§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Mr. KING
I shall oppose this Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, unless I get an assurance that the Instruction that I have put down on the Paper will be accepted. I am sorry that that Instruction has not been given as I think it ought to have been. I shall endeavour to show to the House that unless the assurance be given the Bill ought to be thrown out.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)
Perhaps the hon. Member has not seen the Memorandum distributed to Members of the House? If he looks at that he will see that his point has been met.
§ Mr. KING
On a point of Order. I have seen the Memorandum, but it does not contain the name of any Member of the House of Commons. For all I know it may be an entirely unauthoritative Memorandum. I waited to see if anybody would rise, after the moving of this Bill, and give the assurance which I desire, and I have not had that given.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS
If it will shorten the proceedings I think I can give the hon. Member the assurance that he asks for.
§ Mr. KING
I think I am entitled, having been called upon to show cause why I oppose this Bill, and why, unless I can get that assurance, that my Instruction should be accepted. I want very briefly to call the attention of the House to the fact that a proposal is made in this Bill by the London County Council to step in in advance of the Home Office. The Home Office has got under its consideration a set of regulations which it proposes to make to deal with the celluloid difficulty and the danger of manufacturing and storing celluloid. I consider it is entirely uncalled for that the City of London and the London County Council should bring proposals on this matter at all. If they will consider—
§ Mr. GUINNESS
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As these Clauses are withdrawn, and as I have expressed the intention of the promoters, is it in order for the hon. Member to go on?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of order, but perhaps now he has had the assurance that he asks for it will satisfy him.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed.
§ Mr. BRUNNER
I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom this Bill is referred to delete all Clauses having reference to the lands known as Latchmere allotments."
In moving the Instruction standing in my name on the Paper, I do so on behalf of the Open Spaces Societies which have got the open spaces of London under their purview. They are the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Kyrle Society, and the London Playing Fields Committee. I move the matter here, because there is no locus standi that these societies can obtain upstairs. The public cannot brief counsel, and so I am bound to bring the matter forward in the House. The land to which this Motion refers, the Latchmere Allotments was originally common land. It was enclosed in 1832, and in 1900 Parliament allowed the Battersea Borough Council to buy and build upon it. If it had not been enclosed by Parliament it would have become a metropolitan common under the Metropolitan Commons Act, and could not have been built upon at all. The Act of 1900 allowed building on part of the land while the other was to be turned into a recreation ground. A subsequent Act was passed in 1905, permitting the Borough Council of Battersea to build on a further portion of the land, subject to a proviso that an equal area should be found within the Borough for the area given. That equivalent area has not been found. That is common ground between us.
They say they cannot find such an area, but they have contributed £1,500 towards the purchase of a piece of land which is 696 just outside the borough—in fact which is adjacent to it. Looked at merely as a commercial transaction, the borough council of Battersea are getting 1¾ acres inside the borough to build upon, which land is worth about £3,000, and they are giving £1,500, which they consider an equivalent for a piece of land just outside. I do not think that is an equivalent. If you look at the whole matter it will be seen that Battersea has got inside the borough a piece of land worth thousands, which in my opinion they ought never to have had, and they are contributing £1;500 for a piece of land outside it. I think everybody will consider that Battersea is extremely lucky to get this piece of land. The public cannot properly be represented upstairs, but the House can order that anybody shall be heard before a Committee. If, therefore, I do not press this Motion to a Division, I hope the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, who happens to be the Member for Battersea, and can speak on its behalf, will assure me that those on whose behalf I speak will have no opposition in our wish to appear before the Committee. I think I should further press him to make what I may call a quasi-Parliamentary bargain, which is that Battersea will consider that she is morally bound to contribute something further than £1,500 to open spaces in Battersea, or in the neighbourhood. I think that is the least that can be offered to the Open Spaces Societies. I do not wish to unduly press the right hon. Gentleman because he is the President of the Local Government Board, for we, who represent the Open Spaces Societies are very grateful to him for past favours—and I hope for favours to come—but I put my request to him and in the meantime move this Instruction pro forma.
§ Mr. W. GUINNESS
The hon. Member who has moved this Instruction stated that the land upon which it is proposed to build is worth £3,000. I understand that that is a very extreme estimate. In a matter of this kind we have got- to distinguish between the value of the land—even accepting the hon. Member's figures for the moment—for building purposes and its value as open spaces. All that concerns the people of Battersea, I take it, is that they should have an open space, and they have got more than the equivalent of this open space by this gift of £1,500. 697 The total amounton which it is proposed to build is only one and three quarter acres, and taking the proportion of the total purchase money of the Royal Victoria Patriotic School, which is represented by the £1,500 granted by the Battersea Borough Council, it works out that that donation is responsible for the addition of two and a half acres to the air space of London. On the balance, therefore, the public is the gainer by three-quarters of an acre of air space. Housing is, I understand, badly wanted in Battersea, and the county council do not feel justified in delaying the matter any longer. It has been suspended for about eight years. The borough council have not been enabled to complete their housing scheme as they desire owing to the difficulty of finding this site. It is a great inconvenience to the people of Battersea. The hon. Member suggested that a locus should be given to the Open Spaces Societies to appear before the Select Committee. The London County Council, and I believe all local authorities, object on principle to this. The system of locus is laid down by the Standing Orders of this House. It is laid down for the convenience of all parties, and however much we may admire the activities of the Open Spaces Societies, on whose behalf the hon. Member spoke, we must feel that it is a dangerous practice to begin to give them a locus before Committees. After all, they are purely self-constituted bodies, and I take it that if once the door were opened to them it would be very difficult to draw a hard and fast line. That is, I understand, the view of the London County Council. Of course, it is more a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means to speak upon than for me, and I hope that we shall have some guidance from the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is responsible for our procedure.
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns)
The hon. Member who moved this Instruction has appealed to me less as President of the Local Government Board than as Member for Battersea to say a word upon this matter, and I most cheerfully respond to his appeal. Before I do so, may I congratulate him upon the good sense he has displayed in the interests of the Commons Preservation Society in not forcing his Motion to a Division? It would be the worst possible thing for the object which the Commons Preservation Society has at heart that they should in any way quarrel 698 with the London County Council, which is the statutory authority for securing and safeguarding open spaces in London. It is only fair to that great body to say that they have done an extraordinary amount of good in the last twenty-four years for the acquisition of parks, gardens, and open spaces, not only in the county of London, but outside, and I have never yet found anybody, however they might disagree with the general policy of the London County Council who did not clearly approve of their policy and conduct in this particular matter. He said he would not press his Motion to a Division, and in that he showed both ingenuity and wisdom after the satisfactory statement that has been made. The only thing I have to say in reply is this, that the Battersea Borough Council, in asking the county council to exempt them from the provisions of Section 54 of the Act of 1905, do so in the interests of a housing scheme that cannot be satisfactorily completed unless this exemption is given, and Parliament very properly put upon the London County Council the responsibility of keeping the Battersea Borough Council in order in this particular matter, and the county council says that if the Battersea Borough Council contributes an amount of money that would provide an equivalent area of open space adjoining the parish, the county council would assent to that gift of money being made and the exemption being granted, and the Battersea Borough Council have contributed £1,500 for one and a quarter acres in area for housing in their parish, and that £1,500 has been used to purchase, as the hon. Member who spoke on the other side has stated, nearly three acres of ground on land adjoining the parish, and which, up to 1900, was in the parish of Battersea, so that from the point of view of equivalent areas and cash contribution the ratepayers of London and the men, women, and children of London who use open spaces are considerable gainers by this transaction.
The hon. Member further asks that, supposing he did not press his Motion, would I give some guarantee that in the securing of open spaces in or near the parish of Battersea the Battersea Borough Council would do their duty. In this, as in nearly every other matter, the district I have the honour to represent has been fair and generous to the rest of London, and I can assure my hon. Friend both the borough 699 council and the county council are losing no opportunity of providing, where practicable, another open space not very far from this particular district, and in the event of the Battersea Borough Council being called upon by public opinion and the county councils to fairly contribute to any other open space in or near their parish, or better still, perhaps, open spaces at Stepney, Rotherhithe, and Bermondsey, I assure him no effort will be lost upon my part, as the representative of that district, to see that. Battersea in the future behaves in this matter as fairly and generously as it is doing for London on this occasion. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his willingness to withdraw the Motion, and I think he shows great good sense in so doing. The hon. Member asked what about the locus of the Commons Society before the the Committee. As the House knows, that is not a matter that can be decided by any Minister, but so far as the Battersea Borough Council and the London County Council and I myself are concerned, given the authority of the House, we have no objection to the Commons Preservation Society appearing before the Committee upstairs.
§ Captain JESSEL
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that this is not the action he has always taken up on this question. As a rule, in this House we have seen him the gallant defender of open spaces. Only two years ago when there was a very similar request from another Metropolitan borough council to be allowed to build upon a small portion of ground he immediately came down to this House with all the authority of his office and said such a thing was impossible. Now, however, when the matter comes home to roost as it were in his own constituency of Battersea he is quite agreeable to allow this scheme to go through. I dare say there is a good deal to be said for it; perhaps his action denotes a little repentance on the part of the President of the Local Government Board, because latterly he has not shown himself as friendly disposed to housing schemes as we would wish and I suppose that is the reason he is now in favour of this scheme. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in all sincerity whether this is quite such a good case as he wishes to make out. I should also like to know how the Battersea Borough Council is to contribute this money. The right hon. Gentleman knows 700 quite well that it is very unlikely the Battersea Borough Council or any other borough council would be induced to subscribe to open spaces outside their own borough. This is not a new question. I well remember the speech the right hon. Gentleman made on a similar occasion as long ago as 1900. He then made a most amusing speech about dead cats being thrown into this allotment garden in Battersea. My only reason for rising is to point out the difference between the right hon. Gentleman's views on a matter affecting his own constituency and what he thinks when he appears as the champion of open spaces in this House.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITH
The first notice of Motion on the Paper is to delete the Clauses having reference to the Latchmere allotments, but the second provides that there shall not be an exchange of land in relation to Parliament Hill Fields except upon the principle of equality of area. The hon. Member who moved the first Instruction speaks on behalf of the London County Council, but he has not said whether the London County Council are prepared to accept the second Instruction. I take it that they will not accept either the first or the second Motion. I would like to point out that Committees upstairs, and especially the Local Legislation Committee, are already very much overworked, and you do not want to increase the amount of work they are doing. Apparently from what has been said, it is not thought that the society have got a very good case, but I see no objection to allowing this society to appear before the Committee upstairs.
I think we ought to have the matter cleared up as to whether the London County Council or the Battersea Borough Council are going to oppose this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman's assurance does not square with the remarks made by the hon. Member opposite and the further remarks made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The cases referred to seem to me to be on a different footing altogether, because, if the Battersea Borough Council and the London County Council have such a strong case as they appear to present to this House, surely there is no need to shirk any investigation or representations that might be made by the societies mentioned! I hope the hon. Member will not withdraw his Instruction until he gets a satisfactory assurance on that point.
§ Mr. BRUNNER
The London County Council are only agents in this matter. They have this proposal in their Bill at the request of the Battersea Borough Council, and if the representative for Battersea considers it right I think they should give way and allow this second Motion on the Paper to pass.
§ Lord A. THYNNE
Shall I be in order in discussing the question of locus on this particular Instruction? I understand that my hon. Friend has given no undertaking with regard to accepting the second Instruction, and I understand also that the hon. Member opposite is prepared to withdraw the first Instruction unconditionally.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member can only move the second Instruction if the first one is withdrawn.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The question as to whether locus should be allowed before the Committee has arisen, and I cannot say that it is out of order.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. FLETCHER
I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill not to sanction an exchange of land in relation to Parliament Hill Fields except upon the principle of equality of area."
This Instruction seems to me to be so popular in tone and so clear in principle that I am very much surprised that those in charge of the Bill have not already assured me that they will obey this Instruction. As they have not done so, I want very briefly to acquaint the House with the facts. The open space known as Parliament Hill Fields was acquired by the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1886 after a very severe effort, great pressure being put upon the late Earl of Mansfield to sell his property. They were acquired under the Act, which provides that all lawful means shall be taken to prevent any encroachment on the said estate, which was to be preserved as an open space. It is argued that Parliament passed the Bill 702 of 1886, and that therefore Parliament can alter it, but I submit that the London County Council have not stated any adequate reason for proposing to deprive the public of something between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet of land formerly dedicated to the public and enjoyed by them for over a quarter of a century. I submit that no such adequate reason has been stated and the exchange they suggest is unfair, because they should at least give an amount of land equal in area. When I say that no adequate reason has been given, I quote from the statement made on behalf of the promoters, which sets forth that the lands are equal in value. The Borough Council of Hampstead deny that, and they say that the public will be deprived of more than 5,000 square feet of land. They also say that the difference is insignificant in comparison with the total area of Parliament Hill Fields, which cover an area of 623 acres. I think that is a most fallacious argument, entirely unworthy of a body on which I have had the honour of sitting. They appear to argue that because 600 acres are dedicated to the public in that part of London, they are justified in taking away some portion of that large space. We know, from the very interesting speech made recently by the President of the Local Government Board, that 11 per cent. of the whole area of London is dedicated for ever to open spaces, parks, and gardens. That is, I believe, something like 6,000 and 7,000 acres in and around London has been so dedicated. That is no reason why the London County Council should take away a portion of that, and it is not consistent with the enthusiasm which is still being shown for acquiring open spaces recently by the opening of a public park at Beckenham and Colley Hill, near Reigate.
I submit that that enthusiasm will be greatly damped and checked if the public get the idea that the London County Council has the power of snipping off little bits of land here and there. I am amazed that they should do this without any reason, or, as it seems to me, without any reason at all. They go on in their information to say that they propose to use both these spaces, and that they would be useful for bowling greens and lawn tennis, but there is not a word as to why they are taking a larger space and offering a smaller one. I submit that the London County Council, not on this occasion, but on several occasions, have not been what they should be, the Mother of Councils, and the supporter of the privileges of the 703 Hampstead Borough Council and other borough councils, but they have actually been threatening Hampstead with tramways and trackless trolley vehicles, both of them descriptions of traction which the Hampstead people and the Hampstead Borough Council, without any distinction of party whatever, loathe and detest. Now when the borough council came to them on a matter in which they are primarily interested, and ask for a locus standi to appear before the Committee, they actually refused until they were compelled by law to admit that they had a locus standi. I think that the public, when they know the facts, will feel a little alarm at the action of the London County Council in this matter. I appeal to those Members who have read it whether any Instruction ever proposed in this House was either so moderate in tone or so fair in principle, and I hope we shall have the assurance of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. W. Guinness), who appears to be the advocate and leader of the London County Council in this matter, that they will grant this reasonable request. I need not argue that Hampstead Heath has never been regarded in the possession of Hampstead. It is the most popular open space all over London, and it is the most used by the poor in the North and East of London. When we remember that some 200,000 people, mostly of the poorer classes, enjoy their holidays on Hampstead Heath, I say that to take even a small portion of that valuable space without any reasonable cause being given is enough to awaken considerable alarm on the part of those numerous Londoners who value our open spaces and seek to add to them.
§ Mr. BRUNNER
I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion. It seems to me to be purely a case of obstinacy on the part of the London County Council. There is absolutely no reason why they should not agree to this proposal, and I trust the House will compel them to do so.
§ Mr. W. GUINNESS
The London County Council have asked to be allowed to make this exchange, because it will add to the convenience of access to Parliament Hill Fields. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Fletcher) urges that in these matters we should only be guided by considerations of area. I think that in this particular case we must also take into consideration the very great difficulty which there is at the present time in getting 704 access to this particular corner of Parliament Hill Fields from Highgate Road. This proposal did not originate with the education committee of the London County Council; it actually originated with the parks committee. It is true that the amount of land is one-ninth of an acre less than that which the education committee will receive back, but both parties to the exchange will have a much more convenient boundary. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brunner) said that it was mere obstinacy on the part of the London County Council not to carry out this suggestion. I should have thought that it was a reasonable proposal on the part of the London County Council to have rectangular sides and to carry all the lines of the boundaries beyond the angles of the new property. That is what they have done, and by that means they have cut off Parliament Hill Fields with straight sides. It is most desirable to avoid awkward angles in the matter of boundaries of this kind, and it is more convenient to have this exchange, as it will enable the entrance to Parliament Hill Fields to be closer to Highgate Hill Road.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. W. GUINNESS
If the hon. Member will look at the plan, I think he will agree with what I am saying. The entrance to Parliament Hill Fields from Highgate Road now is by means of a path about 100 yards long. There is on the north-west side some private property, part of which is the existing training college and part of which is the new training college, and on the other side, the south side, there are cricket pitches, so that the public who want to get to Parliament Hill Fields have to walk along this narrow path. On Bank Holidays there is very great congestion and inconvenience on that path, and by means of this exchange the entrance into Parliament Hill Fields will be brought about fifty yards closer to Highgate Road. I think that in view of this extra convenience to the public who want to get into Parliament Hill Fields, the House will be well advised to reject this Instruction and to allow the Parks Committee to have this exchange of land which they 705 themselves have proposed. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Hampstead, we must in a matter of this sort, where there is so large an area, consider other questions than the exact area of land. We must consider the convenience of the boundary, and also the fact that the land which is going to be given over to the training college is not going to be built upon, but is going to be left as an open space.
§ Mr. ROWLANDS
I look with very great fear on the action which the London County Council is taking in at all encroaching on that great reserve which we have in the north of London. When once you begin to take a small piece of public property you set a precedent, and some other part either of the Heath or of Golders Hill may be taken. We may have another proposal for taking another little corner, and we shall be told that a precedent was set in 1913 when an exchange took place in connection with the college and the entrance from Highgate Road to Parliament Hill Fields. I know the site as well as anyone, and I say that you have plenty of ground there except that you may want a little more playground. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. W. Guinness) says that you will get a wider path. It is pretty wide now.
§ Mr. ROWLANDS
What are you going to do with the flower beds? You have a gravel path and a nice set of flower beds on the lefthand side. You are going to abolish the greater portion of them, and I do not think you are going to give any benefit to the public, because when you get about halfway up the path it opens out, and with regard to the first cricket field, as a rule, during the busiest part of the season, some of the fences are taken down, and people can go immediately from this path into the field. What most seriously affects the House is this, that it should not give any power whatever to the county council to take one inch of public property in the form of open spaces without giving an equivalent for it. All they have to do is to round off the property of the new Training College, and they can leave us exactly what we have as regards public property. There is not too much open space there now, and it must be remembered that with the dense population which is growing up all around the Heath, and with the advantages afforded by the London tramways coming up the Highgate 706 Road, and also by the Tubes, the people flock to this part in shoals every Saturday and Sunday, and every Bank Holiday, so that every inch of the land is wanted. If the county council would devise some scheme to obtain land not now covered by houses and throw it into this open space, it would have the sympathy of all parties in the House. I would ask the representatives of the county council whether they cannot fall in with the request embodied in this Instruction, and leave us the entire space we now possess. It would not interfere with what they require in connection with the Training College. We do not want more gravel walks, and I certainly would like to know what they are going to do about the flower beds. We would prefer to keep the place in its natural condition.
§ Mr. CASSEL
The open space dealt with by this Instruction is actually situated in the borough of St. Pancras, and, as one of the Parliamentary representatives of that borough, I should like to support the Instruction. I regret that on this occasion I do not see eye to eye with the London County Council, whose policy it is usually my privilege to support in this House. We cannot go into the details of this question here. I will not follow my hon. Friend opposite over the flower beds: that is a matter much better left to the Committee. But here we have a particular question of principle, and it is upon that principle that I wish to say a word. It is that the London County Council might do well to recognise and accept the principle that where there is an exchange—I quite agree that the exchange itself may be an advantage—but where there is an exchange there should be an area given equal to that of the open space which is taken. You cannot go into the question of value. It is rather a question of area. You might have a square yard of land equivalent in value to a hundred square yards situated elsewhere, and certainly, from the point of view of open spaces in London, it would be wise for the county council to accept the principle of area rather than of value. The representatives of the London County Council who are in charge of this Bill might have this case cited against them as a precedent in the future when they come forward to protect the public against encroachments. They are the guardians of the open spaces of London, and I feel that from their own point view it would be very unwise to resist the principle laid down in this Instruction. I have no doubt 707 that if any Member representing the county council were to intimate that they accepted the principle of an equivalent area it would not be considered necessary to press this Instruction to a Division. Cannot some hon. Member give us this assurance on behalf of the County Council?
§ Mr. HARRIS
I think it should be made clear that this is not an attack on open spaces by the London County Council. This proposal comes from the Parks Committee of the Council, who must be presumed to know their own business and to have gone thoroughly into the matter. The Parks Committee want to make this exchange for the simple reason that they get distinct advantages. In the first place, they get the best bowling green in London and excellent lawn tennis courts. They also get much more convenient access to Parliament Hill Fields from the Highgate Road. These are all distinct advantages. The only objection to the proposal is that there is not complete equality of area in exchange. The reason is this, that the Education Committee of the Council cannot be expected to give greater value in land than they receive, as the only effect of making them do that would be to put a charge on the education rate for open spaces. I think it would be possible for the Parks Committee to exchange a certain number of sovereigns for an additional piece of land, and, possibly, if this matter is allowed to go to a Committee, that point will be considered. But it must be borne in mind that this land has been acquired for education purposes. It is wanted for the training college. I am not in a position to say whether the Parks Committee can give inch for inch for what they propose to take. I suggest that the matter should be allowed to go to the Committee without tying the hands of that body in any way. If they decide that an equal area ought to be given, I do not suppose that the London County Council will stand in the way of that. I hope that the House will not put any obstacle in the way of a proposal which is for the advantage of the Parks Committee.
§ Mr. DICKINSON
I rise, not because this particular area of land happens to be in my constituency, but in order to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras. I regard this as a rather serious breach of precedent. Many years ago, when the railway companies 708 appropriated a good deal of the open spaces in London for their purposes, the then London County Council laid down the principle that no company should take any area of land from an open space without giving in return an equivalent area. That principle has been acted upon from time to time, and this is the first occasion on which it has been proposed to depart from it. I hope that, whatever happens this evening, the county council will not succeed in carrying through the Committee its proposal on this particular point. So far as I can gather, looking at the plans, it seems perfectly feasible to give as much land as has been taken, and, therefore, I raise my voice in protest against the proposal now made.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am in rather a difficult position. I have not the advantage of knowing the locality, and therefore cannot say whether flower beds or parks constitute the best solution of this question. I am also in rather a difficult position, because two of my hon. Friends are apparently against the Instruction and, two are for it. Therefore, I have to endeavour to exercise an impartial judgment between the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Fletcher) and the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), and those of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Walter Guinness) and the hon. Member for South Paddington (Mr. Harris). After listening to the arguments of those hon. Gentlemen and of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dickinson), which at first rather made me feel inclined to vote against the Instruction, I have come to the conclusion that my hon. Friends the Member for Hampstead and the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras have put forward such powerful arguments that I shall be obliged to support them. What is the position? As I am absolutely impartial in the matter, I may rightly claim to be able to throw some light upon it. It appears that the borough council representing the locality are in favour of the Instruction and against the proposal of the London County Council. The people in the locality should have some voice in the matter. They may be right or wrong. In this instance I think they are right. At any rate they should have a preponderating voice in the matter, and apparently they say that this Instruction ought to be passed. That certainly influences me considerably. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dickinson) advocates the course that 709 is followed with regard to railway companies. It is the first time I have heard him take the case of the railway company and say that we ought to apply what is right for the railway companies in other matters. The hon. Gentleman cogently observed that if a railway company takes an open space it has to provide an equal open space, and he says that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and that if it is right that the railway company should do such things, why should not the London County Council do them also. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the Debate. I think he is quite right. I do not see why the London County Council should be put in a position superior to that of any other body, even such a body as the railway company. I turn to the notes which has been sent out by the London County Council against the Instruction. They say that the land to be taken is so much, and the land to be given is so much, and that the difference is not very considerable. They go on to say:—The land to be appropriated will probably be utilised for lawn tennis courts for use in connection with the council's proposed training college at Highgate Road.That may be an excellent thing—I know nothing about the council's proposed training college of Highgate Road—but why should land appropriated to the public be taken for tennis courts in connection with the training college of Highgate Road? Their arguments in favour of their case totally demolish it. If they want tennis courts for use in connection with a proposed training college, I do not see why a training college should be provided with tennis courts at the expense of the public. If they want to play tennis, let them play tennis on their own account, without taking from the public that which belongs to them. I claim the support of the Labour party in this matter. I think in this case the doctrine of the majority will appeal to them. There are more people in London than in the training college at Highgate, and as they are in the majority the land ought to be left to them. Therefore the Labour party ought to vote for this Instruction. I hope I have shown excellent reasons why the London County Council should be opposed upon this matter. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for South Paddington that this matter should be left to the Committee. I have often in this House advocated leaving Committee points to the Committee, but this is not a Committee point. It is a question of principle. It 710 is a principle which has been advocated for many years on both sides of the House, namely, that when you have an open space you should not interfere with it. I do not see why the London County Council should come forward—I do not care which side is in power—and say, "Here is an open space, and because we want to have nice tennis courts for our training college we propose to appropriate some of that open space which belongs to the public." In these circumstances I have much pleasure in supporting the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Hampstead.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE
I am not surprised that the hon. Baronet should support this Instruction, because during the whole time I have been In the House I have never known him miss an opportunity to attack the London County Council. With regard to this particular Instruction I find myself in considerable difficulty. I am connected with and reside in a borough which takes a peculiar interest in the question of open spaces. That borough has been very badly treated by the Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite in the matter of Regent's Park, Bedford College, and other sites of a similar nature. There is a strong feeling among everybody who resides in the borough on the subject of the sanctity of the principle of open spaces. If it were simply a question of the sanctity of that principle I should have supported the Instruction with regard to the Battersea Clause and with regard to the Hampstead Clause, but I also know the locality. I do not pretend to know it so well as the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands), who was there last night, but I do know it fairly well, and I cannot help feeling that this is rather a storm in a teacup. I ask the House to consider the area involved. The whole area involved is a plot of twenty-four yards square. The London County Council are upbraided by the hon. Member for Dartford for placing what he calls "the heritage of Hampstead Heath" in peril of jeopardy because in order to improve a path and decrease the amount of gravel path, which the hon. Member dislikes so much, and in order to obviate the necessity of women and children who used to go from Highgate Road to Parliament Fields being compelled to pass a somewhat malodorous public convenience they propose to sacrifice a small plot twenty-four yards square. I suggest that there is nothing in the objection, and 711 that it is a frivolous objection, and I hope the House will reject the Instruction and give us the Bill as we ask for it.
§ Captain JESSEL
This particular plot of land happens to be in St. Pancras, but neither the hon. Member opposite, nor I, nor the hon. Member (Mr. Cassel) has received a word of protest from the Borough Council of St. Pancras at all, and if they have not brought their Members' attention to the matter I cannot see why the House should not allow it to go to Committee. After all, all this land belongs to the London County Council. In any case no open space will be taken away because both bits of land will be let as open spaces, and it is a real matter of adjustment for the Committee as to how much land should be given up. It is really a very small matter. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) made fun of the lawn tennis courts for the Training College. The land to be transferred to the public also comprises an excellent bowling green and lawn tennis courts for the convenience of the public at large. This is really an extremely small matter and one for the Committee upstairs, and I hope the House will let it go there.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITH
I should not have spoken if it had not been for the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Jessel). He informed us that the county council are owners of this land. The county council are not the owners of the land. They are simply the trustees for the public. By the Hampstead Heath Enlargement Act they are to keep the land for ever, open, unenclosed, unbuilt upon. It is a question of
§ principle. You are proposing to take away 6,000 square feet—not square yards.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITH
I understood the Noble Lord to say 6,000 square yards. I hope the hon. Member (Mr. W. Guinness) will see his way to accept the Motion, because all that the Instruction proposes is that the exchange should take place upon the principle of equality of area. If therefore you add another 6,000 square feet to the land taken away from this open space no doubt the terms of the Instruction will be complied with. The hon. Member said that the St. Pancras Borough Council did not object. I think the borough council which one always closely connects with Hampstead Heath, is the Hampstead Borough Council, and it strongly objects to this proposal. I remember we used to object to the policy of the county council because they did not pay sufficient regard to the desires of the borough councils. The party which is in power now has always paid attention to the desires of the borough councils. In this case certainly it is a local matter in which the opinion of the borough council ought to be consulted, and therefore I hope the House will agree to the Instruction.
§ Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill not to sanction an exchange of land in relation to Parliament Hill Fields except upon the principle of equality of area."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 73.713
|Division No. 95.]||AYES.||[9.31 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Cassel, Felix||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Field, William|
|Alden, Percy||Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Fitzgibbon, John|
|Arnold, Sydney||Clough, William||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Clynes, John R.||Furness, Stephen|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cotton, William Francis||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Craik, Sir Henry||Goldsmith, Frank|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Goldstone, Frank|
|Barton, William||Crumley, Patrick||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Cullinan, John||Griffith, Ellis Jones|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Gulland, John William|
|Black, Arthur W.||Delany, William||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Blair, Reginald||Dickinson, W. H.||Hackett, John|
|Boland, John Plus||Donelan, Captain A.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Doris, William||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Duffy, William J.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)|
|Boyton, James||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Hazleton, Richard|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Esslemont, George Birnie||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Farrell, James Patrick||Higham, John Sharp|
|Hinds, John||Molloy, Michael||Rowlands, James|
|Hogge, James Myles||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Morrell, Philip||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||Morison, Hector||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Muldoon, John||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Munro, R.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Nield, Herbert||Sheehy, David|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Nolan, Joseph||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|John, Edward Thomas||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)|
|Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Doherty, Philip||Snowden, Philip|
|Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Donnell, Thomas||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||O'Dowd, John||Sutherland, John E.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Jowett, Frederick William||O'Shee, James John||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||Outhwaite, R. L.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Kelly, Edward||Parker, James (Halifax)||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|King, Joseph||Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.||Wardle, George J.|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Waring, Walter|
|Leach, Charles||Pointer, Joseph||Watt, Henry Anderson|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Webb, H.|
|Lundon, Thomas||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Lynch, A. A.||Pringle, William M. R.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|MacDonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Radford, G. H.||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P|
|McGhee, Richard||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Whyte, A, F. (Perth)|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Rea, Rt. Hon, Russell (South Shields)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Macpherson, James Ian||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Reddy, Michael||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|M'Callum, Sir John M.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Winfrey, Richard|
|M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Rendall, Athelstan||Wing, Thomas|
|Manfield, Harry||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Young, William (Perthshire, East)|
|Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Meagher, Michael||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Middlebrook, William||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Fletcher and Mr. Brunner,|
|Millar, James Duncan||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Grant, J. A.||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Barnes, George N.||Gretton, John||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Hamilton, G. C. (Altrincham)||Robinson, Sidney|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hayden, John Patrick||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Bird, Alfred||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hodge, John||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Smith, H, B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Cautley, Harry Strother||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Maclean, Donald||Tennant, Harold John|
|Crooks, William||Macmaster, Donald||Thomas, J. H.|
|Dawes, J. A.||Magnus, Sir Philip||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Denison-Pender, J.||Mount, William Arthur||Walker, Colonel William Hall|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)||Weigall, Captain A. G.|
|Dixon, C. H.||Nuttall, Harry||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||O'Grady, James||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Fell, Arthur||O'Malley, William||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Pollock, Ernest Murray||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Gilmour, Captain J.||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Walter Guinness and Mr. Harris.|
|Glanville, H. J.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. BRUNNER
I beg to move, "That any Petition or Petitions of the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Kyrle Society, and the London Playing Fields Committee, praying to be heard against Clause 26 of the Bill and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the 715 Committee; and that the Petitioners may be heard by themselves, their Counsel, and Agents on their respective Petitions against the Bill."
It seems to me that as the county council are only agents in this matter they might accept the assurance of the President of the Local Government Board that there is no objection to these societies being allowed to be heard before the Committee.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS
The London County Council feel that it is a new and rather far-reaching principle which is proposed in this Instruction. They very naturally feel, and I think every local authority must feel, that it is very undesirable to increase the cost of Private Till legislation by protracting the proceedings in this way. Although they do not feel strongly about the matter in one way or another, I think an Instruction of this sort should only be accepted on the express recommendation of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Maclean)
I do not propose to give any express approbation, but having given the Instruction careful consideration, I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman should not accept it.
§ alone. It establishes a precedent which will be of wide and far-reaching application, and it will doubtless be acted upon when other municipal bodies come before the House with measures of a similar character. You are going to allow representation before the Committee of self-constituted bodies which are in no sense representative of anything but themselves, and which rest on no democratic basis at all. You are going to allow gentlemen who compose themselves into a society to be represented by counsel in order that they may offer opposition to the borough council and the county council, which are elected upon a democratic basis and are of a democratic character. I submit, even if there is no objection at all to this course being adopted in the present instance, the House should be very chary in laying down a precedent which will undoubtedly be quoted in the case of other municipalities in time to come.
§ Question put, "That any Petition or Petitions of the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Kyrle Society, and the London Playing Fields Committee, praying to be heard against Clause 26 of the Bill and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; and that the Petitioners may be heard by themselves, their Counsel, and Agents on their respective Petitions against the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 53.717
|Division No. 96.]||AYES.||[9.46 p.m|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Cave, George||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson|
|Alden, Percy||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Field, William|
|Arnold, Sydney||Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Fitzgibbon, John|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Clancy, John Joseph||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Clough, William||Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Clynes, John R.||Furness, Stephen|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Glanville, H. J.|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Goldstone, Frank|
|Barton, William||Cotton, William Francis||Greig, Colonel J. W.|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Griffith, Ellis Jones|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Crumley, Patrick||Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Cullinan, John||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Davies, Ellis William(Eifion)||Gulland, John William|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Bird, Alfred||Delany, William||Hackett, John|
|Black, Arthur W.||Denniss, E. R. B.||Hamilton, G. C. (Altrincham)|
|Boland, John Pius||Dickinson, W. H.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Donelan, Captain A.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Doris, William||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Duffy, William J.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Elverston, Sir Harold||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Hazleton, Richard|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Cassel, Felix||Esslemont, George Birnie||Henry, Sir Charles|
|Higham, John Sharp||Morison, Hector||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Hinds, John||Muldoon, John||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Hodge, John||Munro, R.||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Hogge, James Myles||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||Nield, Herbert||Sheehy, David|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Nolan, Joseph||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Jessel, Captain H. M.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)|
|John, Edward Thomas||O'Doherty, Philip||Snowden, Philip|
|Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Donnell, Thomas||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Dowd, John||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Sutherland, John E.|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||O'Malley, William||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||O'Shee, James John||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Jowett, Frederick William||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Joyce, Michael||Outhwaite, R. L.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||Parker, James (Halifax)||Thomas, James Henry|
|Kelly, Edward||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|King, Joseph||Pointer, Joseph||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Wardle, George J.|
|Leach, Charles||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Waring, Walter|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Pringle, William M. R.||Watt, Henry Anderson|
|Lundon, Thomas||Radford, G. H.||Webb, H.|
|Lynch, A. A.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Weston, Colonel J. W.|
|Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|McGhee, Richard||Reddy, Michael||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Maclean, Donald||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Macpherson, James Ian||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Rendall, Athelstan||Wiles, Thomas|
|M'Callum, Sir John M.||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|M'Kean, John||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Manfield, Harry||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wing, Thomas|
|Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Robinson, Sidney||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Meagher, Michael||Roe, Sir Thomas||Young, William (Perthshire, East)|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Ronaldshay, Earl of||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Millar, James Duncan||Rowlands, James|
|Molloy, Michael||Rowntree, Arnold||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Morrell, Philip||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Brunner and Sir H. Verney.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Fell, Arthur||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Barnes, George N||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Barnston, Harry||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gilmour, Captain John||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Blair, Reginald||Grant, J. A.||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Gretton, John||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Boyton, James||Harris, Henry Percy||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell||Hoare, S. J. G.||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Walker, Colonel William Hall|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Houston, Robert Paterson||Weigall, Captain A. G.|
|Crooks, William||Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Dawes, J. A.||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Denison-Pander, J.||Mount, William Arthur|
|Dixon, C. H.||O'Grady, James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Alexander Thynne and Mr. Goldsmith.|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|