§ *MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)said he rose to move the Instruction standing in his name, which was to omit from the London County Council's Bill that portion of the tramways which started east of Westminster Bridge, traversed 222 Westminster Bridge and the Embankment, and then crossed over Blackfriars Bridge. He expressed his regret at having to speak again on this well-worn subject, but made no apology for so doing because that apology should come not from him but from those who continued to propose these Bills. He and those who supported him only asked the House to reaffirm a decision at which they had arrived on more than one previous occasion, whilst those who opposed the Instruction asked the House to cancel the vote it had previously given. In 1892 and 1898 similar Bills promoted by the London County Council were rejected by the House of Commons, and in the present Parliament in 1903 and 1904 similar proposals were rejected by majorities of twenty-eight and thirty-eight. On this occasion no new facts had come before the House to cause it to reconsider its previous decisions. He based his appeal to the House to reject the proposals of the London County Council on the considered Report of a Joint Committee which sat to consider the question of London traffic in 1891, and which reported that a street tramway was not the best way of dealing with this problem, the solution of which was to be found in shallow under-street tramways and in tube railways. He and those who thought with him also attached considerable importance to the fact that subsequent to that time different railway companies had taken powers to construct tubes to connect up different parts of London.
He repudiated the suggestion that those who opposed this Bill were opposed to easy, cheap, and direct means of communication between the industrial population of the South and the industrial population of the North of London. It was because, in his opinion, this Bill would not have that effect that he opposed it. At this moment a tube railway was approaching completion which would commence at Waterloo, close to the Elephant and Castle, and run thence to Charing Cross and northwards to Baker Street. In addition, there was a tube in course of construction running between Charing Cross and King's Cross, whilst there was a railway in operation running from the South of 223 London through Black friars northward. Together these railways would give the industrial population very cheap, direct, and quick communication between various parts of London, similar Bill was rejected last year on the grounds that the Traffic Commission appointed at the instigation of hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider the question of London traffic had not reported That Commission had not reported up to this time, and that being so how could the House sanction the construction of those tramways before they knew the deliberate and considered view of that Commission. He did not think any hon. Gentleman who consulted a map of London would say that the best means of bringing the industrial population of the South into communication with the industrial population of the North of London was by a tramway over Westminster Bridge and down the Embankment to Blackfriars Bridge. Surely the best way would be by a tube under the Thames or a tramway over a bridge less distant from the working-class population than Westminster.
He appealed also to the artistic sense of the House. London was gradually becoming a city of beauty and the centre of its beauty must always lie, from historic and artistic causes, largely in the region between the towers of Westminster and the dome of St. Paul's. Through, that region ran our great river in so devious a course, that it was impossible to obtain direct arterial communication along its banks. By a curious accident that much derided body the Metropolitan Board of Works built on the side of the river a worthy Embankment; while the action of that House had lined the Embankment with gardens of much charm. If one place was to be picked out in any part of London into which should not be thrust unnecessarily an alien stream of continuous and heavy traffic it would be this region. He therefore appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite who had a proper sense of the dignity of Central London to join with him in saying that until proof had been given that it was absolutely necessary that this alien traffic should go on to the Embankment they would oppose the Bill. He begged to move.
§ *SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham), in seconding the Instruction, said he did not propose to base his arguments for opposing the London County Council's Bill upon artistic, but upon practical grounds. There was no violent hurry for this measure. We had gone along for many years without having a tramway on the Embankment, and before such a work was proceeded with it was only commonsense to allow the Royal Commission, which had been sitting now for two years, and which would in all probability deliver its Report in a few months, to report. The only conclusion he could come to as to the reason for this Bill being pressed was that hon. Gentlemen opposite were afraid that the Report of the Commission would not be favourable to them. There was no great demand for these trams down the Embankment. There had not been any omnibus traffic on the Embankment for the last thirty years. In two or three months we were going to have a line of steamers on the river upon which the London County Council were going to spend £350,000, and now they proposed to spend a large sum of money in laying down a line of trams on the Embankment to compete with their own steamers. At the same time there was a railway under the Embankment which would shortly be electrified. It was not a project which business men would undertake, and he could only assume hat the London County Council, having the ratepayers behind them, and without considering to what extent they were spending the ratepayers' money, having been beaten for the last ten or twelve years had determined to bring this Bill in every year. This was a different Bill to that brought in in the previous year. That did not propose to run down the whole of the Embankment but to stop it the Savoy, and it might be argued that it would meet the tramway running underground from the Savoy to Holborn, but, even so, that tramway was not completed and there was no hurry on that score. There was no omnibus traffic down he Embankment and had not been for thirty years, and though there might be certain amount of traffic over the bridge it only meant that those who now got ff the tram on the south side of the ridge would get off on the north side; 225 they would not be able to continue their journey any further practically than they could at present.
The police evidence before the Royal Commission was very strong; they pointed out that if the trams were carried over Blackfriars Bridge into the City the congestion of traffic would be so great that it would be impossible to carry the traffic on. With regard to the congestion of traffic, he pointed out that a tram could not deviate from the fixed line, and that if it broke down congestion was at once caused. Then people who wanted to ride on a tram had to go into the middle of the road, which again necessitated a stoppage of the traffic. Then the laying down of a tramway took a considerable time, during which the road was impassable and everyone was put to inconvenience, if they were to allow the tramway to pass over the bridge the whole of the roadway would be taken up in order to put down the line. Let anybody who wished to go to Liverpool Street from the House consider what that would mean and what the state of the road would be for the next six months. He had always said and believed that if the Royal Commission reported in favour of such a scheme as this all opposition would cease. In his opinion that, in itself, was a very strong argument in favour of the instruction.
Before he sat down he wanted to make a small personal statement. In opposing these tramway schemes he had no personal object to gain of any sort or kind. He had been represented in the Star as driving down the Embankment in a fur coat in a motor-car; he could only say he never had a fur coat and never owned a motor-car. When he travelled down the Embankment he was usually on the Underground Railway or on foot, though he sometimes drove his own horse. He believed the line when made would not be used, that it would cost a great deal of money, that it would create congestion, that it was quite unnecessary, and that the agitation in its favour had only been got up for a political purpose.
§ Motion made, and question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council 226 (Tramways) Bill to omit Tramway No.1, Tramway No.1a, Tramway No.2, and Tramway No. 2a."—(Mr. Whitmore.)
§ MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)said he seldom troubled the House by making a speech, but as he had the honour to represent a South London constituency much interested in this matter he desired to make an urgent appeal to hon. Members to reject this Instruction and to pass the Bill. The proposal before the House was somewhat different to that which had been rejected in the previous year, because this included the crossing of Blackfriars Bridge, which was not in-included in the other Bill. He contended that at this time of driving competition London could not be turned into a pure pleasure and playground. The Embankment was built with the money of the ratepayers of London as a whole, and the ratepayers as a whole had a right to look upon the Thames Embankment as a road to be used for the benefit of the public at large. It was not constructed for the benefit of those of the North alone. He agreed with the hon. Member in saying he would like to see the Thames Embankment left the picturesque thoroughfare it was from the artistic point of view, but this House could not make London a beautiful place without regard to its commercial wants. The Embankment, it must be remembered, was not built with the money of private individuals for their own special luxury. The hon. Member had spoken of tubes, and had also stated that the London County Council were providing steamboats and now wanted to compete with them by means of these electric trams. Such a suggestion was absolutely absurd. The necessity for this Bill was shown by the fact that in four hours in the afternoon 930 persons went over Blackfriars Bridge in omnibuses and found the trams on the other side, and that in the same period no less than 30,000 found their way across the bridge to the trams on the south side. It must be remembered that those 30,000 people who went home in the evening came back in the morning to their work. All that was asked by the Bill was that there should be a continuation of those trams over the bridge and down the Embankment. They would do no harm to the omnibuses or motor omnibuses which had been referred to. 227 The proposal was a very simple one and he hoped it would receive the support of the House.
An objection which had been raised to the Bill in times gone by had been that a Royal Commission was sitting. He looked upon a Royal Commission sitting as a blocking notice to any sort of measure of reform or matter of progress brought before the House. Reference was made in the petition in favour of the Bill to the necessity for a continuous route. All the South London boroughs had petitioned in favour of the Bill with the exception of Bermondsey, and several town's meetings presided over by the mayors of the respective boroughs had been held at which resolutions were passed unanimously in support of it. The hon. Member for East Islington who opposed the Bill last year was now prepared to waive his objection. There were very few persons who as frontagers had a right to oppose this measure. He thought that as a matter of fact the frontagers on the Thames Embankment would be greatly benefited by the proposed tramway, because it would afford great accommodation to everybody who wishe o go to the West End. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons objected to the tramway because of the noise which would be caused, but he wished to know if they preferred the noise of a motor omnibus to that of a comparatively quiet tramcar. He hoped the House would look at this question from a practical business point of view, and not merely as though the Embankment were only a place of ornament. The ratepayers were entitled to the use of the Embankment, and he asked the House to allow the Bill to go to a Committee, where the details could be fully considered.
§ MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)said that he intended to vote against the Instruction, notwithstanding the fact that he had voted in its favour on a previous occasion. He had never opposed the tramways on the Embankment because he thought that they would be ugly; on the contrary, he thought that they would be attractive looking. But he was not willing any longer to be influenced by the only consideration which prevented his supporting the tramways in past years—namely, 228 the long-promised Report of the London Traffic Commission. He did not believe that Report when it did appear would bring absolute salvation to the London people. The Commission had been listening to some exceedingly interesting evidence, and it seemed to him that that evidence had so fogged their minds that they were unable to present a Report with the conclusions at which they had arrived. He thought the argument with respect to motor omnibuses which had been advanced was the most slender that could be brought against the proposed tramway. Were they going along the Embankment when no other omnibuses had ever attempted to carry traffic there? The ordinary omnibuses had hitherto avoided that thoroughfare. In this matter they should rely not so much on prejudice as upon reason and argument. It seemed to him that the Thames Embankment was of all thoroughfares most adapted for a tramway to be laid down, and to prohibit it was to pursue a course which was neither intelligible nor intelligent.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)said the hon. Member for Chelsea who moved the Instruction wanted to know why it was that this proposal was renewed, and also whether there were any new facts which had not been brought forward on previous occasions. His answer to that was that nearly all the previous projects of the County Council had been fragmentary, and open to the objection that they had termini and dead ends which this particular scheme had not. Another additional fact was that the London Road Car Company had issued a circular begging the House of Commons not to authorise a tramway over Westminster Bridge. He did not think the hon. Member for Chelsea would attach much importance to the circular of a rival company with which they had been bombarded. One of the circulars against the scheme came from a seedsman at Inverness, and Messrs. Tilling, the omnibus proprietors, were opposing the Bill because the construction of the proposed tramway might affect their pecuniary interest. Another letter was from a firm of upholsterers in Tottenham Court Road. They opposed the tramway on the broad ground that it might lead to a tramway in that 229 thoroughfare. These were new facts—the objections were all interested and prejudiced, because the objectors had a pecuniary interest in opposing the tramway over Westminster Bridge. The hon. Member for Chelsea had asked the House to remember that four years ago a Joint-Committee recommended tubes as against tramways. The hon. Member should know that tubes as a means of communication were not so popular as they had been, and if he wanted corroboration of that he should go to the Stock Exchange and ask whether they were as anxious to promote tube schemes now as they were five or six years ago. They were neither popular nor healthy, and commercially they were not likely to be so successful in the future as the promoters said they would be. Neither tube railways nor motor omnibuses were so cheap, so clean, or so speedy as electric tramways. An under-river passage was not possible, it would cost a million of money, and it would mean a dip from Kennington-lane to the Gaiety Theatre or Southampton-row.
He could understand objection on aesthetic grounds if these tramways were to be iron monstrosities like the New York elevated railway; but the cars would be worked on the conduit system, they would be inoffensive in appearance, advertisements being altogether dispensed with. Motor omnibuses were longer and wider than the tramcars, and were dearer and dirtier. [Cries of "Why?"] Meet three motor omnibuses on a hot day in July and smell them. This tramway would not compete with the steamboats, and, if the House sanctioned the scheme, the tramways at Westminster Bridge could be connected with the tramways at Blackfriars Bridge very speedily. The hon. Member had dragged in Vauxhall Bridge. The answer to what he said on that subject was that the County Council did not build Vauxhall Bridge. He believed that the contractors were so hampered by the Thames Conservancy that they lost many thousands of pounds in carrying out the work. All sections of the London County Council were in favour of this scheme; the City, which was formerly very hostile, had only rejected it by one vote, all the London borough councils were in favour of it, and in fifteen days 110,000 signatures 230 had been obtained to a petition in favour of the scheme. If the tramways were brought over the bridges and a circular route was formed, the crushing that now went on at the terminus on the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge would be avoided. Westminster Bridge was wide enough—86ft. between the parapets—and the width of the Embankment varied from 80ft. to 110ft. Colonel Yorke had said in his evidence before the Commission that it seemed to him that the Embankment was a route eminently suitable for tramway traffic. There was less reason for opposing a tramway over Blackfriars Bridge, because fewer omnibuses went over it. 232 omnibuses passed over Westminster Bridge, whereas only 160 passed over Blackfriars Bridge. They believed that if they had only a circular route they would be able to avoid the crushing at the termini at both bridges, while much greater facilities would be given to the other traffic.
It was said, Why not wait for the motor 'buses? but motor 'buses were more noisy and much dearer than electric trams, and by moving all over the road they were an inconvenience to passing traffic. Mr. Robertson had given evidence that the working expenses of the electric trams was 6d. per mile, while the motor 'buses cost 1s. per mile for working expenses. He went to the motor exhibition and was very much interested in it. He wanted to buy a car for the Fire Brigade Committee. There were three of them on the job—they never did these things singly, or on War Office lines—and the motor-car which they tested cost in working expenses elevenpence halfpenny to one shilling per mile. Besides, the life of a motor 'bus was not more than two years, while that of an electric tram car was fourteen years. Therefore, on the ground of economy, the electric car held the field against the motor-bus. There were nine bridges which served twelve square miles of territory with 1,000,000 of population; and that 1,000,000 of population was denied all access from north to south. The result was that London, from a housing point of view, was becoming lop-sided. By a complete system of electric tramways the unequal distribution of population in congested districts would be equalised. He appealed to hon. 231 Members to allow the tramways to go over both the bridges and to have regard and consideration for the interests of the poorest of the poor, who would be most convenienced if the proposal of the Bill were adopted.
§ *MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)said that the hon. Member who had just sat down made the extraordinary statement that all the local authorities in London were in favour of these tramways.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that what he had stated was that no borough council had petitioned against the Bill.
§ *MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid they had not petitioned against the Bill, because the London County Council opposed their locus standi. He rose mainly for the purpose of informing the House that the Council of the City of Westminster, which was the only district directly affected by this tramway, was strongly and unanimously opposed to the proposal. That was a state of things which should not be lost sight of; and too great importance ought not to be given to such statements as had been made by the hon. Member for Battersea. He did not propose to follow that hon. Member into the smaller questions he had raised. He ventured to urge the House to look at this matter from the point of view of two broad issues. First, for the House to take this matter out of the hands of the Royal Commission on London Traffic and to settle the most important part of the question which had been committed to their consideration would be an absolute negation of the whole functions of a Royal Commission. That Commission had been considering this question most impartially, had taken a great quantity of evidence, and was on the eve of reporting; and yet this was the moment which the London County Council had chosen to forestall the decision of the Commission by committing the House to a plan to-day which might be found to be an anachronism to-morrow. Secondly, a new method of locomotion had been introduced since the Traffic Commission had been sitting. He did not think the House would accuse him of 232 being over-partial to motor-cars, but he held that the development of the motor omnibus, long waited for, had an important bearing on the question of London traffic. Those who looked for a solution of the difficulties of locomotion in London to a combination of tubes for long distances and omnibuses for short distances were fortified in their views by the invention of the motor omnibus, which moved as quickly as a tramway car, was manipulated with greater ease to the traffic, and did not involve the expenditure of the ratepayers' capital. This system of motor omnibuses would not place the locomotion of London or the vast field of employment which it involved in the hands of a central authority, but would leave it open to private competition. He supported the Instruction.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said he wished to make an appeal to the House to come to an early decision on the subject. There was an unofficial understanding between Members interested in the Bill that the division should be taken as soon after ten o'clock as possible.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)said he wished to add one word in confirmation of the statement of the right hon. Baronet. Although he had no official connection with the matter it was distinctly understood that there should be a division about this time. The Leader of the House would remember that when that day was first allocated to Army Estimates, a strong feeling was expressed that the time should not be eaten into too much by other business.
§ SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE (London),who spoke amid loud and persistent cries of "Divide," said he objected to the proposal to carry the tramway across Blackfriars Bridge, and he thought it would have been more in consonance with what was right and proper if the County Council had first permitted the Report of the Royal Commission on Traffic in London to see daylight.
§ Question put.
234§ The House divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 100.)
235| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Graham, Henry Robert | O'Dowd, John |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gretton, John | Percy, Earl |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Hambro, Charles Eric | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hamilton Marq. of (L'nd'nderry | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Heath, SirJames (Staffords. NW | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r | Heaton, John Henniker | Purvis, Robert |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Helder, Augustus | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) | Randles, John S. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hogg, Lindsay | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Bill, Charles | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bingham, Lord | Hoult, Joseph | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bond, Edward | Howard John (Kent, Faversham | Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Robinson, Brooke |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hunt, Rowland | Roche, John |
| Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Bull, William James | Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W. | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Butcher, John George | Keswick, William | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S. | Kilbride, Denis | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopfore- |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Knowles, Sir Lees | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Chapman, Edward | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Sheehy, David |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.) |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter ( Bristol, S) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Lowe, Francis William | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Lowther, Rt. Hn. J W (Cum. Penr. | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Cullinan, J. | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lucas Reginald J. (Portsmouth) | Tuff, Charles |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Denny, Colonel | Maconochie, A. W. | Tumour, Viscount |
| Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Doughty, Sir George | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Majendie, James A. H. | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Malcolm, Ian | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Milvain, Thomas | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs) | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Moore, William | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Forster, Henry William | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Younger, William |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. | Mount, William Arthur | |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Muntz, Sir Phillip A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Galloway, William Johnson. | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Mr. Whitmore and Sir |
| Garfit, William | Nicholson, William Graham | Frederick Banbury. |
| Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bailey, James (Walworth) | Black, Alexander William |
| Allen, Charles P. | Baird, John George Alexander | Blake, Edward |
| Asher, Alexander | Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Blundell, Colonel Henry |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Boland, John |
| Brand, Hon. Arthur G. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | O'Malley, William |
| Brigg, John | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Bright, Allan Heywood | Harcourt, Lewis | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Harwood, George | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw. |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Hayden, John Patrick | Rea, Russell |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Burns, John | Healy, Timothy Michael | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) |
| Caldwell, James | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Cameron, Robert | Higham, John Sharpe | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Roberts, John H (Denbighs.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol. E.) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Cawley, Frederick | Holland, Sir William Henry | Rose, Charles Day |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Horniman, Frederick John | Runciman, Walter |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Johnson, John | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Joyce, Michael | Shackleton, David James |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Labouchere, Henry | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Lamont, Norman | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Cremer, William Randal | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Sinclair, John (Farfarshire) |
| Crombie, John William | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Slack, John Bamford |
| Crooks, William | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Davies M. Vaughan (Cardigan | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Spencer Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Levy, Maurice | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P | Lewis, John Herbert | Sullivan, Donal |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lloyd-George, David | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lough, Thomas | Tennant, Harold John |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lundon, W. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Ellice, Capt. E C (S. Andrw's Bghs | Lyell, Charles Henry | Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Macdona, John Cumming | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Evans Sir Francis H. (Maidstone | M'Crae, George | Ure, Alexander |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | M'Kean, John | Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH (Sheffield |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | M'Kenna, Reginald | Wallace, Robert |
| Fergusson Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan |
| Findlay Alexander (Lanark, NE | Markham, Arthur Basil | White, George (Norfolk) |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Morpeth, Viscount | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Morrell, George Herbert | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Moulton, John Fletcher | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Gilhooly, James | Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.) | Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersfd |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Young, Samuel |
| Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Grant, Corry | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Benn and Dr. Macnamara. |
Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
§ MR. SPEAKERIn the circumstances, in order that this matter may be disposed of by a Committee, and to give the House another opportunity of dealing with it and settling it in a more decisive manner, I shall give my vote for the ''Noes."