§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ (3.15.) MAJOR RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)regretted very much to have to trouble the House twice within two years in regard to this Bill. But it was impossible to avoid doing so, as that was the only chance his constituents had of making their protest and of getting redress. He had a peculiarly intimate acquaintance with this line, because it ran through the division which he had the honour to represent for fourteen years, and he had passed a good deal of his time upon the line. The line started from Whitechapel and ran to the north-east, passing along the northern banks of the estuary of the Thames, through several large growing towns, like East Ham and the Tilbury Docks, etc. It was a peculiarly working-class district throughout; crowded with manufactories, oil works, gas works, cement works, etc. As a matter of fact, it was, without exception—or, perhaps, with the exception of the London, Chatham, and Dover—the worst line running out of London. They had nothing but overcrowded trains, dirty stations, and high agricultural rates, which almost made the trade of the farmer and vegetable grower impossible. Again, it was a fact that when manufacturers wanted to get a siding or platform, they were unable to do so unless they made it worth the while of the officials of the very highest grades. This line absolutely revelled in level crossings, which stopped the street traffic twenty times an hour, and as much harm as possible was done in that way. He called special attention to the scandal of overcrowding on this line. A great many women and girls lived upon it who had to go to London daily in the exercise of their vocation, and it was scandalous and indecent that they should be crowded into carriages with a dozen men. The officials of the company had not the slightest regard for the over-crowding; they packed the passengers in as if they 693 were so many milk-cans, and shut the doors to prevent them from falling out from each side. He had travelled down to Tilbury Docks in a compartment with seventeen dockers, with a lady on each knee. As to the ca triages, well, one could hardly call them carriages; they were more like dog kennels on wheels, and they were filthily dirty. The company said that they spent £3,000 on soap last year, but that it was the class of passengers which used the carriages that made them so dirty. That was hardly complimentary to the people who lived on the line. As to the stations, they were arcadian in their simplicity. There were practically no sanitary arrangements in some of them, and the company absolutely refused to put stations where they are needed unless they were assisted by private contributions. Probably they would be told by the President of the Board of Trade that a deputation went last week to the managing director of the company, and that he gave satisfactory assurances. But what was the good of a deputation going to the managing director of a railway company which had a Bill before Parliament a week before that Bill was to come under the discussion of the House. They might as well go to a Cabinet Minister six months before a general election. They promised everything and gave nothing. The deputation got nothing for their pains, and the company did not intend to do anything. Hence they appealed to the House. His constituents were in an unfortunate position. There were no lords or marquesses living on Wanstead Flats, and there were uncommonly few dukes in the neighbourhood of Tilbury Docks. So they relied on the Members of the House of Commons, although there was a considerable force ranged against them in this House—the force of railway directors. They know perfectly well that the only thing likely to pierce the pachydermatous hide of the directors of this company, and to teach them a lesson they would not forget, was for the House to throw out their Bill on this Motion for its Second Beading. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
§ *(3.20.) CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.), in seconding the Amendment, said that he opposed the Bill on broad 694 public grounds. This was the only opportunity they had of bringing railway companies to book with reference to the manner in which they treated their passengers. He took interest in the question of the housing of the working classes, and this subject of workmen's trains bore indirectly on that question. In every instance which they brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, cases where railway companies had not done their duty to the districts they served, it was urged that population was lacking, and he was always told that where the population existed there the trains were run. In this particular case, however, although a large population existed, yet workmen's trains were not run in sufficient numbers. He had received a letter signed by the principal officials of the Ratepayers' Association of this district, as well as of the Tradesmen's Association, in which they said that they would prefer that things should remain as they were—and it was notorious that the existing evils were great—rather than that additional benefits should be conferred on the railway company unless they gave adequate, compensation to the inhabitants. The argument of the company was, that they were seeking these further powers in order to mitigate these evils. Well, they often heard of deathbed repentances. They all knew about the thief on the Cross, but that was an altogether exceptional case, and he did not think that the Recording Angel took any notice, as a rule, of that class of repentance.
Various points had been urged by the people living in the district. The first was that adequate bridge accommodation is not afforded for the large and growing populations north and south of the line. That was a matter which the local authorities ought to be able to settle for themselves. There was no station at Ilford, although there was a population of 10,000 persons within a short distance of a site which it had been suggested would be very suitable, and would afford plenty of room. Yet the company declined to place a station there, with the result that the people had to walk to stations some distance off—on one side they had to go three quarters of a mile, and on the other a distance of a mile. This was practically 695 a suburb of London, and nearly the entire population had to go up to London at a very early hour each morning. It was a matter of great moment, more especially to young girls who were in business in London that they should be forced to walk a distance of three I quarters of a mile in order to reach the station at which they took train, for it often meant that in order to avail themselves of the advantages of cheap fares, they had to take very early trains which landed them in London half or three quarters of an hour before the time at which they were required to be at their respective places of business. The company had refused point-blank to provide that station, and that was one of the principal matters of which the inhabitants had to complain. Now, he came to the station at East Ham. That was stated to be dirty, shelterless, and insanitary, and to be provided with only narrow exits. This question of narrow exits from stations was a matter of considerable moment. At this particular station at East Ham there was no shelter whatever, and in inclement weather, it happened that young girls who went up to London in large numbers got wet through, and then were obliged to wander about the streets of London until their business establishment opened. This was one of the results of the inadequacy of the number of workmen's trains. If a larger number were run these girls would not have to leave home so long before they needed to be at business. The company said that they were about to remedy this state of things. But this was not a new condition of affairs. It had been in existence for years, and, therefore, they could place no trust in their promises. In regard to East Ham, the excuse was urged that the delay in improving the station was due to the action of the East Ham Council. Was it not strange that in every instance in which a defaulting railway company approached this House for the purpose of getting its powers extended it invariably declared that the local authority was at fault, as if the local authority was not the body which was most anxious to remedy existing defects. It was also an extraordinary thing that wherever a railway 696 company had been a defaulter for years, and whenever they were obliged to come to this House for increased powers, at that precise moment they were enabled to do exactly what the inhabitants wanted. As to the carriage accommodation on the line, it was both miserable and dirty. In addition to that, the over-crowding which took place at the present moment was a matter of serious consideration, not only to those who dwelt in this particular part of London but to the metropolis at large, seeing there was an epidemic of small-pox. He finally came to the question of workmen's trains. If the Great Eastern Railway Company was able to run a sufficiency of work men's trains at a profit, while giving far more consideration to their passengers, surely the same thing could be done by the London and Tilbury Company? This great monopolist company had utterly failed in its duty towards the district, and the only protection the public had against such a failure of duty, especially in the matter of the running of a sufficiency of workmen's trains and the giving proper accommodation to the people who lived in the district they served, was to reject this Bill.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Major Rasch.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ *(3.30.) MR. ROUND (Essex, Harwich), speaking as a director of this company, admitted that over-crowding took place on this railway at particular times of the day. But the managing director informed him that it was impossible to carry the enormous quantity of people who wished to travel at the same time, both in the morning and in the evening. The directors much regretted the inconvenience that these people suffered. As to the necessity for further stations at Ilford or elsewhere, he would only say that when the number of inhabitants admitted of it, the directors would consider the question of a station, but they could give no pledge in this respect. Then the hon. 697 Member had complained of the condition of the station at East Ham. He fully admitted that that station was not what it should be, but then his directors were now engaged in re-constructing it, and they had recently entered into a contract amounting to £46,000 for the purpose of renewing that station completely. The reason why the work had not been already begun was that it had been delayed by the negotiations with the District Council; otherwise the contractor would have commenced on the station many months ago, and great expense to the Company would have been saved. Then came the question of workmen's trains. He believed on that point the company had complied with the requirements of the Board of Trade, and if they had not done so, no doubt the President of the Board of Trade would see that the matter was put right. The object of the present Bill was to improve the line, to develop it and to widen it, especially between Bromley and Plaistow. The directors, in fact, were endeavouring to give that further accommodation, the lack of which was complained of. They also wanted to obtain powers to electrify the line. The only proper course for the House to adopt was to send the Bill upstairs to Committee, where it could be dealt with in the usual manner. If any hon. Member or the representative of any authority in the district wished to make any definite complaint before that Committee the directors would not object gin any way. With regard to the station accommodation generally a very large sum had been spent since 1891 in the construction and the renewal of most of the stations on the line. Altogether £163,000 had been spent in renewing and improving stations since that date, including the new station at West Ham. Sometimes complaint was made of the high dividends paid by the Company. Last year it paid 5¾ per cent., a larger dividend than it had ever earned before, the average yearly dividend being under 4½. He must remind hon. Members that when the present Chairman of the company took charge of it twenty-five years ago the capital of the company was under £1,000,000 sterling, and it was now over £3.500,000, and this large addition 698 of capital, which had all been spent in improving and developing the line, could not have been raised without good credit, which the management of the Company enabled it to obtain.
§ (3.40.) MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)thought it must be admitted the hon. Member had made a rather bad case for the Bill. The objeet of the Bill was to secure for the Railway Company further facilities, and the objection to it was that the company had persistently refused to give the inhabitants of the district those reasonable facilities which were given by every other line. The company would not be put to serious inconvenience by the measure being left over for another year, and if that course were adopted there would be time to negotiate with the company which would probably see that it was to its interest to meet the people of the district in a different spirit to that which it had hitherto displayed. Overcrowding was an intolerable nuisance. Thousands upon thousands of hard working people had to go to London every day, and these suburban lines which worked the thickly inhabited districts ought to be taught that they must provide reason-able and decent facilities to the people out of whom they made their money. The hon. Member should have given some better assurances with regard to over-crowding. He admitted that the stations were in a shocking state and he said that one station was going to be improved, and that a great deal of money was to be spent upon it. Surely in regard to that matter the local authorities might have been satisfied by the company before the discussson took place in the House.
§ MR. LOUGHNo. If they were satisfied we should not have received the numerous petitions that have reached us.
§ * MR. ROUNDThe East Ham Council, which is the only local Council that is petitioning, is, I believe, practically satisfied.
§ MR. LOUGHWhy did not you I give us a pledge that the station would have been built at Ilford before? The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill spoke of the very unsatisfactory accommodation given in regard to workmen's trains. They had been told that the requirements of the Board of Trade had been satisfied. That was a perfectly inaccurate statement of what had taken place. A few years ago action was taken against the company to compel them to provide proper accommodation in this respect, and the Board of Trade, approving of the demand of the working men, called upon the company to furnish certain accommodation. The company at first refused to do so, and all that they had, in fact, done, and done most reluctantly, had been to give the minimum accommodation ordered by the Board of Trade, instead of endeavouring as they should have done, to meet the real requirements of their district. They had met the complaints of the workmen in a narrow and grudging spirit. The overcrowding ought to be stopped at once. It was a flagrant evil in connection with suburban traffic, and we would therefore suggest that this Bill ought to be left over until the company had given more complete and full satisfaction to the local authorities of the district.
§ (3.50.) MAJOR BANES (West Ham, S.)said that in justice to the population of the district which this line served, he was bound to support this Bill, and he most earnestly appealed to Members of the House to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, which was intended for the benefit of the people of the district, whose complaints would be intensified unless it was passed. He was not surprised at the hon. Gentlemen opposite, as they appeared to be the special advocates for all who felt they had a grievance, but he was sorry to find his hon. friends the Members for the Chelmsford Division and for Rom-ford opposing this Bill. He thought he had satisfied them both, and that they would have dropped their opposition. All of them spoke from hearsay and rumour only, but if anyone had authority to speak for the district round East and West Ham, it was surely himself. He had 700 been a resident for nearly fifty years. He had worked entirely amongst the working classes there, and had no interest in West Ham except that of a ratepayer who had taken an active part in its public life, having been a member of the old Local Board of Health, a member for twenty-seven years of the School Board, one of the first Aldermen of the Borough, and the Parliamentary representative of the Southern Division for fifteen years. He had no connection, directly or indirectly, with the line, but he wished to correct the misrepresentations which had gone abroad. The Council of the Borough of West Ham, and the District Council of East Ham had dropped their opposition, but were themselves mainly the cause of the delays and the unfortunate situation which he admitted did exist at the present time. The Ratepayers' Association and the Tradesmen's Association had a conference with the Directors, the hon. Members for Romford and Chelmsford, and himself, in the House of Commons, and listened to the explanations given to them by the Managing Director, and he thought that they were satisfied. He was therefore surprised to hear that they were opposing this Bill. He remembered the opening of the line, and he said it was unmistakable that this district, which had, during the last twenty years, become the centre of an enormous population, had been wonderfully well served both by the Great Eastern Railway Company and by the London, Tilbury, and Southend Company. The Directors in every case-where they had been able to meet the demands of the public had invariably done so. He was one of the first to approach the Directors on behalf of the working men of the district, and in consequence of the representations he made, the Board did everything they wished, putting on extra trains, and starting them earlier and later, so as to give every possible accommodation. They could not put on more than they did, unless they undertook to widen the line-throughout and get a new outlet into London. Their only outlet now was the Fenchurch Street station of the G.E.R., and it was not possible for the Southend and Tilbury line to 701 get one extra train in there. He had often waited at a station and had to let two trains pass by before he could get a seat in a first class railway carriage. But that was not the fault of the railway directors. It was impossible for them to put on more trains in the time, but they were now seeking powers to open up new-lines which they hoped would enable them to supply the deficiency and to give more accomodation for workmen. He took a deputation from the West Ham Council to the directors, who gave assurances which were accepted as satisfactory. But at the meeting of the Council their representations were treated, as usual, with abuse of railway directors in general, and wrangling and quarrelling amongst themselves, such as had made the Borough a scandal to municipalities. With regard to East Ham station, the directors of the Tilbury line got power in 1898 to make it, and in January, 1900 they asked the Council to widen the approaches to it in accordance with the agreement come to in the Bill. In May in the same year the Council agreed to make the approaches not more than 45 feet wade, but as nothing was done the company had to make a further application, and in November they pointed out to the Council it was absolutely necessary to have a definite reply. It was not until July, 1901, that the Council agreed to 50 feet, and even now the agreement was not yet sealed. It was clear that the delay had been caused by the laxity of the Council, and could not be justly attributed to the company, who had to alter all their plans at a great expense and delay the work. He recollected the hon. Member for Battersea, when speaking in defence of the London County Council, said that outside Borough Councillors were merely the photographic negatives to receive the ideas of their officials; and as regards West Ham no truer description could be given.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member is now going off the Tilbury line.
§ * MAJOR BANESI am very sorry, Sir. I was about to show that these 702 Councils are at the bottom of all the delays and complaints made against our railway companies, and that land jobbery and Council jobbery are the curse of West Ham, through the heavy burdens laid upon the ratepayers in legal and Parliamentary expenses in opposing every other public body. I will not trouble the House further.
§ (4.0.) MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)said a very large number of his constituents were deeply interested in this question, and the House need not be surprised at their bringing forward the grievances of the residents, for it really was the only way they had of bringing pressure to bear on the directors who, he was afraid, had been very lax. If his hon. friend succeeded in throwing out the Bill, it would electrify the directors. It might be impossible for the directors, with the limited means at their disposal, to run a sufficiency of workmen's trains, but some of them have a shrewd suspicion that the Company, in order to avoid expense, were refraining from using the right they had of running trains into Liverpool Street. If those powers existed, then he hoped they would be brought into operation, so that the company might convey their passengers to and from business in a reasonable fashion. No one would contend that to have twenty-two or twenty-four people in a single compartment of a carriage was a proper way of carrying passengers. Yet people were forced to travel under these conditions day by day, and they protested most strongly against this systematic overcrowding. If the complaints had reference to overcrowding and the insufficiency of trains alone, he could realise that there might be some excuse. But there was no excuse whatever for any railway company maintaining year after year railway stations which were not fit for women to go into, dirty stations, dirty waiting-rooms, dirty railway carriages, and filthy retiring rooms. East Ham Station, which is now to be put in a proper condition, was admitted to be in a state which to say the least it ought not to be in, and he knew as a matter of fact that women have not been able to use some portions of that station 703 a long time past. There was a maximum of discomfort, and there was great risk of injury owing to the narrowness and unsatisfactory character of the exits. That was the sort of thing which the railway company could have prevented. Some pressure must be brought from time to time by the House to bear upon, he would not say upon the directors, but possibly upon the officials of the company who were not as keenly alive to modern requirements as they ought to be. But if this Bill were not read a second time, then he feared that the evils of which they complained would simply continue, whereas if the Bill were read a second time he hoped that something might be done to remove those evils. Having raised a public protest against the company's neglect of a public duty which was not denied, the House would be well advised to give the Bill a second reading with the distinct intimation to the railway company that this line must be maintained with a due regard to the interests of passengers as well as the dividends of shareholders.
§ (4.5.) THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. JEFFREYS,) Hampshire, N.It is not my business or desire to support the railway company, but I have been informed by the promoters of the Bill that if it is allowed to be read a second time there will be no objection raised on any technical ground should any hon. Members who have opposed it desire to give evidence before the Committee as representing the ratepayers. I believe it has been said that the ratepayers have no proper locus standi before the Committee upstairs. But the promoters and agents have told me that they are quite willing to waive any opposition that they may have power to raise not only to hon. Gentlemen in this House, but to others representing the ratepayers who may desire to give evidence against the Bill. An hon. Member has pointed out that if this Bill is lost on the Second Reading it may do more harm to the locality. Reference has been made to the overcrowding of carriages, and I would like to point out that under this Bill it is intended to widen the line and to put on 704 more railway stock, thus giving an opportunity of carrying a greater number of passengers. I think if the Bill went upstairs there would be much more chance of getting the grievances complained of remedied than there would be by rejecting it, and I therefore hope that the Bill will be read a second time.
§ * MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex, Romford)said he had been in personal contact with the directors and had brought under their notice over and over again this subject of overcrowding and the bad accommodation at the stations. He had approached, too, the President of the Board of Trade and had given him photographs showing the dirty state East Ham Station was in. So far they had got no good results. But now they had the directors making a death-bed repentance. They had suddenly awakened to the fact that the House would no longer tolerate these grievances. The population of the district of East Ham had grown from 10,000 to over 100,000, and yet the accommodation in many instances had not been in any way increased. The company alleged that the opposition to this Bill emanated from land grabbers and other people who desired to develop the district. It was nothing of the kind. He contended, on behalf of the inhabitants of these parts, that they should have decent railway accommodation, and that they should be able to travel to town in a certain time in fit carriages. The company admitted that the carriages were dirty and that there was overcrowding. He had been in the habit of travelling up and down the line for five or six years; and he said it was frequently impossible to get a seat at all. Many people had to stand, and sometimes he had seen nine or ten standing in a compartment. He introduced a deputation to the directors the other day. The hon. Member for South West Ham said the directors satisfied them. But they did nothing of the kind. They went away, feeling that they had been done, and they came to the conclusion that they got nothing from the directors whatever. Mr. Stride told them how difficult it was to get trains into Fenchurch Street, but they obtained no satisfactory assurances whatever 705 in regard to remedying the evil complained of. He hoped that the House of Commons, in telling the directors that they must come another year for their Bill, and that they must keep the promises they made on previous occasions, would convince them that they could not ride the high horse in order to give larger dividends to their shareholders, and not give the public any accommodation whatever.
§ MR. TENNANT (Berwickshire)I wish to ask the Deputy Chairman of Committees if he can inform the House whether it will be possible for the Committee to hear evidence from people who have not petitioned against the Bill. He has stated that the promoters have agreed to raise no objection, but will it be possible?
§ MR. JEFFREYSI distinctly asked that question of the proper authorities, and was informed that if the promoters did not object to the witnesses giving their evidence the Committee could receive it. If counsel, however, on behalf to the promoters, do object, of course they can stop the evidence. They have, however, said they will not object.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRI am serving on a Committee myself, and it will be utterly impossible for me to give evidence
§ (4.16.) Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 84.)
707| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D. | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers. | Jebb, Sir Richard, Claverhouse |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Dyke, lit. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart | Jones, D., Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Emmott, Alfred | Lambert, George |
| Baird, John George Alex. | Farqnharson, Dr. Robert | Lawson, John Grant |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd. | Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.) | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds). | Finlay, Sir Robert, Bannatyne | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Balfour, K. R. (Christchurch) | Fisher, William Hayes | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Gurrie |
| Banes, Major George Edward | Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Leverson-Gower, Fred. N. S. |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Bignold, Arthur | Forster, Henry William | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bigwood, James | Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.) | Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gardner, Ernest | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S. |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Garfit, William | Lowe, Francis William |
| Bowles, Capt, H. F. (Middlesex) | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Lloyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. | Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin&Nairn) | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Caine, William Sproston | Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'ml't | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sgw. | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Carson, lit. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | M' Killop, James (Stirlingshire) |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Milvain Thomas |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Guthrie, Walter Murray | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshre | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford |
| Chamberlain, J. A (Worcester) | Hardy, Lawrence, Kent (Ashfrd | Mount, William Arthur |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale. | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles R. | Higginbottom, S. W. | Myers, William Henry |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset E. | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Hogg, Lindsay | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Crossley, Sir Savile | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de | Partington, Oswald |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Horner, Frederick William | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Howard, J.(Midd. Tottenham) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Randles, John S. |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Rattigan, Sir William Henry |
| Rea, Russell | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Smith, H. C. (N'th'mb, Tyneside | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Renshaw, Charles Bine | Spear, John Ward | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Ridley S. Forde (Bethnal Green) | Stroyan, John | Wood, James |
| Rigg, Richard | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Ropner, Colonel Robert | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Tritton, Charles Ernest | |
| Russell, T. W. | Valentia, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Cohen and Mr. Banbury. |
| Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney | |
| Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight | Welby, Lt.-Cl. A. C. E. (Taunt'n | |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Lloyd-George, David | Reid, Sir R. Threshrie (Dumfries |
| Allen, Chas. P. (Clone. Stroud) | Lough, Thomas | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent) | Roche, John |
| Austin, Sir John | Lundon, W. | Rumanian, Walter |
| Bell, Richard | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Black, Alexander William | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Blake, Edward | M' Cann, James | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Boland, John | M' Govern, T. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | M' Kenna, Reginald | Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (N'rth'nts |
| Caldwell, James | M' Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Campbell, Bannerman, Sir H. | Mooney, John J. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Morgan, David J. (W'lthamst'w | Tennant, Harold John |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Murphy, John | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorg'n, E.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings) |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Delany, William | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Trevelyan, Charles Phillips |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | O' Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Tully, Jasper |
| Donelan, Captain A. | O' Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid | Wallace, Robert |
| Doogan, P. C. | O' Brien, Patrick, Kilkenny | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan |
| Edwards, Frank | O' Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Ffrench, Peter | O' Connor, James (Wickl'w, W. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O' Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | O' Dowd, John | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Gilhooly, James | O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Grant, Corrie | O' Kelly, James (Roseomm'n, N. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O' Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Power, Patrick Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Major Rasch and Captain Norton. |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | Priestley, Arthur | |
| Joyce, Michael | Reddy, M. | |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
§ Main Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed.