§ [SECOND READING.]
§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ DR. SHIPMAN (Northampton)
said the Motion which he had put down upon the Paper for the rejection of this 93 measure was neither frivolous nor obstructive. He opposed the Bill on its demerits, and he believed when the House fully understood what the Bill was intended to do they would agree that it was not such a Bill as should receive a Second Reading. Its title was misleading. It was said to be a Bill for the purpose of freeing Maidenhead Bridge, yet at the present moment the bridge was free to all traffic. If the House would allow him he would give a short history of this bridge in order to show what the corporation of Maidenhead had been doing. Years ago there was a rotten old wooden bridge crossing the river on the great highway between Bath and London, and an Act was obtained by the corporation of Maidenhead in 1772 to enable the corporation to borrow £19,000 or £20,000 for the purpose of replacing this rotten wooden bridge by a new stone bridge, the repayment of the £20,000 having to be made out of the tolls it was permitted to the corporation of Maidenhead to charge on all vehicular traffic. It was also to provide for the maintenance of the bridge out of the tolls levied. The corporation ignored paying off the money borrowed and confined itself to paving the interest. This highway at that time was the great means of transit between London and Bath, and the corporation made a great profit out of the tolls, and there was a large surplus which was devoted by the corporation of Maidenhead to the purchase of land and the building of houses and in that way a further revenue was obtained. The misapplication of this money, which belonged to the public, and which should have been used for freeing the bridge, went on for some time. The corporation of Maidenhead then got a plum from the Great Western Railway in the shape of £5,000 to stop their mouth and to keep them from opposing the Great Western Railway's scheme. They received that money, but no one knew what had become of it.
About 1835 some of the members of the corporation were rather troubled in their consciences and began to wonder whether they were rightly applying the surplus derived from their tolls in the way they did, and a man named Bishop took counsel's opinion on the matter. That opinion was to the effect that they had 94 no right to apply any of the money derived from the bridge except for the purposes of the bridge. He then consulted Sir John Phillamore, who advised that the Law Officers of the Crown should be consulted and their opinion taken. That was proposed at a meeting of the corporation of Maidenhead by Sir John Phillamore, and seconded by Mr. Bishop, and the result of the discussion that ensued was that the corporation decided not to take counsel's opinion. For seventy years after this matters were allowed to sleep, until a gentleman named Fullbrook who lived at Slough, passed over the bridge on his motor-car. Motor-cars rather troubled the corporation, they had provided for all other kinds of traffic but not motors, and when Mr.Fullbrook came they did not know what toll to levy but thought they would put it as high as possible and charged 8d. Mr. Fullbrook thought this toll rather exorbitant and objected to pay it. Thereupon they took a cushion from his car, the cushion was sold for 3s., but by this time their charges with the toll had mounted from 8d. to 2s. 9d., and they returned Mr. Fullbrook 3d. He might point out that tolls had been collected for many years, because in the 12th century the citizens of London protested against the exorbitant charges made by the citizens of Maidenhead for passing over the bridge. Mr. Fullbrook applied then for support to a gentleman well known in reference to bridge matters. A gentleman who had done more than anyone else on behalf of the public to see the bridges freed, Mr. Joseph Taylor. Mr. Taylor had practically freed the Windsor Bridge, as it was through the action which he brought and fought up to the House of Lords that the Windsor Bridge was freed. Mr. Joseph Taylor took the matter up and investigated it and took counsel's opinion, which opinion was rather startling. That opinion stated that the corporation of Maidenhead had no right to appropriate to their own purposes the surplus of tolls levied on the bridge and, beyond that, that since 1835 they had no right to levy tolls at all. That the effect of certain Acts of Parliament up to and since 1835 had been to take away from the corporation all right to interfere with the bridge, which was a charitable trust, and that since 1835 the coproration of Maidenhead 95 had not the right to levy a single toll. It might be argued that the corporation was ignorant of this but it must have appeared on their minutes, and they must have had due warning in 1835, when they were told they had no right to use the money derived from the bridge for corporate purposes, and when they refused to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. Mr. Joseph Taylor communicated the opinion he had got to the Charity Commissioners and told them that they were the proper persons to control the trust. The Charity Commissioners at once investigated the matter at Maidenhead itself, and, having the power to examine all accounts, found out exactly what the corporation had teen doing for so many years, but finding themselves in a difficulty they allowed the matter to go on for another three years until the expiration of the lease. Mr. Joseph Taylor, in the meantime, instilled the position of affairs into the minds of the people, with the result that on the expiration of the lease on 31st October, 1903, they gathered at midnight at the bridge, which was then declared to be free, removed the gates and threw them into the Thames, from whence they were subsequently recovered, and they were now preserved in some museum.
This Bill now proposed to free from tolls Maidenhead Bridge which was already free, and to enable the corporation of Maidenhead to borrow a sum of £20,000, in return for which they proposed to maintain the bridge and pay their debts. It was through Mr. Joseph Taylor that the wrong-doing of the corporation of Maidenhead had been brought to light and that they had been stopped in that wrong-doing, and if this Bill was not passed they might be in a difficulty. They had been doing wrong for many years, and were possessed of a little property which they had purchased out of tolls they had no right to levy, and from which they derived a revenue of £1,000 a year, and it was by this Bill for the first time that they attempted to put themselves in the right. They were vindictive against Mr. Joseph Taylor because he brought this to light. If it had not been for him things would have been going on in the same old way and people be still paying tolls and no one 96 the wiser. That the corporation of Maidenhead desired to get rid of their responsibility without paying over a large sum of money was shown by the fact that they entered into negotiations with both county councils to sell the bridge for £20,000. Mr. Joseph Taylor's action stopped that, because he showed they had not a tittle of right to the property they proposed to hand over. This Bill also asked that the corporation of Maidenhead should be allowed out of the money they were to be permitted to borrow all the costs and charges they had been put to. No doubt but for the Petitions against it lodged by Mr. Joseph Taylor this Bill would have passed both Houses of Parliament without opposition. But Mr. Joseph Taylor, knowing what was going on, petitioned to be heard on the Bill when it was before the Committee of the House of Lords; he was listened to with consideration, but the House of Lords Committee; finally came to the conclusion that it would be better to pass the Bill and allow Mr. Joseph Taylor to take action when the Bill reached this House. When the Bill came before a Committee of this House Mr. Joseph Taylor lodged his Petition against it and asked to be heard before the Committee, but the corporation of Maidenhead lodged a notice of objection and refused to hear him in Committee, a most contemptible proceeding on the part of the corporation of Maidenhead, after having allowed him to be heard before the Committee of the House of Lords. He could not say one word against the judgment of the Court of Referees, which decided that Mr. Taylor had no locus to be heard. The Court had to look to the strict letter of the Standing Order and could give favour to no one. But he went behind that decision and asked how it was that the corporation raised an objection to his going before a Committee of that House. He should have been glad to see some signs of repentance on the part of the corporation of Maidenhead and some indication that they were willing to pay Mr. Taylor those reasonable costs and expenses he had been put to in throwing light on their proceedings. Under the Bill the expenses of the corporation were to be paid. Why, then, should not the expenses be paid of the man who had had 97 the public spirit to get up, against great opposition, without any strong support and without any funds, to let the public know how they had been swindled and what this corporation had teen doing? It was in order to give Mr. Joseph Taylor an opportunity of being heard in Committee that he had put down the Instruction standing in his name. There was an old equity saying that he who sought for equity should be prepared to act equitably and should come to the Court with clean hands. He opposed this Bill because it was misleading: because there was no question of freeing the bridge it proposed to free, and because this corporation, in his opinion, did not come to the House with clean hands. He begged to move.
§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)
said he rose to second the rejection of the Bill. After the manner in which his hon. friend had dealt with the case it was not for him to occupy the time of the House. It appeared to him that the House could not sanction the Second Reading of this Bill. Mr. Taylor had done a magnificent work in freeing the bridge. He had expended an enormous amount of time, and had been put to enormous cost. The corporation had ignored him; had paid no regard to the good work he had done; had referred him to the public to be recouped the cost to which he had been put, and now they had the audacity to bring to this House a Bill the object of which was to whitewash them and relieve them from the responsibility of their wrongdoing of so many years. This Corporation had received from 1772 to the 31st of October, 1903, out of tolls on this bridge, £140,000, and the upkeep of the bridge for the last ten years had not exceeded £30. They also derived a revenue of £1,116 from the property they built and purchased out of the surplus of the tolls received from the bridge, and beyond that they had built a church, and the money derived from the pew-rents had vanished, and they had sold the advowson and no one knew what had become of the money. Since 1836 they had had no right to collect tolls, but they collected them until the whole question was raised by Mr. Fullbrook crossing the bridge on his motor. That case was still before the 98 Courts, and he protested against this Bill being proceeded with until the case had been disposed of. He submitted that the House should not grant powers while that case was engaging the attention of the Courts. What were they going to do with all this money which had been set aside by the corporation? He thought the corporation ought to pay their debts out of that money, and not come to the House of Commons for power to borrow £70,000 or £80,000 as was provided for in this Bill. He sincerely trusted the House would not pass a Bill of this nature. The mayor and corporation of Maidenhead were obdurate upon this subject, and he could only suppose that they had a grudge against this man and felt annoyed because they were not able to enjoy the tolls at the present time. Ever since the year 1836 the corporation had been taking these tolls, and the House of Commons ought not to encourage anything of this kind. He sincerely hoped the House would not allow this Bill to have a Second Reading, but would see that justice was done all round. He begged to second his hon. friend's Motion.
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Dr. Shipman.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)
said he thought there must be some misunderstanding with regard to this Bill on the part of his hon. friend who had just spoken. He had heard from his hon. friend near him that it was the desire of Mr. Joseph Taylor to free this bridge from tolls. That might or might not be the case, but he knew that there was an action now pending in the High Court with reference to this very matter. In regard to the principle of this Bill, the question was whether it was expedient that an Act to free Maidenhead Bridge from tolls and to enable the corporation to borrow money to discharge certain debts should or should not obtain a Second Reading. He had heard nothing from either of his hon. friends to suggest any grounds whatever for contradicting the proposition 99 that this Bill should obtain a Second Beading. He had heard something about Mr. Joseph Taylor, and, after having listened to that gentleman, all he could say was that he thought he was a most active and energetic citizen. This was one of those private Bills brought forward in the House of Lords, and there he understood that Mr. Joseph Taylor and the ther petitioners who were now complaining of this Bill were heard, but the House of Lords passed the Bill. It then came to the House of Commons and a Petition was presented in this House. The matter came before the Court of Referees, because the promoters objected to the locus standi of Mr. Joseph Taylor and the other gentlemen who had signed the Petition which he presented. Mr. Taylor was heard at length, and he was bound to say he presented his case with the utmost clearness and with very great vigour to the Court. There were two grounds on which he argued his right to be heard before a Committee of this House. When anyone asked for a locus standi he generally did So on the ground that he had a locus standi under one of the Standing Orders of the House or according to the practice of Parliament. It soon became clear that Mr. Taylor had no locus standi under any Standing Order, and therefore the question arose whether according to the practice of Parliament he had any locus standi on some other ground recognised by the decisions of the Court of Referees. They listened with the utmost patience, and two points were made by him, and both of them had been referred to by his hon. friend on his left. The first point was that the corporation of Maidenhead had illegally exacted tolls and that litigation was pending in the High Court of Justice. The point was that he or some servant of his was going with a conveyance and was stopped and pulled up at the bridge and had to pay 4d. Consequently Mr. Taylor brought an action in the High Court of Justice to recover this 4d. and damages. He understood that this was a test case. Objection had been taken to this Bill because this case was pending in the High Court. The question was what was there in this Bill which affected Mr. Taylor's right to go on with his action, and the answer was that there was nothing whatever in this 100 Bill affecting that litigation. This measure had nothing to do with any illegal exactions. It was obvious that according to Parliamentary practice they could not allow Mr. Taylor a locus standi on that ground.
But Mr. Taylor raised another point of much greater gravity, and as to which it was possible that the Attorney-General might be asked for some explanation, and that was with regard to the general action of the Maidenhead Corporation ever since the year 1835. From that year this corporation had been guilty of misapplication or non-application of these bridge tolls, and it appeared from the very preamble of this Bill that these funds had become vested in them under ancient charters and under the Act of 1772, to which reference had been made, and by subsequent legislation, and that this was a public charitable trust. They had under these circumstances to consider whether this gave any locus standi to Mr. Joseph Taylor. He said that this was a public charitable trust, and he was in exactly the same position in regard to this matter as any other of His Majest's subjects. None of the petitioners were landowners or ratepayers in the borough of Maidenhead, nor was it alleged that any of them had been injuriously affected by this, consequently they had to ask themselves by what right did Mr. Joseph Taylor complain of this Bill. Anyone else might justly complain of the misapplication or non-application of these trust funds. It was a matter of common knowledge that the action to enforce the accounts against trustees in the case of charitable trusts must be brought in the name of the Attorney-General and any citizen might ask him to bring the action. That was how the case came before them, and by Clause 11 it was undoubtedly the case that if there had been misapplication of the funds, the corporation of Maidenhead had obtained an indemnity. He did not know whether they ought to obtain tint indemnity or not, but Mr. Joseph Taylor was not entitled to a locus standi on that point, because he had, made no special case for himself. He thought some explanation ought to be given by the Attorney-General of his certificate in the House of Lords that he was satisfied with the Bill, 101 and that it ought to proceed. In regard to matters concerning charities, either one of the Charity Commissioners or the Attorney-General had to make some report, which hid been made in this case. He confessed that he did not know why the Attorney-General had agreed to this indemnity so readily being given to the Maidenhead Corporation, and upon that point he thought they were entitled to some explanation from the Government.
MB. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)
Will the hon. Member say what would happen if this Bill is rejected?
MR. BRYNMOR JONES
said he thought the position would be very un-unsatisfactory if the Bill were rejected, and he agreed that there was a case for a Second Reading of the Bill. He thought, however, that the Unopposed Bills Committee would criticise Clause 11 very severely. He did not propose to vote against the Bill, but he thought some explanation ought to be given in regard to Clause 11 and the certificate given by the Attorney-General.
§ MR. GARDNER (Berkshire, Wokingham)
said that the corporation so much condemned by the hon. Members who had moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill was one in his Division. The speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite were a condemnation of those who formed the corporation of Maidenhead three quarters of a century ago. The position of Mr. Joseph Taylor in this case had been well put before the House by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brynmor Jones). This Bill was promoted by the corporation of Maidenhead under the instructions of the Charity Commissioners, who knew all about the case. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton had taken them over a good many years, even to the year 1200. The history of Maidenhead Bridge was long enough without going back so far. The bridge was built under an Act of 1772, which enacted that the bridge should be the property of the mayor and burgesses of the borough of Maidenhead for ever, and that they should erect a toll house and levy tolls for ever. A body of laymen might be excused if they considered that that bridge and tolls were theirs for all 102 time. At any rate they acted upon that assumption until 1836. It was quite true that in 1836 a question was raised by a member of the corporation as to whether the corporation of Maidenhead were right in dealing with the bridge and the money derived from it in the way they had done. It was not to be wondered at that the corporation, armed by their Bill of 1772, saw no reason to depart from the method which had intherto obtained. From the year 1897 to 1901 the corporation were anxious to obtain the freedom of the bridge with the co-operation of the local authorities around, and it was not accurate to say that they were not able to carry out the freeing because they had not a good title. The local authorities in the neighbourhood of the bridge were unable to agree upon a course of action, and the proposal fell through. The hon. Member opposite had spoken very highly of Mr. Taylor, who had had great experience in bridge matters. In his statement in another place he said that up to April, 1900, he had not had the least intention of intervening, because he shared the general opinion that the bridge was corporate property and being legally administered under the Act of 1772. If the Maidenhead people were doing wrong then at any rate they had the concurrence of Mr. Taylor in their proceedings up to that time. Mr. Taylor obtained counsel's opinion, and he was advised that the bridge was a charitable trust, and that the proper method of procedure was to apply to the Charity Commissioners. He did so, and after some correspondence with the town clerk, who rendered every assistance, the Commissioners announced to the Maidenhead Corporation that the bridge was a charitable trust and that they should hold an inquiry. The corporation offered every assistance to the Charity Commissioners. The Commissioner representing the Charity Commissioners said that the corporation had expressed its willingness to afford all possible information. After reading extracts from the evidence before the inquiry, the hon. Member proceeded to say the Charity Commissioners recommended that this Act should be passed to free the bridge in 1905. As a result of that inquiry the Commissioners made certain suggestions which had been embodied in this Bill, and as a matter of fact the corporation 103 had freed the bridge this year, instead of waiting till 1905, at a considerable loss to themselves.
What was the opposition to this Bill? It narrowed itself down to a few persons. Who desired the Bill to pass? In the first place the Charity Commissioners strongly recommended it and the Local Government Board approved of it, and the general public had got all they wanted. The Attorney-General, in his report, said that although there might have been misapplication of the funds he saw no reason to suppose that those funds had not been fairly applied for the benefit of the public. He thought that was a recommendation upon which the House might very well be asked to act. Who were the opponents of the Bill? One of them was Mr. Joseph Taylor, who was a member of the public who had taken action. He opposed this measure on the ground that his costs ought to be paid. What costs had he incurred? He might have gone to the expense of getting counsel's opinion, but having done that he had no need to go further. He venturd to suggest to the House that no good reasons had been shown for killing this Bill. This measure had in its favour all those in authority and the corporation and ratepayers of Maidenhead. It benefited the public and it did no harm to a single individual.
§ MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)
said he was sorry to hear the last words of the hon. Member who had just sat down, because with a very large part of his speech he found himself in agreement. If a Bill did an injustice to a single man that Bill ought not to pass until the injustice had been removed. He thought the hon. Member opposite had stepped a little beyond his usual good taste and kindly feeling when he said that Mr. Taylor could not have this money both ways. Mr. Taylor had only had £36 of his costs by public subscription, while his total costs were between £300 and £400. He thought his hon. friends on the Opposition side had gone a great deal too far by the use of such a strong word as "swindle." This was clearly not a case of swindle, but of a little misapprehension of what was fair and equitable. But for the action of Mr. Taylor it was quite clear that this 104 Bill would not now have been before the House of Commons. The hon. Member opposite agreed that Mr. Taylor was entitled to the amount of counsel's fee. But why did the Maidenhead Corporation not pay it? They had put in a clause that they should be paid their own costs, and they might have added also the taxed costs of Mr. Taylor. He was not asking that Mr. Taylor should have the expenses he incurred by going about the country addressing public meetings, but simply that he should have his out-of-pocket expenses, which he had been put to in fighting for a public right. A corporation which was asking for indemnity from wrong-doing ought to take every step to see that it was doing what was right for others. The necessity for this Bill arose out of the action of the Maidenhead Corporation. Nobody wanted Mr. Taylor to go on with his action in Court to maintain his right to go over the bridge without paying a toll; but if the Maidenhead Corporation would not do justice to Mr. Taylor, he thought hon. Members would be justified in voting against this Bill. His hon. friend the Member for Swansea had explained Mr. Taylor's position very fully, and it was clear that he had no locus standi under the Orders of this House, and consequently he had been refused a hearing. That was why this question had to come before the House, because the Standing Orders did not cover every possible case. Mr. Taylor had no more locus before the Committee than any other member of the public; but the distinction was that he had taken upon himself a public duty, and was endeavouring to assert a public right, and had incurred certain expenses in doing it. Now when the Maidenhead Corporation came here asking for indemnification for the wrong they had done in the past, it was only reasonable that the man who had been in the right should be indemnified also.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER
said that earlier in the debate he interjected a Question, and asked what would happen if this Bill was rejected. The only answer given to him by the hon. Member for Swansea was that the position of matters would be very unsatisfactory. It seemed to him that if this Bill were rejected the first thing that would happen would be 105 that the Act of 1772 would still remain in force, and that Act empowered the tolls to be levied on the bridge. Now that was the last thing which anybody in this House wished to see. The corporation of Maidenhead did not wish to levy these tolls, neither did Mr. Taylor, or the Charity Commissioners, or the Attorney-General—in fact, nobody wished to levy them—and if the House rejected the Second Reading, the very thing would happen which none of them wished to happen Clause 4 of this measure provided that the Aft of 1772 should be repealed and that Act must be in force, or there would be no necessity to repeal it.
§ DR SHIPMAN
said that the corporation had got plenty of money to provide for the maintenance of the bridge. They had taken an enormous sum of money from the public in tolls, and during the last ten years they had only paid £30 for the maintenance of the bridge.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER
said they were all agreed that it was desirable that this Bill should become an Act, and the whole difficulty related to Mr. Taylor's bill. The question was had Mr. Taylor any claim at all. He regretted that the corporation and Mr. Taylor did not come to an amicable arrangement, but both parties decided to stand on their rights, and Mr. Taylor's rights were now at vanishing point, because the Court of Referees had disallowed his locus There was, moreover, no fund out of which Mr. Taylor could be compensated. Mr. Taylor could hardly expect a special rate to be levied. The Charity Commissioners had decided that this money was to be considered in the nature of a charitable trust which must be applied to certain purposes, and one of those purposes was not Mr. Taylor.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER
said that he suggested to the parties that some amicable arrangement might be arrived at, and personally he regretted that both parties decided to stand on their legal rights; and he did not see how Mr. Taylor had any legal rights in the matter. He was very sorry for him; but in the interests of all parties it was extremely desirable that this Act should go through, and therefore he should vote for the Second Reading. He trusted the House would pass this Bill, in order that Maidenhead Bridge might be freed from tolls, and that the Act of 1772 might be replaced.
said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the expenses of this Bill were to be paid out of the charity trust funds, and that there was no fund out of which Mr. Taylor could be compensated. In that he was in error. If he would look at Section 28 he would see that the costs of the Corporation were to be paid out of the borough fund.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER
said that what he stated was that the accumulated funds arising from the tolls on the bridge were impressed with a charitable trust.
§ MR. CORRIE GRANT
said MR. Taylor's expenses might be paid out of the same fund as that from which the expenses of the Maidenhead Corporation were to be paid.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, ⅞. (Division List No.151.)107
|Acland-Hood, (Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Bignold, Arthur||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Brigg, John||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Crombie, John William|
|Asher, Alexander||Bull, William James||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cavendish. V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Davenport, William Bromley|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Charrington, Spencer||Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Doughty, George|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Ellice, Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward||Lowther, Rt Hn. J.W(Cum.Penr||Skewes,-Cox, Thomas|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Slack, John Bamford|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Mane'r||Maconochie, A. W.||Smith, H. C(North'mb.Tyneside|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edtnond||M'Crae, George||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Forster, Henry William||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W||Spear, John Ward|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Garfit, William||Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Milvain, Thomas||Stock, James Henry|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Stroyan, John|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Morpeth, Viscount||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.||Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Parkes, Ebenezer||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Tuff, Charles|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Percy, Earl||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Hickman. Sir Alfred||Plummer, Walter R.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Pym, C. Guy||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Hunt, Rowland||Randies, John S.||Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Reid, James (Greenock)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Keswick, William||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr|
|Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Gardner and Mr. Mount.|
|Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.||Russell, T. W.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, X.E.)||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Grant, Corrie||O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.|
|Bell, Richard||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||O'Malley, William|
|Black, Alexander William||Hammond, John||Partington, Oswald|
|Boland, John||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh).||Hayden, John Patrick||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Burns, John||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Reddy, M.|
|Burt, Thomas||Horniman, Frederick John||Rigg, Richard|
|Caldwell, James||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Joyce, Michael||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Kilbride, Denis||Sheehy, David|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Cullinan, J.||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Lewis, John Herbert||Sullivan, Donal|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Lloyd-George, David||Tennant, Harold John|
|Delany, William||Lundon, W.||Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Macdona, John Cumming||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Young, Samuel|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Murnaghan, George|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Murphy, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Dr.|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Shipman and Mr. Weir.|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Norman, Henry|
|Field, William||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
Bill read a second time, and commit