§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ MR. VIVIAN (Birkenhead)
, in moving the rejection of the Bill, explained that the special objection of the Birkenhead Corporation was to Clause 5, which empowered the company to run motor-omnibuses within the borough of Birkenhead. There were two aspects of this question—the special and local aspect, and the general aspect of the application of this principle to similar companies throughout the country. With regard to the purely local aspect, this company had not been in a good way since it was established, and the Birkenhead Corporation had had considerable difficulty in getting some of the liabilities of the company met. In the Bill empowering the company to act, Parliament allotted the corporation £50,000 compensation for the injury done to the ferry service of that body, and of that sum £20,000 only was paid, and they had to take the remainder in five per cent, debentures which, however, made no return. They agreed to the reduction to three per 428 cent., but not even that was forthcoming, and it practically meant that Birkenhead had lost the best part of £30,000 on that transaction. Since that time, in order to grapple with the necessities of the increasing population, Birkenhead had spent £300,000 on their trams, and there was not a point in Birkenhead that was more than a quarter of a mile from a tram route. Therefore public convenience in no way demanded the facility which the railway company now sought. Further, Birkenhead streets were already sufficiently congested. There was no petition from Birkenhead in favour of this clause and there was no demand for it. There was not even any evidence to show that these motor omnibuses were desired by people in Birkenhead. Under such circumstances he thought due consideration should be given to the attitude of the corporation whose views he was presenting. With regard to the general argument on this matter, it was not desirable for the House without very careful consideration to confer powers indiscriminately on existing monopolies to run their motor omnibuses all over the public roads. On general grounds competition was not objected to, but the indiscriminate conferring of these powers would ultimately lead not to healthy competition, but merely to an extension of the existing monopoly of a great railway company which, like other railway companies, had means of utilising its power really to the detriment of healthy competition. He was supported in his argument by the fact that the most important corporations in the country took the same view, and therefore he asked the House to adopt the Resolution standing in his name.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
said he had been asked by the Tramways Committee of the Corporation of Sheffield to second the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. The Corporation of Sheffield feared if these powers were granted to monopolies of this character it might form a precedent for future Bills. They had in Sheffield a very complete system of tramways, thirty-five or thirty-six miles in length, upon 429 which the corporation had spent very nearly a million and a quarter of money. It would be an injustice to them if an outside body like a railway company were allowed to come in and run motor omnibuses in competition with them, and to run those omnibuses not only to and from the stations, but to catch the general traffic, picking up and setting down in the streets. He did not know that there would be so much objection to their running to and from their own stations simply, but that was not the point. Here the railway company wanted to run in competition with the local authority. In support of his argument he would quote the following Resolution passed by the Municipal Tramways Conference some time ago—That in the opinion of this Conference it is desirable that the omnibus clauses in the Railway Bills now before Parliament should be deleted from those Bills so far as regards running omnibuses by the railway companies in any city, borough or district in which the local authority runs or works tramways, and that all practicable steps be taken with a view to bringing about this result.
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Vivian.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport)
said he did not propose to deal with the merits or demerits of the Bill. He understood that the principle which was sought to be established by this debate was that where tramways were municipally owned they should be exempt from competition by railway-owned omnibuses. If the House rejected this Bill now, however, they would be withholding consideration of the matter from the properly constituted authority that the House had set up, viz., the Select Committee. Before that Committee all interests could be considered, and he thought that it would be contrary to the best interests of Parliament if they came to a final decision on the Bill now. He might point out that 430 this Bill had been before a Committee in another place and that they had not objected to it. Surely it was not for the House of Commons to say on a matter of this kind that they would decide the Bill upon the Second Reading and hold that it should not go upstairs. His advice was that the Bill should be read a second time and sent to a Committee. He had no bias in the matter and held no brief either for the Bill or against it, and it was his duty as a representative of the Board of Trade to put before the House that very simple proposal.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said he could not support his hon. friend who moved the total rejection of the Bill, and he should advise him to withdraw that Motion and to proceed with his instruction to the Committee to delete the objectionable clause. In his opinion, Parliament having imposed certain conditions upon tramway promoters in connection with the powers conferred upon them, and the tramway companies having spent large sums of money in providing accommodation for the district, railway companies should not be given unrestricted power of competition and afforded facilities for running motor-buses without specifying where the working was to begin or end. Moreover, the money which the railway company would have to spend upon this project was raised for other purposes. He thought that it was not a businesslike proceeding on the part of the House to sanction such competition. While he did not object to legitimate competition, he did say that such action would not be fair on the part of the House. For these reasons he thought the House ought not to allow this kind of clause to be put in Railway Bills, although he admitted that in country districts, where no accommodation had been authorised by Parliament, it might be right that such powers should be given to railway companies. But he thought that care should be taken that in Railway Bills this power was confined to districts in which Parliament had not already authorised tramways
§ MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
said that perhaps the House 431 would allow him to say a word or two on this Bill, because he was thoroughly familiar with all the local circumstances. This was not the case of a rich railway company, but it was the case of a struggling company, who wished to improve the connection between the two sides of the River Mersey. The company had never paid a dividend, and their line was simply a tunnel between the two sides of the River Mersey. Both the ferry and the tunnel were doing good work between Liverpool and Birken-head. The subject of these motor omnibuses which were now in question was one upon which there had been a good deal of difference of opinion. The railway company wished to improve the through traffic, and began to run omnibuses in connection with their trains; but the Birkenhead Corporation stepped in, and there was litigation. The corporation sought to restrain the railway company from running these omnibuses which they regarded as competing with their steamers and trams. It was not quite true to say that the Birkenhead Corporation were altogether unanimous against the Mersey Railway Company. Many people in Birkenhead thought that it would be a great advantage if the tunnel connection was improved, and extended by the use of motor omnibuses. There were, however, some people in Birkenhead, and although he was not a property owner in the borough he sympathised with their view, who thought that the running of motor omnibuses in certain out-lying portions of Birkenhead would have the effect of depreciating the value of property. What he wanted to say, however, was that opinion in Birkenhead was so divided that he thought the Bill ought certainly not to be rejected upon imperfect information. While he objected to the total rejection of the Bill, he objected also to the proposed instruction to the Committee with reference to this particular omnibus clause. He thought the whole matter ought to be considered in the usual way by a Committee upstairs, and that the House would make a great mistake if they accepted either the Motion for the rejection or the proposed instruction.
§ MR. VIVIAN
inquired whether, in the event of his withdrawing his Motion 432 for the rejection of the Bill, he could move his instruction.
§ MR. VIVIAN
said in that case he would wish to withdraw his Motion for the rejection of the Bill and move his instruction.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)
doubted very much whether the House ought to permit the withdrawal of the Amendment, which it was obvious would not succeed, in order to allow the hon. Member to take another course. The Amendment was deliberately intended to stop the Bill, and a beat up had been made to obtain Members to support it, but now when it was obvious that it could not succeed the hon. Member wished to withdraw it and move an instruction. It was clear, however, as the Secretary to the Board of Trade had said, that a discussion in the House, upon a question, of this kind must be a very perfunctory one. Moreover, hon. Members who had been dining and had not heard the debate would, without a sufficient knowledge of the question, be called upon to decide it. The practice was to send Bills of this kind to Committees upstairs, and he thought such proceedings as had been taken in regard to this Bill should not be encouraged. He protested against the attempt which had been, made to prevent this Bill going to a Committee.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed.
§ MR. VIVIAN
said lie now desired to move the instruction that stood in his name. All the arguments that had been used in the previous discussion were practically the same as he would use in 433 moving this Resolution, and under those circumstances he would not detain the House but formally move the instruction.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 5 of the Bill." —(Mr. Vivian.)
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS
said the contentions which had been suggested in regard to this particular clause were not such as ought, in his opinion, to weigh with the House. It was said that this monopoly interfered with that which the corporation possessed. That was to say that one species of monopoly was to be urged as against the setting up of another species of monopoly. The hon. Member had attacked the monopoly of the railway on the ground that the monopoly of the corporation should be maintained. He (Mr. Cross) did not address himself to the consideration of this Bill from the point of view of any monopoly whatever. The question to his mind was how this was going to serve the public in the matter of the transport of passengers. He did not think the case of a monopoly could be made out. If the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that this railway came to Parliament for powers to start a service of motor buses to compete with the cars in the city they were mistaken.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS
said that hon. Members opposite seemed to regard Birkenhead as a busy and populous place, but he did not regard it as such a busy place as to make this a serious matter. He regarded Birkenhead as simply a suburb of Liverpool.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS
said there were two questions which he wished to ask the House to consider. This was a matter of competition to serve the public. It was a competition between the railway and the tramway. He understood that the ferry to Birkenhead belonged to the Corporation of Liverpool and there they kept up a very good service of tramways. He understood that they did not own the ferry at Seacombe, and because they did not own it they gave no such efficient service of tramways. Then the railway came along and tunnelled below the river and, having got to the other side, asked for those facilities which a corporation ought to give both to railways and to steamers. Every attempt was made to prevent the giving of those, facilities. Then came the invention of motor buses, and they asked leave to put on a service of those buses through the tunnel. This was not allowed. Something was said about the noise they made, but the real reason why the facility was not given was that these buses would enter into competition with the tramways owned by the corporation. But the corporation having entered into a trading competition must, he submitted, take the consequences of the competition. Notwithstanding the fact that tramways trenched upon the monopolies of railways, the House had sanctioned the construction of tramways and would continue to do so. This new system of motor buses had come along, which was far better than the system of tramways. Tramways were costly to construct, and when they were constructed the trams could only go in certain directions, whereas motor buses were cheaper to construct, could move in and out the traffic, and could be taken off one route if it was found not to pay and put upon another. To say that because this system was going to trench upon another monopoly it should not be established was absurd. He asked the House to look at this Bill from the point of view of the interest not of the corporation, but of the public. The history of the Committees of Parliament had always led one to the conclusion that it was the public interest that was regarded. If a man wanted an impartial and careful tribunal that tribunal was to be found in a Committee 435 of the other place. He said that without fear of contradiction. Next to that he put the Committees of this House. Though we might alter the system we should never get more impartial tribunals. This Bill had to fight its battle there, and the battle it would have to fight was not whether it was going to trespass or touch another monopoly, but whether it was going to serve the public. The Bill was to open up a new route and to deposit men at their own doors, and the opposition to it was an attempt to stop the progress and prevent the development of science to which the public were entitled. He hoped, on the ground that this was really a defence of a monopoly, a thing which this House always resented, and upon the ground that this House, was not a tribunal which could decide the merits of the case, the instruction would be rejected, and the Bill allowed to go complete to the Committee upstairs.
§ MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)
said he was sure that this was a matter for the House and not for a Committee to decide. There were many cases which were matters for instruction, but this was not a matter of that kind, because it was a matter of principle which would apply to many other cases. Therefore it was a matter which this House could and ought to settle. The case as to mutilation put forward by the hon. Gentleman was mere nonsense. Then it was said that the question ought not to be decided by a few Members while other Members were dining, but that was exactly the way the business of the House was done. All its business was done while some were dining and smoking and others were talking. If every one came and talked in the House, no business at all would be done. It was the providential way in which some Members stayed away that enabled business to be transacted. These matters had been before Parliament before. The feeling of the House was expressed in the North Eastern Cables Bill which came back from 436 a Committee without that having been done which the House thought ought to have been done. This Bill had been before another assembly, but the fact that they had let it go through made the House of Commons still more afraid. There were two places where it had gone through, and therefore this House should make a stand. To say that a Committee should settle this great principle was not a proper thing. They were right to raise the question of principle, and this was the place in which to raise it. His hon. friend had made out that it was a case of free competition. If they were going to adopt that principle they should adopt it all round; but did railway companies submit themselves to free competition? This House might say they were in favour of free competition for everybody, and it might be fair and logical, but that was not the policy on which they acted. They were constantly giving monopolies, and they were bound in honour to guard this policy if it fulfilled the conditions unless they took up another policy. If they had it in the tramways let them have it in the railways as well. Parliament had encouraged the municipalities to spend money on this enterprise. Could they now open the floodgates of free competition whilst it guarded the railway companies? If they were going to break down the safeguard of Parliament, and, after encouraging these communities to spend the money of the ratepayers in giving facilities for communication, expose them to the open competition of a rich body of monopolists whose monopoly would be guarded, the House would put itself in a very ridiculous position. The House ought to say quite distinctly that whilst it did not interfere with the ordinary freedom of a Committee, this was a point of principle on which it was not only justified but compelled to give an instruction as to the line that ought to be taken.
§ MR. WALLACE (Perth)
said the speech of his hon. friend who had just sat down illustrated the inconvenience of dealing with a question like this in the House itself. The most contradictory statements had been made on both sides without the slightest opportunity for Members to investigate the truth. It would be a monstrous thing to reject the Bill, four-fifths of which was unopposed, because of this one clause. The hon. Member for Bolton had talked about destroying a monopoly which the House of Commons had created. His hon. friend could not be aware of the facts of the case. There was no proposal to enter into competition with the tramways ["Yes" and "No."] Those interruptions showed the futility of the House trying to decide a question of this sort. Hon. Members were being asked to act judiciously without the slightest knowledge of the facts. They ought not on ex parte statements to reject a Bill which might be of the utmost importance to the public at large. This Bill had been before the House of Lords, and a Committee of the House of Lords had unanimously recommended that the clause in question should be passed. If this House began without evidence to reject clauses which had been passed by the other House there was a process of retaliation which might be employed by the House of Lords in regard to Bills passed by this House. Although he admitted that his statement, like that of others, was an ex parte statement he would give his version of this case. As he understood, this was an attempt by the Corporation of Birkenhead to thwart the wishes not of a railway company merely, but of Liverpool and district. There was no proposal to give 438 to the Mersey Railway any monopoly of any kind. There was nothing to prevent the Corporation of Birkenhead from carrying tramways along the same route as the motor buses. It was an attempt by the Corporation of Birkenhead to refuse facilities to the people of Liverpool to get out into the country by quicker and more convenient means than by the Corporation's own ferry boats. The Corporation of Birkenhead were acting the policy of the dog in the manger by refusing to lay down tram-lines themselves along the routes which would serve the people. His version might not be correct. His argument, however, was that the only way to get at the truth was to send the Bill to an impartial tribunal like a Select Committee. His hon. friend had said that these buses might go roving to Birkenhead in competition with the tramways of the Corporation. Nothing of the kind. They were restricted as to their routes, and if further safeguards were required the Committee upstairs could insert them so as to protect every interest, and to ensure that the 'buses were only used for the purpose for which they were desired to be brought into existence. He strongly urged upon the House to stand by some fixed procedure, and not to get into the habit of allowing partisans on every side to make statements without there being any opportunity to investigate them; but to send such Bills to an impartial Committee. Even if the Committee reported in favour of the clause, the House would be entitled to reject the recommendation and decide for itself.
§ MR. W. H. LEVER (Cheshire, Wirral)
, speaking as the representative of the Wirral District Council, said that that 439 body were strongly opposed to these motor omnibuses.
§ MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)
said they had heard a good deal about monopolies, but what monopoly was there in this Bill? It merely sought to give the Mersey Railway power to run motor omnibuses, and that was not a monopoly. The measure did not prevent Birkenhead seeking to get similar powers in the same district. They were merely asked to give this railway company the right to run motor 'buses wherever they were suitable and to extend the Mersey railway, which had been one of the greatest boons to Birkenhead and Liverpool. Perhaps the House was not aware of it, but it was a fact that neither the shareholders nor the debenture holders in this railway had had any return for the money which had been spent and which had given great advantages to the two cities of Birkenhead and Liverpool. At present there was no possible means of any person going from Liverpool into Cheshire except by the ferries and the tramways of the Birkenhead Corporation. Now the Mersey Railway desired to tap that district by going underneath and giving facilities for the people of Liverpool to go under the river. They desired to increase these facilities by taking their motor omnibuses through Birkenhead and out into the pretty country surrounding it. The Corporation of Birkenhead were dictating to the people of Liverpool and were saying, "We will not allow you to have those facilities, and we will stop you on the way, and we will ask for the monopoly ourselves in order to keep in our hands entirely this means of communication." He resided in the 440 Birkenhead district himself, and as an inhabitant he should be sorry to see the motor buses coming into his locality, but as an unselfish man, and as one who thought that other people should have access to the beauties of nature as well as himself, he objected to barriers being placed in the way of free access from one place to another, whether by municipalities or anyone else. He could not understand the action of the hon. Member who had moved this Instruction, for lie was a gentleman who talked about the liberty of the subject, and now he was standing in the way of the enjoyment of the people of Liverpool and supporting the monopoly which the Corporation of Birkenhead was trying to set up. He trusted the ordinary rule would be followed and that this Bill would be sent to a Committee where all sides could be heard in order that justice might be done.
§ MR. BEALE (Ayrshire, S.)
said that this Bill involved a point which would certainly be raised in other localities in connection with similar undertakings. The clause referred to conveying passengers and passengers' luggage generally, and there were no words in the clause confining its operation to passengers and passengers' luggage in connection with transit on this railway. There was all the difference in the world between giving companies further facilities with reference to their own traffic, and allowing them to enter into the business of carrying passengers and luggage inside the region where some other company or corporation was already engaged in the carrying trade. As no such restrictive words as he had mentioned had been put into this clause he thought the Committee ought to be plainly instructed that these 441 motor-bus facilities should be limited to transit in connection with the railway. Subject to that limitation he should be very sorry to see any impediment put in the way of the Committee considering and deciding upon the facts.
§ MR. MORTON (Sutherland)
said he wished to enter his protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Perth that they must not consider these Bills on their Second Readings. That
§ was one of the few rights which were left to Members, in this House. He hoped independent Members would not listen to such special pleading but do what was right to their constituencies and pass, amend, or reject as they thought fit these Bills on their Second Reading.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 78.)443
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Duffy, William J.||Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lever, W.H.(Cheshire,Wirral)|
|Alden, Percy||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Levy, Maurice|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lundon, W.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fenwick, Charles||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Ferens, T. R.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.||Findlay, Alexander||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Flynn, James Christopher||MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Fullerton, Hugh||M'Callum, John M.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Gilhooly, James||M'Crae, George|
|Bell, Richard||Gill, A. H.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.|
|Benn, W. (T'wrHamlets,S.Geo.||Ginnell, L.||M'Killop, W.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Glover, Thomas||Maddison, Frederick|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Griffith, Ellis J.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Billson, Alfred||Hall, Frederick||Massie, J.|
|Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire||Halpin, J.||Meagher, Michael|
|Boland, John||Hammond, John||Meehan, Patrick A.|
|Bolton, T.D. (Derbyshire, N.E.||Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Hart-Davies, T.||Mond, A.|
|Brace, William||Harwood, George||Montgomery, H. H.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mooney, J. J.|
|Branch, James||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Brigg, John||Hayden, John Patrick||Morse, L. L.|
|Brocklehurst, W. D.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophats|
|Brunner, J.F.L.(Lanes.,Leigh)||Hazelton, Richard||Murphy, John|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hedges, A. Paget||Murray, James|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Helme, Norval Watson||Napier, T. B.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)||Nicholls, George|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hodge, John||Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r|
|Cairns, Thomas||Hogan, Michael||Nolan, Joseph|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hooper, A. G.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)||Horniman, Emslie John||O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid|
|Clynes, J. R.||Houston, Robert Paterson||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Collins, SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W||Hudson, Walter||O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hyde, Clarendon||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Jenkins, J.||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Cox, Harold.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Crean, Eugene||Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Malley, William|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jowett, F. W.||O'Mara, James|
|Devlin,CharlcsRamsay(Gawlay||Joyce, Michael||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Dillon, John||Kekewich, Sir George||O'Shee, James John|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Duckworth, James||Kilbride, Denis||Paul, Herbert|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Walsh, Stephen|
|Pollard, Dr.||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Walters, John Tudor|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wardle, George J.|
|Pr'estley, W. E. B.(Bradford,E.||Sloan, Thomas Henry||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Raphael, Herbert H.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Weir, James Galloway|
|Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Reddy, M.||Snowdon, P.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Steadman, W. C.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Richards.T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Sullivan, Donal||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Summerbell, T.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Roberts, S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Robinson, S.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Rowlands, J.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)||Young, Samuel|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr)|
|Salter, Arthur Clavell||Thomasson, Franklin||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Vivian and Mr. Arthur Henderson.|
|Scott,A. H.(Ashton under Lyne||Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E|
|Seddon, J.||Thorne, William|
|Shackleton, David James||Toulmin, George|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Fletcher, J. S.||Rees, J. D.|
|Armitage, R.||Forster, Henry William||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Astbury, John Meir||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Balcarres, Lord||Glendinning, R. G.||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gulland, John W.||Robertson,SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Beauchamp, E.||Haddock, George R.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Harinsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Bertram, Julius||Haworth, Arthur A.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Sheehy, David|
|Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)||Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Higham, John Sharp||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Strauss, K. A. (Abingdon)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Jackson, R. S.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Kearley, Hudson E.||Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Kennaway,Rt.Hn. Sir John H.||Tomkinson, James|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Ure, Alexander|
|Cleland, J. W.||Laidlaw, Robert||Verney, F. W.|
|Clough, W.||Lambert, George||Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham||Lamont, Norman||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lever,A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)||Ward, W. Dudley (South'mptn|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lewis, John Herbert||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lupton, Arnold||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Craig,Captain James(Down, E.)||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Crossley William J.||M'Micking, Major G.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Davies,David(Montgomery Co.||Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)||Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Marnham, F. J.||Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.|
|Doughty, Sir Geo.||Menzies, Walter||Wodehouse,Lord(Norfolk,Mid)|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Hudd'rsf'd|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Elibank, Master of||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Wallace and Mr. Alexander Cross.|
|Emmott, Alfred||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Pearson,W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|