§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)
said the object of the Instruction he now proposed to move was to omit from the London County Council Tramways and Improvements Bill the tramway which was to run across Westminster Bridge and then down the Victoria Embankment, as far as Waterloo Bridge, a distance of about one mile. There were two reasons 744 on which this Instruction might be supported. The first was that the tramway was unnecessary, that it would add considerably to the congestion of traffic which already existed on Westminster Bridge, and would create a congestion which did not now exist on the Victoria Embankment. The second reason was perhaps stronger; it was this—that a Royal Commission was now sitting to enquire into the whole of the locomotion of London, and that being so, it was rather extraordinary that at this particular time a Bill should be introduced having for its object the making of this tramway. For the last ten or twelve years Bills introduced for this object had been defeated either in this House or in another place. It could not be denied that a tramway across Westminster Bridge must cause a considerable congestion. Westminster Bridge as it stood was a very fine bridge, and that being so, he was prepared to leave it in the state in which it now stood, and not to injure it by putting upon it a weight and a burden which it could not bear. Two lines of tramways occupied a considerable space, and if they were laid on Westminster Bridge there could not possibly be any doubt but what there would be a considerable amount of congestion. He believed one of the great reasons for the congestion in London streets was the cross traffic. Hon. Members had only to go to Hyde Park Corner to see the reason of the blocks which occurred there was the cross traffic coming into Piccadilly from Park Lane, and the same thing was apparent in all the different large centres in London where great congestion of traffic occurred. He believed at the Mansion House the police were obliged every three or four minutes to stop the traffic in order to let the cross traffic pass. If a tramway passed over Westminster Bridge it would immediately have to turn to the right to go on to the Victoria Embankment and that would cause a considerable congestion of traffic just opposite this House. He did not wish to put his opinion before the House as being worth anything, although he had had a considerable amount of experience of the traffic in London streets.
745 The hon Member then referred to the evidence taken before the Royal Commission of 1892, to show that in the opinion of the expert witnesses examined, a tramway passing over Westminster Bridge and taking up and setting down passengers would create considerable congestion of traffic immediately in front of the Houses of Parliament. Having pointed out what would happen there, what, he asked, would happen at Waterloo Bridge? Hon. Members must remember that it was not proposed that the tramway should run the whole length of the Embankment, it was only to run as far as Waterloo Bridge. Hon. Members had often said they would not object to a tramway right along the Embankment, because it would provide a pleasant method of coming to this House, but this Bill did not carry out that view because these tramways stopped at Waterloo Bridge, where they turned to the left and met a tramway which went into the ground and under the new road which was being made to Holborn. There consequently would be another line of cross traffic at Waterloo Bridge which would join with something that came out from underground. The present cross traffic coming down the Savoy was comparatively nothing, but if there was to be a heavy cross traffic, disappearing somewhere at Holborn into the ground and coming out of the ground on to the Embankment, it could not be doubted for a moment that there would be considerable congestion at Waterloo Bridge. The Embankment was created in order to give relief to the traffic of the Strand and to provide a route for fast traffic from east to west, and it was convenient that there should be a relief route of that kind down which people might go when they were in a hurry. Of course, it might be urged that this tramway would be a very great advantage to people who lived in South London, but, in answer to that, he would say that he presumed it was not intended that the people were to be conveyed on this tramway for nothing, and that being so there was at present a line of omnibuses plying across the Bridge from Westminster to Charing Cross every half minute at a charge of one halfpenny for the journey, and that being so, the proposed tramway was unnecessary.
746 It might be said also that it was desirable to have a direct route from north to south, and no doubt that might be so, but if that was desirable then he thought that line should be underground entirely, and go under the river. This he understood could be carried out at a cost of £300,000. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence at all events to show that this matter ought to be deferred until the Royal Commission had had an opportunity of sifting and weighing all the evidence and giving their opinion upon it. A Royal Commission was now sitting to investigate the question of the locomotion of London, and no one would deny but that Westminster Bridge was a very important part of London, and, that being the case, it should come within the purview of the Royal Commission. He therefore appealed with confidence to the House, and to the division which would take place later on, to support the Instruction which he now begged to move.
§ MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)
said he rose to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Beckham, but not entirely on the same grounds. During the ten or eleven years he had been in this House, he had always steadily opposed a tramway over Westminster Bridge, and had always steadily opposed a tramway down the Embankment. As time had advanced, the question of finding a main arterial communication between North and South London had become more and more urgent. The consideration which governed his decision was that, having left this matter undealt with for ten or eleven years, we should not settle it in a hurry now, but await the decision of the competent tribunal to which this matter had been referred. The fact that the Royal Commission was sitting was the strongest possible reason why the House should suspend judgment on this matter pending the Report of that body. There was no paramount urgency for this tramway, because during the day of fifteen hours there were ninety-eight omnibuses making 1972 journeys, or 131 journeys per hour, over Waterloo Bridge, and ninety-eight omnibuses, making 1,910 journeys per day of fifteen hours, or 120 747 journeys per hour, over Westminster Bridge. He was not at all moved by the esthetic consideration that tramways would disfigure the Embankment; he did not think they would; but the whole of this question was at present sub judice, and he thought the House ought to wait until it received the Report of the competent body of experts who were considering the matter. He begged to second the proposed Instruction.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill to omit Tramway No. 7."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ MR. CUMMING MACDONA (Southward Rotherhithe)
said that to stand in the way of the North and South meeting either across Westminster or any other bridge would be a thoroughly obstructive policy. In this progressive age it would be to the benefit of London that intercourse between all districts should be made as easy as possible, and no one would deny that electricity and its developments afforded the most agreeable and expeditious method by which that could be done. He could not see why his constituents should be deprived of the privilege of coming by tram to admire the Houses of Parliament and going on to Hyde Park, or why the inhabitants of the West End should not be able to visit South wark Park in a similar way.
§ MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)
thought it a remarkable fact that the promoters of the Bill had not had the courtesy to make any statement as to the reasons why a proposal which had time after time been defeated, should now be supported by the House. The proposal of last year was a purely local matter, whereas the present scheme raised the serious question of the means of intercommunication between the great populations of North and South London. That was a problem which ought to be discussed without any party spirit, with the simple view of arriving as rapidly as possible at the best solution. Was the proposal now made the best solution? Apart from the 748 fact that the Royal Commission was sitting, he thought it could hardly be seriously suggested that a route over Westminster Bridge and along the Embankment was the best way by which to effect the inter-communication that was so much desired. Moreover, it was not at all certain that the Commission would recommend tramways as the best means of locomotion. He had no desire to contest the question on any narrow grounds, but the matter was one of such great importance that he thought it would be premature to act before the Royal Commission had reported.
§ SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)
supported the Instruction on the ground that to bring a tramway over Westminster Bridge was a wrong policy altogether. The great multitude of the people crossed further eastward, and the connecting link between north and south should be in that direction so as to join with the new Kingsway. There was no great demand at present for increased carrying accommodation across Westminster Bridge; it would be time enough to bring this matter forward when the Commission had reported. The County Council were trying to get all sorts of powers, which, when secured, they frequently did not exercise, and he expected that if they carried this proposal they would simply take the tramways over the bridge and stop on the north side, without effecting any communication between north and south.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
said the authority to decide as to the necessity of tramways was not the House of Commons, but the London County Council as created by Parliament, Both parties on the County Council had decreed that a tramway across Westminster bridge was desirable in the interest of better communication between North and South and when the Company proposed to take the lines over the bridge the County Council supported them. The construction of a tramway across the bridge would remove the congestion which now prevailed on the Surrey side of the bridge between St. Thomas's Hospital and York Road, in a roadway only thirty-three feet wide. The congestion at this dead end of the 749 present tramway system was so obvious that hon. Members themselves must have noticed it on a race day, on a review day, or when hurrying in a cab to Waterloo Station in order to play golf. They proposed instead of having a deadend terminus that there should be a continuous route across an eighty-six feet wide bridge turning to the right down the Embankment. The Embankment where it met the junction on the north side was 120 feet wide. Whenever they had a continuous tramway the congestion was bound to be much less. Instead of adding to the congestion of the traffic at this point it would decrease it, and it was on the Surrey side that they desired to remove the congestion by carrying the tramway across Westminster Bridge. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had said that congestion would be increased on the Embankment, but everyone would admit that the Embankment was wide enough for a traffic four times its present volume.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said that at the point he referred to the Embankment was 120 feet wide, but that its average width was about 100 feet. Lieutenant-Colonel Yorke, who was the chief witness before the Royal Commission, had stated that Westminster Bridge was a desirable place for a tramway, and he also declared that the Embankment seemed a route eminently suitable for tramway traffic. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had referred to the cross traffic. He would remind the House that the cross traffic at Hyde Park Corner had been considerably mitigated by the County Council having effected the widening of Piccadilly. Then there was the police evidence. He noticed that the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had a habit of always asking the police when in doubt. The hon. Baronet had quoted police evidence given in 1892, but why did he not tell the House that Parliament Street was then only fifty feet wide, and now it was 110 feet wide?
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said Parliament Street was then one-third of its present width, and the congestion of traffic had been removed.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that Parliament Street had nothing whatever to do with this Bill, because the tramway proposed would not go down Parliament Street, but would turn down the Embankment.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said the hon. Baronet ought to have asked the cabman who drove him down to the House for some information upon these points.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said that since the widening of Parliament Street the congestion of traffic had abated on the north side. The hon. Baronet stated that what was wanted was relief to the Strand, but that would be secured by allowing the passengers who stopped on the Surrey side to come along upon a continuous tramway across Westminster Bridge and down the Embankment, discharging passengers at Northumberland Avenue, and at the various streets between there and Waterloo Bridge. An omnibus carried twenty-six people, but an electric tram-car would carry between seventy and seventy-two passengers, and when it was realised that one tramcar could carry three times as many passengers as an omnibus it would be seen that this must be a great relief to the Strand, and would also remove the congestion on the Surrey side, diminishing the congestion on the bridge, and allowing a free flow of the traffic down Parliament Street and to the West End of London. The best judges as to which was the best route for a tramway or omnibus service were the Progressive and Moderate members of the London County Council, and they had agreed that the cheapest and best route was viâ Westminster Bridge, down the Embankment to Waterloo Bridge to the congested portion of the Strand, and then along Theobalds Road to Hampstead, High-gate, and elsewhere. The alternative route was to spend £500,000 of money upon a subway under the River 751 Thames from the Rev. Newman Hall's church in Westminster Bridge Road to near Birdcage Walk. Such a scheme would impose upon the London County Council a needless burden.
What were the objections to this Bill? Was the bridge too narrow? Certainly not. Next to the Alexandre III. Bridge in Paris, Westminster Bridge was the widest in Europe. Last year the House of Lords unanimously allowed the County Council to run an electric tramway over Putney Bridge, which was only twenty - five feet wide. Surely it was ridiculous and absurd for the House of Commons to deny this right to construct a tramway across a bridge three times as wide. Hon. Members should go to the tramway terminus at Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges and see for themselves the people fighting to get in and out of the tramcars. This had become a scandal, and it was a danger to life and property. The opposition to this Bill was being carried on simply in the interest of a few omnibus proprietors, who were not at present giving the public as good a service over the bridges as the County Council did in the past. They had already got the right to construct tramways over Putney and Battersea Bridges, and also over Vauxhall Bridge, and he appealed to the House in the interests of thousands of people who desired this tramway, to allow the County Council to carry out its primary duty of giving a cheap, easy, and north-to-south communication by tram over Westminster Bridge. If the House of Commons adopted this Bill, the County Council would do everything in its power to see that all the interests concerned were properly served, as they deserved to be. By carrying out this Embankment tramway the Council were pursuing the line of least resistance, and were giving London that communication which the people had long asked for, and which this House had long denied.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars)
said that when this subject was before the House upon the last occasion, the Board of Trade took no part in the discussion. If the present proposal had 752 been made under similar circumstances, the Board of Trade would not have sought to influence the decision of the House. It did, however, appear to the Board of Trade that the appointment of a Royal Commission on London Locomotion made a difference, the importance of which must be felt even by the hon. Member for Battersea. Speaking for the Board of Trade he felt bound to urge the House to agree to the Instruction which had been moved by his hon. friend pending the Report of the Royal Commission. The principle upon which the Board of Trade had proceeded during the whole of this session in regard to such measures, had been, that whenever a Private Bill was introduced which did not seem to run counter to the duties of the Royal Commission, the Board of Trade should facilitate the passing of such a Bill to a Committee. No one could contend that the present proposal was one of that kind. The very duty which the Royal Commission was called upon to perform was not merely in what direction particular lines should go, but it had quite as much, and perhaps more, to decide what particular mode of locomotion should be adopted in particular localities. It was possible at least that the Commission might recommend that street tramways were a bad mode of locomotion in any district where traffic was heavy. He wished to refer to what the hon. Member for Battersea had said about the evidence of Lieutenant-Colonel Yorke. He had read that evidence himself, and he was perfectly certain that the hon. Member had drawn exactly the opposite inference to that which Lieutenant-Colonel Yorke stated. He was giving evidence against tramways in congested districts, and in reply to a question he said that such a street as that across Westminster Bridge would be suitable for a tramway.
§ MR. BONAR LAW
said that the whole of Lieutenant-Colonel Yorke's evidence was in the direction that Westminster Bridge would not be suitable for a tramway. The question was, whether it was reasonable to appoint a Commission and 753 decide the question which the Commission had been appointed to consider? If that view were taken, it could only be on the ground that the House attached no importance to the Commission, and did not expect from it a Report of any value. To allow such an important subject as this to be taken out of the scope of the Commission would be disrespectful to that body. He did not propose to go into the question of the merits of the proposal. The argument that this was to be a great through route between North and South London was surely a reason for not allowing the proposal to go through. The Commission which was inquiring into those matters might admit the need of communication and yet be of opinion that a tramway over Westminster Bridge was not the best means of accomplishing that object. That was the kind of question which the Commission had been formed to decide upon. For those reasons, and especially in view of the fact that if this tramway was once allowed it would inevitably become the centre of a large north and south traffic, which, must continually grow, because all other systems of tramways on the north and south would have to be made to meet this system, he hoped the House would agree to this Instruction. Without, therefore, any prejudice to the County Council, and without prejudging the question, on the sole ground that the House ought to respect the Commission which had been appointed, he hoped the Instruction would be agreed to.
§ SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)
said that Westminster Bridge was one of the main means of access to the House of Commons, and no doubt this question was involved in the consideration as to whether a tramway ought to be constructed across Westminster Bridge. He remembered the old Westminster Bridge, and one of the reasons why the old bridge was removed and the present one built was that the traffic of the old Westminster Bridge was always in a congested condition, and that was one of the matters which the builders of the new bridge had in mind in constructing it upon its present dimensions. In the construction of the present bridge great attention was paid to the question of dealing with the large amount of traffic, and the mode suggested 754 was to provide two lines intended to be occupied by the slow traffic, and two lines by the quick traffic. It was thought that if one roadway each way was set apart for the quick traffic, and one each way for the slow traffic, the vehicles would pass along without obstruction. It was very soon found, however, that that was an error, and that the only way of making the traffic easy was to abolish that system and leave the roadway free to every kind of traffic. The effect of constructing tramways across Westminster Bridge would be to reproduce that very thing which it was sought to obviate. They would have two roadways taken up by the tramway and only one road each side would be left for the traffic. The result would be that things would be worse than they were before the new bridge was built. Congested as traffic was now on many occasions, it was obvious that it would be far worse if tramways were constructed on Westminster Bridge. Whatever had been decided with regard to Putney and Battersea Bridges, he thought they ought to leave Westminster Bridge free for the present traffic. If they required another bridge over the Thames for the tramways, they ought to construct some other means across the river. Something had been said about a subway under the river. But he thought the resources of science were not exhausted, and some other means might be found of bringing the tramways across the river.
§ MR. BURDETT - COUTTS (Westminster)
said the City of Westminster was perhaps more interested in this question than any other local authority in London. He shared the surprise of the hon. Member for Chelsea at the extraordinary spectacle witnessed a few moments ago, when hon. Members whose Bill had been attacked did not rise to defend it or to argue their case, but simply expressed their opinions by cries of "Vote" and "Divide." It was perfectly obvious that they wished to snatch a division while these Benches were empty. Nor could he congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea on the extraordinary attitude he took up with regard to the relations between 755 this House and the London County Council. He laid it down that this House was not the authority for tramways, but that the London County Council was. If that was so, why was this Bill before the House? And the hon. Member proceeded to say in his most magisterial manner that the London County Council had decreed unanimously that this measure should be carried, a measure which he would remind the House had over and over again been rejected by the House. Had they come then to this position, that the London County Council was a superior authority to this House?
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
remarked that he never said, neither did he imply, what the hon. Member stated. What he said was that the question whether a tramway was necessary on Westminster Bridge, was not, with all respect to Parliament, so much one for Parliament as for the highway authority which Parliament itself had created.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTS
did not think the hon. Member had made his case any better. He understood the hon. Member to argue that the London County Council was the authority for tramways and not this House, and that, therefore, the Council and not the House should decide on this measure. Was not that diminishing the authority of the House, and placing the London County Council in a superior position to it in regard to this question? He would not trouble the House with any comments on the merits of the case, but he would ask whether the House should forestall the decision of the Royal Commission which was sitting on this matter. Was it possible for them to say that the Royal Commission would not take an entirely different view from that which had been taken by the London County Council? The Royal Commission might decide that a tramway over Westminster Bridge was not the best way to establish communication between the southern and the northern systems of tramways. The most reasonable method of carrying out that project might be found to be by means of a tramway over Blackfriars Bridge. Anyone who was acquainted with the districts 756 or who looked at the map would know that there was a great system of tramways on the South side running up to Blackfriars Bridge, and a treat system on the North side running down to within a short distance of the same bridge. The most obvious coupling-up of the North and South would be across Blackfriars Bridge. If that would solve a great part of the problem it should, at least, be undertaken before a tramway was laid across Westminster Bridge, which would inflict great injury in various quarters. Last year the London County Council promoted a Bill in which there was nothing about carrying a tramway over Westminster Bridge, but in which it was proposed to place a tramway from nowhere to nowhere on the Embankment. He did not think that the real object the County Council had in view had been put forward in any of these proposals. He believed their object was to carry their tramway to Charing Cross, and thence through Regent Street and Piccadilly, and other West End thoroughfares, and down Victoria Street. There was an obvious proof of this. When the County Council took over the halfpenny omnibuses which crossed the bridge, did they ever turn them to the right along the Embankment? No, they ran them all to Charing Cross. They wanted to do the same thing with their tramway when they got it across Westminster Bridge. With all the 'bus proprietors watching to find new routes where the traffic would justify their running, not a single omnibus had ever turned along the Embankment from Westminster Bridge. He submitted that there was no need for a tramway over Westminster Bridge unless the House was prepared to sanction tramways through the already impassable streets of the West End, which was the real object behind this proposal. The debt of the London County Council had nearly doubled in thirteen years, and in the same period the rates of London had been increased nearly 40 per cent.
§ MR. BURDETT - COUTTS
said he would give the figures. In 1889 the rate was 1s. 0½d., and it was now 1s.4¾d.— 757 that was very nearly 40 per cent. Was this the moment for making a great capital expenditure on a speculation enterprise? He asked the House to vote in favour of the Instruction, which rejected the proposal to embark an enormous sum of the ratepayers' money to-day in a project which the Royal Commission might reject as unwise to-morrow.
§ MR. ALFRED DAVIES
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER with held his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Debate resumed.
§ SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
said he had always voted for this tramway, and he should like to give the reason why he could not vote for it now. The circumstances were quite different now from what they were last year. He was a member of the Royal Commission, and, therefore, could not take part in the division. This was not simply, as it was last, year, a question of facilitating traffic along the Embankment and across Westminster Bridge. It had become a question whether the House should sanction North and South communication by this tramway. Very largely increased facilities were wanted between North and South London. That was one of the points the Commission had to consider, and if he were to vote either way on this Motion, he should be prejudicing the case. There was no desire on the part of the Commission to postpone their work, and he hoped that before long this matter would be considered
§ MR. THORNTON (Clapham)
said this scheme was much needed by the people living in the district he represented. They desired transit facilities for reaching Holborn and the districts beyond without being forced to go underground. Last year a majority declared in favour of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: Not over Westminster Bridge.] It was a Bill for a tramway on the Embankment it must be admitted which gained that majority and suffered reversal in another place, but the two schemes were inseparable. The working classes 758 informed him that it was their desire that the scheme should be carried out in order that they might be able to go to their business in the cheapest and best way. He maintained that it was impossible for the Royal Commission to tell them more on this matter than they already knew. Although politically opposed to the hon. Member for Battersea, he would vote with him to-night, because he thought he was right.
§ MR CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
regarded this Bill from the point of view of a Londoner. In fact he was neutral in the matter except so far as the scheme affected London as a whole. He was much impressed by what fell from the hon. Member for North Islington, who reminded the House that the Royal Commission was charged to deal with the question of locomotion as a whole. The proposed tramway across Westminster Bridge and down the Embankment could not be regarded—he said it with all deference to the hon. Member for Clapham—asa local matter affecting South London. It was part of the general system of Loudon locomotion, and was therefore a matter which should be considered by the Commision. He was amused at the enthusiasm shown by the hon. Member for Battersea in support of this measure. It was only the other day that a Bill which had been passed by three Joint Committees, and which would give facilities to the North and East of Loudon, was opposed by the hon. Member He was struck by another observation that fell from the hon. Member. He said the width of Westminster Bridge was 86 feet. At a matter of fact it was 54 feet 3 inches. That had a very considerable bearing on the amount of congestion which a tramway across Westminster Bridge; would create. He did not think it was quite fair for the hon. Member to say that this tramway had the warm approval of Colonel Yorke. He thought that any impartial reader of Colonel Yorke's evidence must come to the conclusion that he was not in favour of it. He wished to see a general system for the whole of London, and he was glad that a Royal Commission which would take a broad view of the question had been appointed.
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)
said that he had last year the honour of sitting on the Select Committee which investigated the proposal to place a tramway on the Embankment. The Committee passed that tramway, and he asked the House to sanction the decision of the Committee. It was absolutely necessary that some means of communication between the tramways on the north side and the south side of the river should be found, but it was very difficult to say whether that means should be by Westminster Bridge or by an entirely new bridge. They were that day in a very different position from twelve months ago. A very strong and competent Commission had been appointed to investigate the question of London traffic as a whole, and he thought the promoters of this tramway line should withdraw their proposal, and bring it forward after the Commission had presented their Report. It was for that reason alone that he would give his vote against proceeding with the Bill in the present session. It would be
§ a waste of time and money to have a question like that involved investigated by two different bodies.
§ COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)
said that when it was proposed to spoil London and desecrate its best sites by any scheme, country Members like himself ought not to sit quiet without entering their protest. He was opposed to the tramways crossing Westminster Bridge, and he thought the expenditure of £500,000 in providing another means, under or over the river, of connecting the tramways of North and South London would pay over and over again. There was no reason for the present hurry, and the question should not be pre-judged before the Report of the Royal Commission was prepared and laid before Parliament.
§ Question put.
§ House divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 133. (Division List No. 49.)761
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||Johnstone, Heywood|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Doughty, George||Knowles, Lees|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore||Lawson, John Grant|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Duke, Henry Edward||Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Arrol, Sir William||Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)||Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.|
|Atkinson, Right Hon. John||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds||Fisher, William Hayes||M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.||Forster, Henry William||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Bignold, Arthur||Fyler, John Arthur||Maple, Sir John Blundell|
|Bigwood, James||Garfit, William||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton|
|Bowles, Lt.- Col. H. F. (Middlesex||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn||Milvain, Thomas|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.||Morgan D. J. (Walthamstow)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Groves, James Grimble||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Chapman, Edward||Hambro, Charles Eric||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hamilton, Marg. of (Londondy||Myers, William Henry|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Cox, Irwin Edwd, Bainbridge||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Percy, Earl|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Hogg, Lindsay||Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Hope, J. F. (Sheff. B'tside)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Denny, Colonel||Horner, Frederick William||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Hoult, Joseph||Purvis, Robert|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson||Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.||Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Robertson, H. (Hackney)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R. (Bath)|
|Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Tollemache, Henry James||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Seton-Karr, Sir Henry||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.|
|Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Ren-||Wanklyn, James Leslie||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside||Webb, Col. William George||Frederick Banbury and|
|Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)||Mr. W. F. D. Smith.|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Sturt, Hn. Humphrey Napier||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)||Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley|
|Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.||Rea, Russell|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd||Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Austin, Sir John||Hope John Deans (Fife, West||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshare)||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Bell, Richard||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk||Rose Charles Day.|
|Boland, John||Jacoby, James Alfred||Runciman, Walter|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Joicey, Sir James||Russell, T. W.|
|Brigg, John||Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire.)||Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)|
|Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)||Labouchere, Henry||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Shackleton, David James|
|Burns, John||Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Burt, Thomas||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Leng, Sir John||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Caldwell, James||Levy, Maurice||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Lewis, John Herbert||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Lloyd-George, David||Sullivan, Donal|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lough, Thomas||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lundon, W.||Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Macdona, John Cumming||Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)|
|Crooks, William||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign||M'Fadden, Edward||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Delany, William||M'Govern, T.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Delvin, Chas, Ramsay (Galway||M'Kenna, Reginald||Tomkinson, James|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Toulmin, George|
|Doogan, P. C.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.|
|Elibank, Master of||Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)|
|Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)||Moulton, John Fletcher||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Evans, Saml, T. (Glamorgan)||Murphy, John||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcester., N.)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith||Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders'fd|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||O'Doherty, William||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Dowd, John|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Malley, William|