HC Deb 24 March 1914 vol 60 cc289-301

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

Ordered, "That if the Local Legislation Committee, when the City of London (Various Powers) Bill has been committed to them, shall report to he Committee of Selection that the Clauses in Part III. of the Bill which relate to cinematograph films and celluloid should, in their opinion, be referred to another Committee, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to the Select Committee nominated by them upon the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto:

Ordered, "That such of the petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their counsel, agents, or witnesses be heard on their petitions against Part III. of the Bill, if they think fit, and counsel heard in support of the said Bill against such petitioners:

Ordered, "That the Local Legislation Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by the Committee." [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]


(who had given notice to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill that they omit Clause 38): I do not propose to move this Instruction, as I have received assurances from the City on the subject.


I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill to omit Part M. of the Bill."

This part of the Bill deals with the manufacture and storage, sale, and use of cinematograph films and celluloid. Under it, the City of London propose to take steps, which are said to be necessary, in order to protect life and property in the City of London from the dangers of fire. That is an appeal which this House will always receive with sympathy, and no hon. Member will receive it with more sympathy and attention than myself. The objection I have to this proposal is that the powers which it is proposed to grant. are intended to he vested in what I think is the wrong authority. I am quite willing that the Select Committee that, is to be set up should deal with the question as to whether those powers are necessary, and how far they are necessary, but I think if they are conferred at all, they should be conferred on the London County Council, and not on the City of London. The London County Council is the fire brigade authority for the whole of London, including the City, which is an important, though a small, part of the County of London. May I remind hon. Members who do not represent London constituencies that the constitution of the London County Council is not similar to that of county councils formed in the country under the provisions of the Local Government Act of 1888. The London County Council owes its origin to the Metropolis Management Act of 1855. That was a great Act, in which the distribution of powers between the central authority and the local authorities are carefully laid down. That distribution of duties, notwithstanding certain immaterial alterations in London government which have been made since, have been substantially observed to the present day. The Act of 1855 constituted the Metropolitan Board of Works as the central authority to deal with the whole of what is now called the County of London.

That Act had not been long in operation when there was passed the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act of 1865, which constituted a central authority for dealing with fire throughout the whole of London, and the powers conferred by that Act are now vested, with little alteration, in the London County Council. The London County Council has the best fire brigade in the world perhaps, and the City of London has no fire brigade at all. I think it is obvious that these provisions which deal with the protection of life and property from fire should be vested in the fire brigade authority, and not in a local authority which has no fire brigade and no appliances and no stall, and no means of dealing at all with the danger of fire. The second point I wish to put is this, that prevention is better than cure, and the right design and construction of buildings is more important in guarding a city against fire than what is done subsequent to an outbreak by the most efficient fire brigade. The Metropolitan Building Act of 1855 vested the powers with regard to the construction of buildings in the central authority, which was then the Board of Works. Under that Act a superintendent architect was set up for the whole of London. His functions extend not only to the province of what are now called Metropolitan boroughs, but also to the City of London. Under the dominion, so to speak, of the superintendent architect for London, there are district surveyors who superintend this work throughout the whole of London, including the City. Therefore, the London County Council is charged with the duty of seeing that proper regulations are made, so that the buildings shall, as far as possible, be immune from fire, not only in the whole of London, but in the City, which is promoting this Bill. In addition to that, the powers under the Factory Acts of seeing that factories and workshops are properly furnished with means of escape from fire are vested in the county council; their inspectors, as well as the officers of the London Fire Brigade, inspect and give directions in the City of London. I suggest that it is very undesirable that similar and overlapping powers should be vested in the local authority in the City. It may be said that the Act of 1855 was passed a long time ago. I admit that that is so. Relations between the central and the local authorities in London have from time to time been reconsidered by this House, and alterations have been made, but none have been made as to the disposition of the powers and duties in this matter as between the central and the local authorities. The Act of 1888, which set up the county councils in the country, substituted direct for indirect election, and established the London County Council in lieu of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but it made no difference in the functions of the central and the local authorities. Again, the London Government Act of 1899 introduced changes; it gave new names to the existing authorities; it called the vestries metropolitan boroughs, and gave their chairmen the title of mayor; but it did not alter the functions of the central and local authorities.

For these reasons I suggest that the powers proposed to be conferred by this Bill, if they are found by the Committee to be necessary, should be conferred not upon the City, but upon the London County Council. I may be told that the London County Council and the City of London are agreed in this matter. I believe that that is the case. But that I submit is no reason why this House should, in deference to the promoters of a private Bill, alter the main lines of London government, which had been laid down for many years, and found by experience to be wise and sufficient. We shall also be told that this question may well be considered by the Committee before which the Bill will go. I have the greatest respect for the Local Legislation Committee, which has been directed during recent years by a series of able chairmen. It is a Committee for which I have every respect. But I suggest that this is a question, not for a Committee, but for this House. It is a dangerous thing that the public law dealing with the whole of London should be dealt with and perhaps altered, not by this House after full consideration and debate, but by a Private Bill Committee, which deals primarily with the contentions between conflicting parties. We must not forget that Private Bill procedure is in the nature rather of litigation than of legislation; and there is a tendency on the part of such a Committee, if the parties appearing before it are satisfied, to give effect to the agreement which has been arrived at. I submit that this is not a matter which ought to be decided in that way. We ought not to leave this question to the Private Legislation Committee, however much we may respect its decisions. We ought to settle it in this House. The fact is, there appears to be an attempt on the part of the City of London, by agreement with the reactionary party which now dominates the London County Council, to tear up the public law relating to the county of London, and to effect a new law behind the back of this House. For these reasons I move the Instruction.


I beg to second the Motion.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley)

The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Radford) has brought before the House some considerations that will necessarily come before the Committee to which this Bill will go. I think I need refer on this occasion to only one of his arguments, to which I attach considerable importance. The hon. Member seemed to be of opinion that where the parties were agreed on a particular proposal, the Committee would accept it without question. I can assure him that that is not the case. It is the duty of this Committee to consider, first of all, what powers, if any, should be granted in this matter; and, secondly, whether the proposal in the Bill gives those powers to the right authority. The hon. Member may perhaps be satisfied if I give him the assurance that I will see that the contention which he has put before the House is brought to the special attention of the Committee, in order that it may have their careful consideration. Perhaps the hon. Member will be content with that assurance, and not find it necessary to divide the House upon his Instruction. I might also say that the Special Committee that has been bet up to deal with this matter is to be presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Doncaster Division (Sir C. Nicholson), who has had much experience in recent years of dealing with the General Powers Bills, both of the City of London and of the county council. He will, therefore, be familiar with the matters to which the hon. Member has referred, and with the spheres of jurisdiction of both bodies. Hence, we in the House may be content that this tribunal will not only give careful consideration to the matter, but arrive at a right decision.


I am sorry that there should be any objection whatever to this Bill going upstairs and being considered by a Special Committee. I am also very sorry to think that when we are dealing with such a serious matter as this, and when the City is trying to do what is right in regard to the protection of life and limb, there should be brought into the matter an attack upon the City and the county council. Personally, I am very glad that we are agreed with the county council in the matter, and that both bodies are anxious to do something to put an end to a danger which, at any rate, demands consideration. I am authorised to say that we have already agreed to remodel our Bill to some extent to meet the objections which have been raised. What we have arranged to do is to remodel Clause 38, so as to substitute word "packages" or "parcels" for the word "articles." We have, on consideration, found a difficulty in regard to putting the mark or label on all articles; therefore, we give way on that point. We have also another reason for giving way, namely, that we have gone a little further than the Report of the Departmental Committee. There-fore, however much it may want consideration, we thought it better to leave that out. We are also anxious in all these matters to deal as pleasantly and smoothly as we can with tradesmen in the City of London. We have a lot of people to look after. There are 400,000 people coming in every clay to work. Therefore you understand we have something to do to look after them, especially the girls and young men who come in to work at the warehouses. Our attention was first strikingly called to this matter by the fire at Queen Victoria Street when ten people lost their lives. There were a number of other accidents of that sort which went before the coroner's jury. I do not want to enumerate all the cases. but I may mention the fire that occurred two years ago, in 1912, in Moor Lane, and here the lives of nine poor girls were sacrificed.

We thereupon considered it our duty to do something to get rid of that danger. We approached the Home Office—I refer now to last year—and got them to agree to a Bill which we introduced, but which did not go on. We also before we brought in the Bill of this year have seen the Home Secretary, who agreed to support the Second Reading of our Bill. I agree entirely with what the Chairman of Committees said just now, namely, that it should be sent to the Committee upstairs to consider this matter. I am sure the City will acquiesce in any decision that the House may come to. We are anxious that the Corporation should have the management and control of these affairs, because we are certain that we can manage them more smoothly and pleasantly for the trades people of the City than any outside body. There may be objections offered to other parts of our Bill. I am authorised to say that the Corporation will give the fullest consideration to any points that may be raised. With respect to what my hon. Friend said as to the City having a separate authority, I may say that we have our own magistrates, elected by the people, and they are the best bench in the country. [Laughter] Hon. Members may laugh. But that is the general opinion. We have our own police. Nobody disputes that they are the best police force in: the whole world. We are the authority for dangerous structures. My hon. Friend forgot to mention that.


A trifling matter.


It is not, because we appoint officers who look after dangerous structures. We have also our own ambulance, and we have coroner's inquests —notwithstanding that there may not be any deaths. We are a long way ahead of all other bodies in these matters. While the County council have been trying to arrange to get an ambulance, we established it three years ago, and it has worked most effectively. There are a dozen other matters, such as the Shops Act, for which we are the authority. We appoint and pay our officers to deal with these matters. We do not in the City want to import any ill-feeling into this subject, but we believe it to be our duty to control these various matters, and especially to look after the poor girls that I have referred to, and the 400,000 persons coming in and going out daily. In that sense, and for that reason, we have brought in this Bill. We do not want to interfere with the trade of the City of London, because it is trade and business that has made the City the great and important place it is, and has given it its influence all over the world. I hope, therefore, this House will allow this Bill to go to Committee upstairs and leave the Committee to settle the points which have been raised.


I rather hope that the suggestion which has been thrown out by the Chairman of Ways and Means will not be adopted by the House. My hon. Friend has brought forward his Amendment on the broad grounds of principle, namely, that we ought not to allow these private Bills to be made use of for the purpose of reorganising the relationship between the City of London and the rest of the county of London in a way that is undoubtedly inconsistent with the existing practice. I think the House ought to understand that even if this Bill, and Part III. of this Bill, is rejected the safety of the people of London will not be neglected in the slightest degree. A week ago the House passed the London County Council Bill. That Bill of the county council contains Clauses which are verbatim the same as those in the Bill which we are now discussing.


It does not go quite so far as our Bill.


I was just going to refer to that. There are one or two differences, which I will refer to in a moment, but the Clauses themselves, so far as they go, are verbatim the same as those which are in the County Council Bill. The County Council Bill has a Clause which the City's Bill has not. It is one of very considerable importance, because it shows that the county council were alive to the question of the proper relationship which should. exist between the City and the council of the administrative county. Clause 41 of the County Council's Bill is to the effect that—

"The Corporation shall exercise. within the City of London in substitution for and to the exclusion of the council the powers conferred upon the council by this part of this Act (except such as are conferred by the Section of this Act of which the marginal note is Provisions as to Celluloid Factories') and the Corporation within the said City shall be the authority for carrying into execution the provisions of this part of this Act, and in the application of the said provisions to the said City the name of the Corporation shall be deemed to be substituted for that of the council in the said provisions"—

This is very important—

"Provided that the Corporation shall only attach such conditions or make such requirements under the provision of this part of this Act, or of any regulation made there under with respect to the provision of means of escape in case of fire or of safeguards to prevent the spread of fire as may be approved by the council. …." That is by the county council. Under that Clause there is, first of all, a very important exception, and that is that the administration of that provision for celluloid factories is not to be handed over to the City Corporation, but is to be kept in the hands of the county council; whereas if the Bill before us be passed the City Corporation will have power over the factories as well as over the shops and other places where celluloid articles are sold. In reference to the second portion, the City of London Corporation shall not make any regulations except those which are approved by the county council. The whole of the question therefore is raised in the County Council's Bill, and I submit to this House that this evening we shall prejudge the case if we are satisfied to allow any member of the Corporation itself to brine in a Bill giving those powers to the City of London which are exercised by the county council outside, and some of which are undoubtedly to be exercised by the county council inside. This Bill will, to a certain extent, upset existing arrangements, because if you look at the provisions you will find in two or three different Sections there are proposals by which the City Corporation shall deal with the question of the means of escape in case of fire, and as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that particular function has already been committed to the county council all over the administrative County of London, including the City. And therefore you will have a proposal which, if carried out, will give you two authorities doing the same work. After all, the Committee upstairs may not allow them to go to the expense; but I venture to submit that we shall not be prejudging the ease if we strike out Part III., as suggested by my hon. Friend, but leaving to the Committee exactly what the Chairman of Ways and Means asks for. We should be leaving to the Committee under the Clauses in the County Council Bill the whole question as to how this administration is to he carried out in the City and outside the City, and therefore from the mere question of procedure I submit that it would be very much more satisfactory if we were to exclude from this Bill, which includes, as the House may not be aware, a good many other matters of importance. Part III., which deals with celluloid, and leaves the subject to be discussed fully and entirely by the Committee who have charge over a Bill promoted by the London County Council.


The hon. Member who has just sat down has urged the House not to prejudge the authority to enforce these Celluloid Clauses, and I think the best way to avoid prejudging the matter is to allow it to go to the Committee. Obviously the Clauses dealing with celluloid, brought forward by the London County Council and the Glasgow Corporation, will have to be recast to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. They are not couched in Parliamentary language; they are very ambiguous in detail, and undoubtedly they will have to be remodelled. Therefore I think it is absolutely safe to let the whole of this matter go to the Select Committee to be decided. The hon. Member thinks it is not advisable to give these powers to the City, because, contrary to the principle of having one central authority, I would remind the House that already we have, to some extent, prejudged this matter. We have decided that it is a fit question to be left to the Committee, be- cause in the London County Council of a week ago it is named as the controlling authority to enforce the regulations as regards celluloid within its own area. As the House saw fit to leave that discretion to the Committee in the case of the London County Council Bill, I think they might well follow that precedent to-night and leave it to the Committee.


I only rise for the purpose of removing a misapprehension which may have been conveyed to the House by the speech of the lion. Member for North St. Pancras. I wish to assure the House that there is no friction in this matter between the City Corporation and the County Council. I think that we are agreed on all sides that the proper authority to enforce the safeguards with regard to celluloid is the City Corporation. The opposition to the Celluloid Clauses, both in the London County Council Bill and in this Bill has been twofold. In the first place, we have a certain opposition on the part of hon. Members who are themselves directly interested in the trade, and who do not wish to see any restrictions, however necessary in the interests of the safety of the public, placed upon the celluloid trade. These consideration, I am glad to say, do not obtain tonight, but there is the other class of opposition, such as has been foreshadowed by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras, who wishes to see the administration of those safeguards centralised in the hands of one body. I might point out that this question, as my hon. Friend has said, has already been prejudged. The local authorities in London are agreed, so far as area is concerned, that the City Corporation is the proper and most efficient body to administer these provisions, and I suggest that, instead of cutting out Part III. of the Bill, at the present stage, the House should allow the whole Bill to go forward as it stands to the Committee upstairs, who would be able to adjust the two—the County Council Bill and the Corporation Bill—and so to speak synchronise the two Bills together, and then if the House is not satisfied with what has been done by the Committee it will have an opportunity of taking further action in the matter on the reports Bill.


If the House will permit me to speak again I should like to remove one misapprehension of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras. To reject this Instruction to-night will not be to prejudge the case in any way. It will be quite open to the Committee upstairs if they, having heard the evidence, decide to decline the proposition of the City, to put the whole of the provisions of the London County Council Bill in. The effect of the Motion which he has been supporting, I think, would be this; that both sides of the case

should not be heard upstairs. I ask the House not to accept the Instruction, in order that the Committee may hear both sides of the case, and may deal with it as it thinks right after having heard the evidence.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 225.

Division No. 54.] AYES. [8.54 p.m.
Addison, Dr. Christopher Holt, Richard Durning Raffan, Peter Wilson
Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.) Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Booth, Frederick Handel Kellaway, Frederick George Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Brunner, John F. L. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Macpherson, James Ian Toulmin, Sir George
Byles, Sir William Pollard Marks, Sir George Croydon Wiles, Thomas
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Money. L. G. Crimea Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Newton, Harry Kottingham Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Essex, Sir Richard Walter Nuttall, Harry Wing, Thomas Edward
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Higham, John Sharp Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Chancellor.
Hinds, John Radlord, George Haynes
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Devlin, Joseph John, Edward Thomas
Acland, Francis Dyke Donelan, Captain A. Johnson, W.
Agnew, Sir George William Doris, William Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Doughty, Sir George Jones. H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Duffy, William J. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Armitage, Robert Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Jones, Leif (Notts. Rushcliffe)
Arnold, Sydney Elverstan, Sir Harold Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Astor, Waldorf Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Jewett, Frederick William
Barnes, George N. Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Joyce. Michael
Bornstein, Harry Esslemont, George Birne Joynson-Hicks, William
Barton, William Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Keily, Edward
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Falconer. James Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Farrell, James Patrick Kilbride, Denis
Bennett-Goldney. Francis Fell, Arthur Lardner. James C. R.
Bentham, G. J. Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Larmor, Sir J.
Bethell, Sir J. H. Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Boland, John Pius Ffrench, Peter Levy, Sir Maurice
Bowerman, Charles W. Field, William Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Boyton, James Flavin, Michael Joseph Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.).
Brace, William Forster, Henry William Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Gill, A. H. Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Gladstone, W. G. C. London, Thomas
Bryce, J. Annan Glanville. Harold James Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Burn, Colonel C. R. Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Goldstone, Frank Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Gretton, John McGhee, Richard
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Guest, Hen. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Cautley, Henry Strother Guinness. Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Gulland, John William M'Callum, Sir John M.
Chappie. Dr. William Allen Hackett, John Magnus, Sir Philip
Clough, William Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Marshall, Arthur Harold
Clyde, J. Avon Hancock, John George. Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Clynes, Juhn R. Hardie, J. Keir Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Middlebrook, William
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Hayden. John Patrick Molloy, Michael
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hayward, Evan Molten, Percy Alport
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hazleton, Richard Mooney, John J.
Cotton, William Francis Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) Muldoon, John
Courthope, George Loyd Helme, Sir Norval Watson Murphy, Martin J.
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Craik, Sir Henry Henderson. Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Nolan, Joseph
Crooks, William Henderson. John M. (Aberdeen, W.) Norman, Sir Henry
Crumley, Patrick Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Norton, Captain Cecil William
Cullinan, John Hodge, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Davies, David (Montgomery Ce.) Hogge, James Myles O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Holmes, Daniel Turner O'Doherty, Philip
Dawes. James Arthur Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) O'Donnell, Thomas
De Forest, Baron Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Dowd, John
Delany, William Hughes, Spencer Leigh O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Illingworth, Percy H. O'Malley, William
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Thomas, James Henry
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Robinson, Sidney Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
O'Shea, James John Roche, Augustine (Louth) Verney, Sir Harry
O'Sullivan, Timothy Roe, Sir Thomas Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Parker, James (Halifax) Rowntree, Arnold Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Parry, Thomas H. Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Wardle, George J.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Waring, Walter
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Webb, H.
Peto, Basil Edward Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Heston, Colonel J. W.
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Sanders, Robert, Arthur Whaler, Granville C. H
Pointer, Joseph Scanlan, Thomas White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Pratt, J. W. Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Pringle, William M. R. Sheehy, David Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Handles, Sir John S. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Whyte, Alexander F.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Wilkie, Alexander
Rawson, Colonel Richard H. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Soames, Arthur Wellesley Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)
Reddy, Michael Spear, Sir John Ward Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)
Richards, Thomas Sutton, John E. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. Young, William (Perthshire, East)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Swift, Rigby Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Talbot, Lard Edmund
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Taylor, John W. (Durham) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Morton and Lord A. Thynne.