HC Deb 14 March 1902 vol 105 cc14-29

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

(3.25.) MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)

On a point of order and procedure, may I ask if it is right that this measure should be brought in as a private Bill, seeing that it repeals or alters the general law with regard to electric lighting, especially the Electric Lighting Acts of 1882 and 1888, which are public Acts?

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

The object of the Bill is the very contrary to what the hon. Member suggests. It will be seen that local circumstances in London prevent the application within the metropolitan area of the Acts of 1882 and 1888, and the proposal of the Bill is simply to give the local authorities of London powers with regard to electric light undertakings within their areas, such as are possessed by all other local authorities. I think the point of order fails.


I have not had my attention called to this point, but, looking at the preamble of the Bill, there does not appear to me to be any reason why it should not be introduced as a private Bill.


said he hoped that this Bill would be discussed in the same amicable spirit as had been displayed in the case of the two other Bills promoted by the County Council that day. The object of the County Council was to give to London the powers already enjoyed by other local authorities under the Acts of 1882 and 1888, whereby, after a period of forty-two years had expired, they might acquire any electric lighting undertaking existing in their localities. The Act which authorised the purchase of electric supply undertakings by local authorities was inoperative in London, because several companies had been empowered to supply more than one area and to set up generating stations outside the county of London, and there was no power given to local authorities to combine for the purchase of any undertaking or to acquire generating stations outside their own area. This was, no doubt, a very complicated Bill, and if there were any indication that it was not now proposed to discuss it, he would not trouble the House. He certainly thought it was a measure which should be sent upstairs, and counsel heard upon it. But no such indication being forthcoming, he must ask the attention of the House to the provisions which the London County Council were willing to insert in order to get the Bill through.

The hon. Member explained the objects of the Bill, and pointed out that the interests of the only company which supplied electricity in bulk would not be affected by the measure. That company had a generating station in Marylebone, and it supplied two districts in the city of Westminster. Provision would be made that the company could only be purchased under the Land Clauses Act, so that the exceptional position which it occupied would be respected. The London County Council had lighting powers in regard to certain parts of London, and they were also the tramway authority in London. In connection with the tramways it might be necessary to have adequate stations in various parts of London. He did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite could object to the main provisions of the Bill. The County Council had undertaken to meet all the objections in regard to the Bill. The Bill itself was the result of a conference between the London County Council, the Corporation of the City, and local authorities, and it embodied the provisions which all these authorities unanimously agreed to. He thought the House would do well to allow the Bill to go to a Committee. The London County Council, which was regarded with suspicion on the other side of the House, was trying to assuage that feeling, and it did not desire to take any independent action whatever in this matter. It only came forward to take the necessary steps to facilitate the securing of rights which all other localities enjoyed with regard to these undertakings. It would only act as an honest broker in the matter. He was able to state that the London County Council would accept a clause agreeing that either the London County Council or any other public authority Parliament might direct should become the purchaser. He really thought that ought to do away with all opposition to the Bill. It proved that the only object was not to secure any advantage for the London County Council, but to secure for London as a whole those advantages with regard to electric undertakings which were given to every other city.

(3.40.) CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)

said that if he objected to the Bill only on details, he should be the last to contest the proposal to send it to a Committee upstairs, but his objection was one of principle. This Bill was contrary to the spirit of the London Government Act, the object of which was not merely to create powerful and responsible Councils in the various Boroughs constituted under the Act, but also to produce uniformity of administration throughout the county of London. In 1899, Mr. Stuart, the Member for the Hoxton Division, objected to haphazard transfer, and argued for uniformity— As otherwise they would never know what Act was being administered or what power existed in a given district. Under this Bill it would be possible for the local authority to be the purveyor of electricity in one district and the London County Council in another. Clause 6 of the Bill said— If such Local Authorities as aforesaid or any one or more of them shall fail to pass such a resolution as aforesaid before the expiration of the periods specified in Section 5 (2) of this Act, it shall be lawful for, but not obligatory upon, the Council, with the consent of all such Local Authorities, or of the majority of such authorities if more than two, to exercise the power of purchase hereinbefore conferred in all respects as though the Council were a Local Authority within the meaning of the said Acts for a District comprising the whole of the area of supply of such Company. With regard to Westminster, the power which was proposed to be given to the County Council, with the consent of a mere majority of the Local Authorities, to exercise the power of purchase, would introduce a principle which would seriously affect the position which the City at present enjoyed of being the sole purchasing authority within its own area. Suppose the case of an undertaking of a borough extending over the area of the City, and say two other local authorities, then the County Council with the aid of the other two, probably of much less importance, would be in a position to carry out a purchase against the wish of the City. He understood that that part of the scheme had been abandoned. His next point in moving the rejection of the Bill was that it was unnecessary. There was no reason to suppose that a Provisional Order could not be obtained by two or more Councils combining to apply for it. When the Provisional Order was obtained, the machinery already existing in Section 8 of the London Government Act for carrying out a joint undertaking would come into play.

The Bill was bad, because it attempted to go behind the existing law. Clause 3, Section 1, laid down that every generating station shall be purchasable under any Act, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act. In 1898, in the Metropolitan Electric Supply Lighting Act, the Council endeavoured to obtain the insertion of purchase clauses, but the Chairman of the Lords Committee stated that the Committee considered they could not attempt to put a purchase clause in the Bill. In 1898 a Select Committee of Lords and Commons was appointed to consider electrical energy (generating stations and supply), and their Report was to the effect that— The Committee think the provisions of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, enabling the local authority to purchase an undertaking after a term of years, inapplicable, as a general rule, to the case of an undertaker supplying energy in bulk at high voltage, but there may be special cases where it is desirable that the local authorities should have the right to purchase reserved to them. To meet such cases they suggest that the Board of Trade should have power to insert the purchase clause in the Provisional Order, if the Local Authorities concerned, can, in the opinion of the Board, show good cause for such a course. And the Report went on to say— It is to be observed that the exemption from liability to compulsory purchase would not prevent Local Authorities, either alone or in combination with other Local Authorities, from applying for powers to purchase, but each case would have to be judged on its merits, and such conditions imposed as might be thought fit. Lord Monskwell moved an Amendment that— In the case of a company formed wholly or chiefly to supply the county of London, and whose area of supply is not confined to the area of a subsidiary Local Authority within such county, power to purchase should be vested in the London County Council whether the generating station be situate inside or outside the county, the interests of all subsidiary and other Local Authorities being safeguarded. This Amendment was rejected. What the real intention of the London County Council was in this matter could only be gathered from the evidence given before the Committee by Mr. Benn, who said, in answer to a question put by Lord Carrington, that the London County Council were not the purchasing but the controlling authority. Then Lord Spencer said to him— It seems rather singular that you should have powers of control, and yet have no other powers, does it not? It is very singular; it is peculiar to London. Would you advocate that the law should be changed in that respect? Most strongly; that the purchase powers which obtain without question in the provincial cities should be vested in the central authority of London, the County Council. Do you attach great importance to the question of purchase? Very. Then Mr. Lewis Coward said— The proposition I put forward as well worth the consideration of the Committee, is that as regards London, the London County Council, the central authority, the controlling authority, should be the authority in whom the ultimate power of purchase is to be vested, It had been said that the Bill had been introduced by the London County Council at the invitation of the Metropolitan Borough Council, on suggestions made at a Conference last year with the representatives of the City of London and of the Metropolitan Boroughs. That statement was misleading, for the London County Council issued the invitation. Now, he might be told that it was agreed in May 1901 that the London County Council should supply in bulk. He desired to point out that the Bill should have been submitted in draft to the various boroughs. There was nothing said in the Conference about the London County Council and two local authorities. The County Council had to show that though proposals were passed by the delegates, the Borough Councils had approved of the action of the delegates, and had approved of the Bill. As a matter of fact, at the Conference of 1896, it was agreed to transfer the power of appointment of inspectors, the provision of testing stations and exercise of powers, as regarded price and energy of the supplying of electricity in a district. The position was briefly this that the Borough authorities had already the right to buy up the electrical lighting, and that right should not be impaired. If the stations were to be purchased at all it should be done by the Local Authorities and not by the London County Council. It had always seemed to him that the London County Council was a Council not a corporation. He had no hostile feeling in this matter against the London County Council. He quite recognised the very hard work its members did for the citizens of London, but he wished that their appetite for work was a little smaller, and that they should not endeavour to sweep up to themselves so many business interests. They had quite enough to do already. In conclusion, he maintained that the real object of this Bill was an endeavour on the part of the London County Council to get themselves constituted as an authority for the supply of electricity, and the provisions purporting to confer additional powers upon the Borough Councils were wholly unnecessary and were merely given as a blind to allot probable opposition of the Borough Councils and if possible to obtain their support.

MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Captain Jessel.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

(3.58.) MR. JOHN BURNS

said he could not understand what had induced the hon. Member to take the line he had done in opposition to this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had had any doubt as to the relationship between the London County Council and the Borough Councils on this matter, the best way to have tested it was to get into Committee upstairs on the Bill. And he ventured to say that in that event it would be found that the majority of the Borough Councils were in favour of the Bill; and had specifically asked the London County Council to introduce it. The hon. Member had said that he objected to the Bill on principle, as it was contrary to the Local Government Act of 1899, which created the Borough Councils. On the contrary, so far as electric; light was concerned, this Bill was complementary to the Local Government Act of 1899, as would be proved if the Bill were sent to a Committee upstairs. The hon. Member for Westminster said that if this Bill was passed, it would be detrimental to Westminster; but he would point that if Westminster was denied the facilities for purchase given by the Bill, Westminster would be worse off than it would be with the Bill. The intentions of the County Council with regard to the Bill were like the intentions of the bridegroom at the marriage ceremony—strictly honourable. The Council was only acting as the Parliamentary medium for the Borough Councils. The hon. Member said that he would like to see the local authorities of London, as distinct from the County Council, owning their own electric supply. Would the hon. Gentleman state how, in existing circumstances, that could be secured? At present, where the supply area of a Borough Council impinged on another supply area, the Council could only purchase that part within its own jurisdiction, and if the generating station was outside the Council of London, it could not secure its own electric lighting supply at all. That was undesirable in the interests of the Borough Councils, and it was for that reason that the County Council had introduced the Bill. Firstly, the Bill was the result of a conference between the local authorities, in which the City was represented, on May 5th, 1901; and if the Bill had been in existence the City Corporation would have been saved from an unsavoury scandal, to which he would not refer. Secondly, the Bill sought powers to enable the Borough Councils to do in combination what they could each now do separately within their own areas, and in the event of two or more local authorities agreeing to purchase, the County Council was only worked when over-lapping supplies were in existence, and then only by the agreement on the part of the local authorities concerned. The Bill was a very simple one, and would confer a great boon on the Borough Councils. It was not initiated by the County Council, which did not wish to be the electric lighting authority for the whole of London. It only wished to confine itself to its proper work of lighting the bridges, the embankment, and Black-wall Tunnel. He ventured to say that if the Glasgow Corporation sought the modest powers asked for in the Bill they would be granted. "He who runs may read," and it was evident that there was a prejudice against the County Council, which to any reasonable man was inexplicable. If hon. Members had a prejudice against the County Council, let them pitch into him as much as they could, because he represented to some extent the County Council; but let them not deny to the Borough Councils the boon that would be conferred on them by the Bill. He appealed to hon. Members to remember that the Bill was sought for by the Borough Councils through the instrumentality of the County Council, and not to inflict a blow on the Borough Councils in order to satisfy an unreasoning prejudice against the County Council.


said that the hon. Member for Battersea referred to a prejudice, of which he said the County Council was the object. Whether there was any such general prejudice or not he would not undertake to say; but it might be true that there was a certain prejudice against the County Council as the promoter of private Bills, and if it existed it was largly owing to the action of the County Council in bringing in Bills, session after session, which were not altogether of a reasonable character. He wished to state why he objected to the Bill before the House, and why, if his hon. friend went to a division, he would vote against it. It was not necessary for him to enter into the details of the Bill or to argue whether it was desirable to give the local authorities electric lighting powers or whether the County Council should have power to purchase electric lighting undertakings. His objection was of a different character. The question of the purchase of the electric lighting undertakings of London was a very difficult and complicated one, and the Bill before the House appeared to him to deal with that subject in a partial and unsatisfactory manner. Over and above that, the proposals of the Bill could not, to his mind, be described as, in any sense, urgent. The hon. Member for West Islington stated that the object of the Bill was to give London the benefit of the Electric Lighting Acts, from which it was at present excluded; but the hon. Member himself admitted that the power of purchase, with a view to which the Bill was brought in, could not come into effect for another thirty or thirty-one years. In other words, the Bill really looked forward to a period a generation hence.


said that in the event of an electric lighting company consenting to sell, the purchase could be made immediately.


asked if there were any likelihood of that. The proposal to which the hon. Member for Battersea referred was so unimportant that it was not even referred to by the hon. Member who introduced the Bill. The fact was that not one of the provisions of the Bill would have any important effect for thirty years. The hon. Member for West Islington referred to another reason why the Bill was brought in, and that was the necessity for the adjustment of the areas in consequence of the London Government Act. The hon. Member reminded him that the Government had brought in a Bill to deal with that part of the subject, but for that very reason it was unnecessary to pass the Bill now before the House. He would explain why the Government thought it necessary to introduce a Bill dealing with the question of the adjustment of areas, while, on the other hand, they did not consider the proposals of the present Bill urgent. The difficulty which the Government Bill sought to smooth away would increase and become more urgent as years went by, for the reason that the adjustments the Bill referred to were principally adjustments of areas where mains and works did not at present exist; but as years went on those areas would have mains laid down, and when that was done the difficulty would be very much greater than it was at present. That was not so with the proposals of the Bill before the House. The difficulty would not increase as years went on.


said that new companies might be established.


said that no difficulty would arise in that way. He wished to point out that the proposals in the Bill were of a partial character. They had regard fort he convenience of the local authorities and the County Council, but they have no regard for the position of the companies. His own view was that the question of the ultimate destiny of the electric light undertakings of London must be dealt with by a general and public Bill introduced by the Government, and that it could not be dealt with by a Bill promoted by the County Council. He would just point out that there were cases in which the company supplied more than one area, and it might occur that the local authority might desire to purchase the undertaking in only one area, with the result that the company's area would be cut in half. Such a case was not provided for in the Bill. Again, there were cases in which two companies supplied one area. The local authority might buy up the undertaking of one company and let the other severely alone, with the result that there would be a local authority running an electric light undertaking in competition with a private company. That was a situation which the House refused to accept last year. He merely mentioned these matters in order to show how full of difficulty the question was. He would suggest, in respect of this Bill, that the House should not read it a second time now, but should accept his assurance that the Government were fully alive to the fact that sooner or later the problem must be dealt with by legislation, and that it had better be dealt with in a publicthan in a private Bill. He thought it would be very much easier, as the time to purchase approached, to arrive at the best solution of the difficulty. At any rate, the question could not be adequately settled now by a premature and ill-considered private Bill, and therefore, as far as he was concerned, if his right hon. friend went to a division he should vote with him.

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

said that, although he regretted the action of the President of the Board of Trade in opposing the Bill, he noticed with satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman had simply stated his own opinion, and had not grounded his opposition on the general policy of the Board of Trade. The settled policy of that Department had always been—no matter what Government might be in office—to encourage, with due regard for private interests and vested rights, the acquisition of electric lighting undertakings by public authorities, and thought it would be a great pity if the House marked a departure from that policy by rejecting the Bill. Everyone who had listened to the debate must have been struck by the extreme complication of the subject. It had been excessively difficult even for those who had some previous knowledge of the subject, to follow the various points raised. Surely, then, this was essentially a matter which should be dealt with by a Commiteee upstairs. The House had no materials before it to enable it to come to a decision. No point had been raised in that debate which would not be a fitting subject for a coommitte, which could take evidence, and which could inquire into the vested interests likely to be affected. This was not a private Bill in the ordinary sense of the word. It had been brought in by the London County Council at the request and with the assent of the majority of the metropolitan boroughs and the local authorities, who certainly ought to have an opportunity of going before a Committee. Again, there were matters of necessity included in the Bill.


Can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single one?


I understand it is the view of the local authorities there are certain things they ought to be able to do at once.


Thirty years hence.


said the local authorities felt that vested interests were being created in electric lighting in their districts every day, which would make it impossible to deal with the matter in the broad way suggested by the President of the Board of Trade—and it was only right that they should have the opportunity of stating their case before a Committee. It might be that the creation of vested interests would tie

their hands in the future, and hence it was only right that the House should adhere to its general principle and allow the Bill to go to a Committee in due course.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said that, speaking on behalf of one of the London boroughs, he would ask the House to allow the Bill to be read the second time. He felt grateful to the President of the Board of Trade that, while expressing his personal views in opposition to the Bill, he had not put pressure upon the supporters of the Government from the party point of view; and, indeed, it was understood that the Government desired to leave the matter to the free judgment of the House. He was not aware of any London borough that was opposed to this Bill. It was said that it was premature, but he happened to have been engaged in an arbitration in which certain boroughs in the East End were proposing to take over electric lighting powers, and this showed that the process embodied in the Bill had already begun. The Bill would facilitate the taking over of such undertakings and would tend to cheapen the cost of electric lighting, and he hoped, therefore, it would not be thrown out simply because there was a well-rooted suspicion of the London County Council. What had the boroughs of London done that their interests should be prejudiced because of that suspicion? Personally, he would be quite content if the Bill was allowed to go forward and to be thoroughly considered by a Committee. It could then, if necessary, be withdrawn and a better Bill introduced next year.

(4.28.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 143. (Division List No. 78.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Blake, Edward Caldwell, James
Allen, William (Gateshead) Boland, John Cameron, Robert
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud) Bond, Edward Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)
Ambrose, Robert Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Atherley-Jones, L. Brigg, John Causton, Richard Knight
Austin, Sir John Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Channing, Francis Allston
Barlow, John Emmott Burke, E. Haviland- Clancy, John Joseph
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Burns, John Cogan, Dennis J.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Caine, William Sproston Condon, Thomas Joseph
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Jordan, Jeremiah Rea, Russell
Craig, Robert Hunter Kennedy, Patrick James Reddy, M.
Crean, Eugene Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Cremer, William Randal Labouchere, Henry Reid, Sir. R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Cullinan, J. Lambert, George Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Cust, Henry John C. Layland-Barratt, Francis Roche, John
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Leigh, Sir Joseph Russell, T. W.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardiff) Levy, Maurice Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Delany, William Lewis, John Herbert Schwann, Charles E.
Denny, Colonel Lundon, W. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Macdona, John Cumming Shaw, Thomas Hawick B.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Donelan, Captain A. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Doogan, P. C. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Dunn, Sir William M'Crae, George Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Elibank, Master of M'Govern, T. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Elliott, Hon A. Ralph Douglas M'Hugh, Patrick A. Soares, Ernest J.
Emmott, Alfred M'Kenna, Reginald Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Farquarson, Dr. Robert M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Stevenson, Francis S.
Farrell, James Patriek Mansfield, Horace Rendall Sullivan, Donal
Fenwick, Charles Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Tennant, Harold John
Ffrench, Peter Mooney, John J. Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Morley, Rt. Hon. Jno. (Montrose Thorburn, Sir Walter
Flower, Ernest Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Thornton, Percy M.
Forster, Henry William Murphy, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Nannetti, Joseph P. Tritton, Charles Ernest
Gilhooly, James Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Wallace, Robert
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Norman, Henry Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Norton, Capt. Cecil William Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Grant, Corrie O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Weir, James Galloway
Guthrie, Walter Murray O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Welby, Lt.-Cl. A. C. E. (Taunton
Haldane, Richard Burdon O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Hammond, John O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Whitely, George (York, W. R.)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hay, Hon. Claude George O'Dowd, John Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Hay den, John Patrick O'Kelly, Connor (Mayo, N.) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O'Kelly, James (Roscomm'n, N. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Malley, William Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Healey, Timothy Michael Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Helder, Augustus O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Young, Samuel
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Shee, James John Yoxall, James Henry
Holland, William Henry Partington, Oswald
Jacoby, James Alfred Power, Patrick Joseph TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lough and Mr.Bousfield.
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Price, Robert John
Joicey, Sir James Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F Bullard, Sir Harry Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r
Anstruther, H. T. Carlile, William Walter- Finch, George H.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Arrol, Sir William Cavendish, R F. (N. Lanes.) Fisher, William Hayes
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Foster, PhilipS. (W'rwick, S. W.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Chapman, Edward Galloway, William Johnson
Bain, Colonel James Robert Charrington, Spencer Garfit, William
Balcarres, Lord Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond)
Baldwin, Alfred Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r. Compton, Lord Alwyne Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Goulding, Edward Alfred
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Cranbourne, Viscount Graham, Henry Robert
Banes, Major George Edward Cripps, Charles Alfred Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bartley, George C. T. Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Greene, Sir E. W (B'ryS Edm'nds
Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir Michael Hicks Crossley, Sir Savile Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.
Bignold, Arthur Davenport, William Bromley- Hain, Edward
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Dewar, T. R. T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.) Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x
Boulnois, Edmund Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh). Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bull, William James Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Harris, Frederick Leverton
Heath, James (Staffords. N. W. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hoare, Sir Samuel Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Morrell, George Herbert Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Morrison, James Archibald Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Morton, ArthurH. A. (Deptford) Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Johnston, William (Belfast) Mount, William Arthur Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Nicholson, William Graham Tuke, Sir John Batty
Lawson, John Grant Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Valentia, Viscount
Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H. Penn, John Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm Percy, Earl Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Platt-Higgins, Frederick Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Leverson-Gower, Freder'k N. S. Plummer, Walter R. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Long, Col, Charles W.(Evesham Pretyman, Ernest George Willox, Sir John Archibald
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Purvis, Robert Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Rattigan, Sir William Henry Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Reid, James (Greenock) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Remnant, James Farquharson Wylie, Alexander
Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Manners, Lord Cecil Round, Samuel TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Jessel and Mr. Banbury.
Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh'e Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Melville, Beresford Valentine Sharpe, William Edward T.

Bill read a second time, and committed.