of bodies which have more time spend upon it, and are, perhaps, on the whole, more competent to come to a conclusion upon it than the House of Commons.

MR. CUMMING MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe)

said that this was not a Government measure, and hon. Members could vote upon it according to their conscience. He represented a constituency on the south side of the river, and he thought that his constituents had just as good a right to enjoy the privileges on the north side of the river as the inhabitants of those localities. If Westminster Bridge was not strong enough to carry tramways then let Vauxhall Bridge be utilised to link up the south side with the north. This country was behind the times in the matter of inter-city communication.

MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)

said that two Bills had been brought in by the London County Council to deal with two different matters. One of these Bills was allowed to go through without discussion and the other Bill with very considerable discussion. The right hon.

the Leader of the Opposition had complained that the time of the House was taken up in discussing a Bill which had passed through a Select Committee; but they on that side of the House would not have raised this discussion if they had thought that the House would have an opportunity of considering this question as a whole. They were in favour of the shallow tube Bill which would provide the best mode of locomotion for London, but they objected to have over ground tramways tacked on to the shallow tunnel scheme. His right hon. friend said this was a small matter. He agreed, but it was the thin edge of the wedge; and they would soon have tramways proposed over Westminster Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge; and, by and by, they might have tramways passing up Portland Street opposite the residence of the right hon. gentleman the Member for Aberdeen. He hoped the House would mark its sense of the importance of this Question by passing the new Clause which had been moved by his hon. friend.

(10.54.) Question put.

House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 176. (Division List No. 204).

Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hogg, Lindsay
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'e)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dorington, Sir John Edward Houston, Robert Paterson
Anstruther, H. T. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir Wm, Hart King, Sir Henry Seymour
Austin, Sir John Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Knowles Lees
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Laurie, Lieut.-General
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen. Finch, George H. Lawson, John Grant
Bignold, Arthur Finlay, Sir Robert Banratyne Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bill, Charles Fisher, William Hayes Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Bond, Edward Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Flower, Ernest Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S
Boulnois, Edmund Galloway, William Johnson Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond. Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Burdett-Coutts, W. Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Cautley, Henry Strother Gray, Ernest (West Ham) M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Ediab'gh, W.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Majendie, James A. H.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Grenfell, William Henry Martin, Richard Biddulph
Chapman, Edward Gretton, John More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Charrington, Spencer Groves, James Grimble Morgan, Hn. F'red. (Monm'thsh.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hambro, Charles Eric Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Nicholson, William Graham
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Crossley, Sir Savile Hare, Thomas Leigh Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Dalkeith, Earl of Helder, Augustus Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Henderson, Alexander Penn, John
Pierpoint, Robert Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos, Myles Webb, Colonel William George
Pretyman, Ernest George Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wills, Sir Frederick
Purvis, Robert Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Rattigan, Sir William Henry Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Reid, James (Greenock) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Remnant, James Farquharson Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Stock, James Henry Mr. Whitmore and Mr. Banbury.
Robinson, Brooke Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Valentia, Viscount
Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Partington, Oswald
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Guthrie, Walter Murray Paulton, James Mellor
Allan, William (Gateshead) Hain, Edward Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Alien, Charles P. (Glonc. Stroud Haldane, Richard Burdon Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley
Ambrose, Robert Hammond, John Pemberton, John S. G.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Harmsworth, R. Leicester Plummer, Walter R.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harwood, George Power, Patrick Joseph
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Hayden, John Patrick Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Rea, Russell
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Helme, Norval Watson Redely, M.
Bell, Richard Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Black, Alexander William Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Redmond, William (Glare)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Holland, William Henry Renshaw, Charles Bine
Boland, John Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Renwick, George
Brotherton, Edward Allen Johnston, William (Belfast) Roe, Sir Thomas
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Joyce, Michael Royner, Colonel Robert
Bull, William James Kerrley, Hudson E. Round, James
Burke, E. Haviland- Labouchere, Henry Rutherford, John
Burns, John Lambert, George Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Caldwell, James Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Cameron, Robert Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Shaw, Thomas (Harwick B.)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Causton, Richard Knight Layland-Barratt, Francis Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cawley, Frederick Leamy, Edmund Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc. Leng, Sir John Spear, John Ward
Channing, Francis Allston Lewis, John Herbert Stone, Sir Benjamin
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lloyd-George, David Stracney, Sir Edward
Corbett A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lundon, W. Sullivan, Donal
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Craig, Robert Hunter Macdona, John Cumming Tennant, Harold John
Cranborne, Viscount MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Crean, Eugene Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomas, J. A. (Glam'gan, Gower
Cremer, William Randal MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) MacVcagh, Jeremiah Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Thornton, Percy M.
Delany, William M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Tomkinson, James
Denny, Colonel M'Govern, T. Toulmin, George
Dewar, John A. (Inverness. sh. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Kean, John Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dillon, John M'Kenna, Reginald Ure, Alexander
Donelan, Captain A. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Markham, Arthur Basil Warr, Augustus Frederick
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesssh. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Duke, Henry Edwatd Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton)
Duncan, J. Hastings Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Edwards, Frank Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fenwick, Charles Nannetti, Joseph P. Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Ffreneh, Peter Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Fuller, J. M. F. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Young, Samuel
Gilhooly, James O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Yoxall, James Henry
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Goulding, Edward Alfred O'Malley, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Grant, Corrie O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Sir John Dickson-Poynder and Mr. Lough.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Parker, Gilbert

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn" (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), put, and agreed to.

Bill to be read the third time.