§ As amended, considered.
Page 10 of the Bill, to insert in the Schedule—
§ "Plan No. 10.
§ "A piece or parcel of land situate in the parish of St. Giles, Camberwell, in the county of London, and comprising eight houses, forecourts, gardens, and premises on
|Names.||Owners or reputed Owners.||Lessees or reputed Lessees.||Occupiers.|
|Mrs. Esther Estella Johnson||…||…||…|
|Francis William Pixley, trustee||…||…||…|
|Cumberland Henry Woodruff, trustee||…||…||…|
|James Edward Peryer||…||…||…|
|Mrs. Miriam Watson||…||…||…|
|George James Holton||…||…||…|
|Mrs. Eliza Job||…||…||…|
|Henry Ambrose webber||…||…||…|
|Mrs. Marian Lovell||…||…||…|
|Mrs. Jessie Carnie||…||…||…|
|Daniel James Elliott||…||…||…|
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
In connection with this Bill there is a Motion in my name on the Paper which I desire to call attention to, because there seems to me to have been rather a flagrant breach of what we understand to be the Rules of the House. I have endeavoured to get some explanation of the circumstances which I am about to explain to the House, but I can get no information at all, and therefore I am forced to make the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name. The Bill is a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order moved by the London School Board, and approved by the Education Department, for the acquisition of 30 sites for new schools in the neighbourhood of London. It was introduced into the House of Lords on
§ the north-eastern side of, and being Nos. 29 to 43 (odd numbers), both inclusive, Cuthill Road. House, garden, and premises (with entrance-way) No. 11, Love Walk, situate at the rear of the last-mentioned premises. Also a house, garden, stabling, and premises known as 'Cornwall House,' in Love Walk, the whole containing 48,680 square feet, or thereabouts, as the same is described in the Plan No. 10, and distinguished by the Nos. 1 to 11, together with all and singular the messuages and tenements and buildings now standing or being thereon with their appurtenances. The names of the owners, or reputed owners, lessees, or reputed lessees, and occupiers of the said piece or parcel of land and hereditaments, are as follows—
the 1st of May, and passed through, amended as regards one site only, on the Motion of Lord Wandsworth. No Motion was made in the House of Lords with regard to the site No. 10, dealing with land in St. Giles, Camberwell, and in Love Walk, for the reinstatement of which site I now move. The Bill was unopposed in the House of Lords, and passed through all its stages, and came up to the House of Commons on the 1st of July. There was no opposition to the Bill in this House on its Second Reading. No petition whatever was presented against the Bill, and therefore it was at once referred to the Unopposed Bills Committee. It came before the Committee dealing with unopposed Bills last Tuesday. On that occasion the
representative of the London School Board attended, but there was no opposition whatever to the Bill, and it passed through that stage also without any Amendment. On the next day (Wednesday) the Bill appeared on the Paper which deals with the proceedings of this House with this statement—
It was reported to lie on the Table as amended,
and it was to be considered on Thursday. Now, Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Bill had not been amended neither on the Second Reading nor when it was before the Committee, and what the origin of this Notice was, which appeared on the Paper for the first time last Wednesday, the London School Board has been entirely unable to ascertain. The Bill was called on Thursday, and then it was arranged that it should be taken this day. No explanation has been given as to when this site No. 10, which is referred to, was struck out of the Bill, and it is an explanation of that that I wish to obtain from the Education Department today. I ask the House to think for a moment upon the circumstances I have described. The Bill started as long ago as eight months, when it was brought by the School Board before the Education Department. It passed entirely without opposition through the House of Lords, and also through this House practically unopposed. I must, however, here refer to one exception. On the 16th of July there appeared on the Proceedings of this House a notice by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich with regard to this site. The Motion was that the Bill should be re-committed, so far as sites Nos. 10 and 23 were concerned. This Motion never came on, the Bill was not re-committed, and nothing more has been heard of any discussion with regard to either of the two sites, and when it came before the Committee again there was no discussion there as to the possibility of striking these two sites out of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to explain what became of his Motion, of which nothing more was ever heard. I have put the House in possession of all the facts, and I say that the only mention of site No. 10 in this House was in connection with the Motion of the noble Lord, and that was never dis-
cussed by the House. I think, Sir, that on the facts that I have stated and brought before the notice of the House I have established a case of some very serious defect in the procedure of the House. If this sort of thing can be done behind our backs, I do not see the necessity of the House enforcing private Bills to go through all the various forms which they are now made to go through. The Motion I have put down on the paper is that site No. 10 be re-inserted in the Bill. The details of this site are given on page 27 of the Order Paper, so that I need not explain them beyond saying that they give the details of the site of a school in the parish of St. Giles, Camberwell. My only object in bringing this forward is to call attention to the way in which the Bill has been treated, and in order to give the Vice-President of the Council an opportunity of explaining these matters to the House; and the House will know how to treat his explanation. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§ THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir J. GORST,) Cambridge University
This site No. 10 was struck out of the Bill by the Government, who were in charge of the Bill. I do not know whether the honourable Member is satisfied with that statement.
§ MR. SIR J. GORST
The School Board knew perfectly well what was done, and it was done. This is not the first year in which this particular site has appeared on the School Board Papers. It was put into a Bill in a previous year, and at that time a very great deal of discussion and consideration was given to this particular site, which was proposed and supported by the London School Board. The matter was very fully considered and discussed, and then the Education Department decided that the site must be struck out of the Bill, and that the School Board for London should open a temporary school in the neighbourhood, and that the temporary school should be carried on for a year or two, and then we could see whether there was any necessity for a school on the site that was struck out of the Bill.
§ MR. SIR J. GORST
It was struck out by the Government who had charge of the Bill. The London School Board did open a temporary school at this place, but they also inserted this particular site which had been struck out in the previous year. In their Bill last year there was no opposition of any kind to it, although, the parties received notice in accordance with the law; but they were told that they might rely with perfect confidence on the word of the Education Department that they would be allowed to remain quiescent. There being no' opposition to the Bill this year, the fact of the site having been re-inserted was never brought to the cognisance of the heads of the Education Department; they came to the conclusion that they were bound by their decision of the previous year not to allow this site to be acquired by the London School Board until the temporary school that had been established had been there a sufficiently long time to satisfy the Education Department that a permanent school was wanted or not; accordingly, as soon as ever the heads of the Education Department were aware that this site had been put into the Bill they directed it to be struck out.
§ MR. BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
I do not think that the explanation given by the right honourable Gentleman is very satisfactory. What we complain of is not so much of this particular site being struck out of the Bill, but that this House has never had an opportunity of discussing the question as to whether or not this site should be struck out. The explanation given by my right honourable Friend is this: that this Bill, up to the very last stage, was treated as an unopposed Bill. As a matter of fact, I am informed that it actually passed as an unopposed Bill, and I am also informed that the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means actually signed the Bill as an unopposed Bill before this Amendment was made. What we object to is, not so much that the Education Department, who are entitled to have a voice in these matters, should have struck out the site after consideration and discussion of the matter with the London School Board, but that without acknowledge of the School Board them- 1122 selves, without any opportunity of allowing this House to have any voice in the matter, the site is struck out. I am bound to say that on the merits of this case it seems to me that the Education Department has not behaved very well to the London School Board. The right honourable Gentleman said that the School Board knew perfectly well why the site was struck out. I have here a copy of a letter written to the Education Department by the School Board under their authority, stating that they have no knowledge as to why this site had been struck out, and that they were surprised to find at the last moment that this site to which they attached some importance should be struck, by the Government, out of a Provisional Order Bill. I must say that" whatever may be the merits of this particular case, whether the site ought to be included or not, I for one strongly object to the system which-is being used as a precedent, under which the Education Department, acting on their own initiative and without any control of any sort or kind, strike a site out of a Bill. After all, the Education Department have themselves sanctioned this site. 'The London School Board is an elective body, and apparently the electors of London are to be treated in this hole-and-corner way. I cannot accept the explanation of the Vice-President as in any way satisfactory. I very much regret that the Education Department, either through ignorance, through mismanagement, or through some other reason, should have got themselves into such a position as they have by striking this site out of the Bill. I repeat that the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President is not at all satisfactory, and I very much regret to find the right honourable Gentleman placed in the position in which he is.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I submit, Sir, that what has been done on this Bill not only should not be done, but cannot be done. It contravenes the rules of the House. First of all, as I understand, the Bill passes through Committee as an unopposed (Bill. After it has passed through Committee,' an Amendment is effected in it by some authority, I don't know who, but not by the Committee. The Bill has been reported as an 1123 unamended Bill to the House after it has left the Committee.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I submit that, as a matter of order, it is not competent for any authorities afterwards to amend the Bill in any sense.
*MR. J. W. LOWTHER
May I say that the honourable Member is completely mistaken. The Bill did not pass through the Committee as an unamended Bill, but it passed through Committee with an Amendment, and it was reported to the House. The honourable Member will see, if he looks at it, that it is reported to the House with Amendment.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
The point is whether this Bill was reported with Amendments; that is all I can look at.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
The honourable Member must see that I cannot give a ruling upon a disputed account of an occurrence.
§ MR. LORD H. CECIL (Greenwich)
I will not detain the House on the merits of the question, but I understand that the honourable Member, in the course of his speech, seemed to think or to suggest that there was something suspicious 1124 about the Motion which I put down with regard to two of these sites. But if he had read it he would have seen that it was a proposal to re-commit the Bill on the Third Reading, and in consequence it has not been brought, and could not be brought, till the Third Reading came on. Practically, the Government in Committee struck out one of the plans to which my objection was directed, and I, naturally, in the ordinary course, withdrew my Motion for the re-committal of the Bill, which was not to have arisen until the Third Reading. I must ask the honourable Member for Poplar, was this done in a hole-and-corner way, and did it prevent the House from having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it? On the contrary, I say that it was literally and strictly the only way by which the House could have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon, the matter. If it had been struck out before the Bill was presented to us, nothing more would have been heard about the matter at all, and the only way by which the House could have been able to put the site into the Bill is by its having appeared in the Bill and been struck out in the Committee stage, and thus having the attention of honourable Members directed to it. So far from the Government having adopted any hole-and-corner method, they have adopted the only method by which the matter could be brought to the notice of the House. I desire to acknowledge very fully the very great fairness and justice which the Government have shown in striking out this plan, against which a very strong case could, I believe, be made out, and to say that I feel sure that the friends of Voluntary schools all over London will recognise that they have exercised a fair and impartial judgment.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
After the statement of the right honourable Gentleman we do not seem to be in a position to say what has happened. I understood that this Bill had actually passed through Committee without any Amendment, and that this Amendment was inserted afterwards, if I understand the Vice-President of the Council aright, by the Education Department.
§ MR. SIR J. GORST
The Amendment was struck out in Committee on the Bill on application to the officials of the House.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
The defence of the right honourable Gentleman is that this is a Government Bill. Technically, of course, every Provisional Order is a Government Bill, but really it is not. Provisional Orders are promoted by municipal corporations, by local authorities, by boards, and so on. Nominally, they are promoted by the Local Government Board or the Education Department, but really they are promoted by the persons who are responsible for them and not by a Government Department. It is not the Education Department which retains counsel in order to defend them; it is not the Education Department upon whom the expense falls. In this case that will fall upon the London School Board. Supposing this Provisional Order were being opposed by some landowner, by the lessees, or by the owners of property which he has proposed to take. In that case it would not be the Vice President of the Council that would defend the Provisional Order, it would be the School Board for London, who would instruct their solicitor, who would retain counsel and get together the evidence. Substantially, the parties who are responsible for the promotion of these Orders are not the Government at all, but the local authorities, and the Vice-President, when he gives that answer, is not giving an answer which is perfectly sincere, because he knows perfectly well that these local authorities are responsible; and yet, without consulting the School Board for London, and whilst that body were under the impression that the Provisional Order was unopposed, without communicating with them in any way, the Vice-President takes it upon himself to withdraw this clause from the Bill Why? The noble Lord has let the cat out of the bag. This is done in the interests of the Voluntary schools. I say it is a very serious thing indeed for a. Government Department to allow themselves to be nobbled, bullied, and terrified by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich is doing things which I venture to say no Government Department has ever done before in a private case of this kind. I say that neither the Local Government Board, nor the Board of Trade, nor the Education Department has a right to insert provisions of this 1126 kind, or to omit them without giving notice to the promoters of the Bill. It is done in the interests of the Voluntary schools, and is another little ecclesiastical trick.
§ MR. BANBURY Camberwell, Peckham)
I am afraid that the honourable Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Last year or the year before a large number of people in Camberwell, the constituency which I have the honour to represent, objected to the site in question being taken, and it was cut out of the Bill. It was scheduled again this year, but my constituency knew nothing about it. As soon as they knew that the site had been reinserted in the Bill, they approached me on the matter, and I pointed out to the Vice-President that this very site had been struck out two years ago, and that therefore it was an irregularity to reintroduce it without some strong reason being shown for so doing. The striking out of this site has nothing whatever to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Voluntary schools.
§ *SIR C. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)
A curious point was raised by the last speaker. I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees whether or not the usual notices were given in this case; otherwise I do not see how it could have been brought forward.
§ MR. SIR W. HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)
This is a most important point in the proceedings of this House, and I think we are entitled to a fair statement upon the matter now in question. Here is a Provisional Order. Who is the promoter of that Provisional Order? I understand it is alleged that, practically speaking, the School Board for London are the promoters of this Provisional Order. If that be so, it undoubtedly is a thing that requires explanation, more especially if it be also a thing, as alleged, that this Bill has been altered in a 1127 material particular without any notice to the promoters. That is a point upon which I should like to have information, because in it the whole procedure of the House is involved. I should like to hear from the right honourable Gentlemen the Chairman of Committees and from the Vice President of the Council whether that is or is not a correct statement of the facts; because, when promoters of a Bill in the responsible position of the School Board for London have a clause in a Bill which affects their pecuniary interests, and those whom they represent, altered in a material particular, without notice, in order, as the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich says, to oblige the Voluntary schools, that is not a proper proceeding; and if those are the facts we ought to know why this irregularity has been committed. We ought also to know if they are not the facts; but we certainly ought to have some authoritative explanation which will clear up the Parliamentary situation.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER
I will not deny that there may be some difficulty in always being certain as to who the promoter of a Bill is. But it has always been the custom to treat the party which introduces the Bill, and whose officer comes before the Unopposed Committee, as the promoter of that Bill. In that way all the Local Government Board Provisional Orders are brought before me by an officer of the Local Government Board, and I make Amendments in those Bills at his request. In the same way, in regard to the Board of Trade, the Home Office, and the Education Department. The officer of the Education Department appears before the Unopposed Committee, and at his instance Amendments are made, if they are made, in the Education Department Provisional Orders.
§ MR. SIR W. HARCOURT
Then I must address my question to the Vice-President of the Council. If the Education Department is to be treated as the pro-
|Allen, W. (Newc.-under-L.)||Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Curran, T. (Sligo, S.)|
|Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)||Causton, Richard Knight||Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)|
|Brigg, John||Channing, Francis Allston||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Brunner, Sir John T.||Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)||Doogan, P. C.|
|Burt, Thomas||Clough, Walter Owen||Dunn, Sir William|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Colville, John||Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)|
|Caldwell, James||Crombie, John William||Fenwick, Charles|
§ moter of this Bill, I must ask the Vice-President whether he gave any notice at all to the London School Board, who are substantially the promoters of the Bill, that he intended to make a substantial alteration in the Bill.
§ MR. SIR J. GORST
It is always understood that the Provisional Order Bills are entirely in the power of the Education Department. In this case the alterations were made in the Bill at the instance of the Education Department, and no notice was given to the London School Board.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)
I am not rising to prolong the discussion, but I should like to ask the Vice-President, as a matter of Parliamentary procedure, in reference to what he has just said, who pays the fee in the cases to which the right honourable Gentleman refers? I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that his, Department technically is the promoter of this Bill, but, as I understand the practice, it would be the School Board for London, whom the matter concerns, for it is the School Board for London which pays the fee. Are we to understand from the answer of the Vice-President that, because he is technically the promoter, he may, without any consultation whatsoever with the solicitors to the London School Board, and their Parliamentary agents, alter the Bill to such an extent as the alteration has been made in this Bill?
§ MR. SIR J. GORST
I cannot, answer that question without notice; but I understand that the Education Department has the power to alter a Bill.
That Plan No. 10 be there inserted.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 80s; Noes 168.—(Division List No. 245.)1131
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||McArthur, W. (Cornwall)||Spicer, Albert|
|Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)||McEwan, William||Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Maden, John Henry||Steadman, William Charles|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Mappin, Sir Frederick T.||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Mellor, Rt. Hon. J.W. (Yorks)||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Harwood, George||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Hazell, Walter||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Warner, Thomas C. T.|
|Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.||Palmer, Sir Charles M.||Wayman, Thomas|
|Holburn, J. G.||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Williams, John C. (Notts)|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh||Wills, Sir William Henry|
|Joicey, Sir James||Rickett, J. Compton||Wilson, Charles H. (Hull)|
|Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.||Roberts, John B. (Eifion)||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Labouchere, Henry||Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)||Woodall, William|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Lloyd-George, David||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Mr. Lough and Mr. Brynmor Jones.|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Souttar, Robinson|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lanc.,SW)||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)|
|Aird, John||Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)|
|Ambrose, W. (Middlesex)||Dalkeith, Earl of||Leighton, Stanley|
|Arnold, Alfred||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Loder, Gerald Walter E.|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Doxford, William Theodore||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)|
|Baird, John George A.||Drucker, A.||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.||Lorne, Marquess of|
|Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)||Fardell, Sir T. George||Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)||Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Finch, George H.||Lucas-Shadwell, William|
|Banes, Major George Edward||Finlay, Sir Robert B.||Macaleese, Daniel|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Fisher, William Hayes||Maclure, Sir John William|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Fletcher, Sir Henry||McArthur, C. (Liverpool)|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Flower, Ernest||McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.||Folkestone, Viscount||McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm N)|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Fry, Lewis||M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)|
|Bethell, Commander||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Monckton, Edward Philip|
|Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme||Goulding. Edward Alfred||Monk, Charles James|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Gretton, John||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)|
|Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)||Gull, Sir Cameron||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Brassey, Albert||Gunter, Colonel||Newdigate, Francis A.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Butcher, John George||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Carlile, William Walter||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)||Heaton, John Henniker||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Henderson, Alexander||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs)||Purvis, Robert|
|Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)||Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.||Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)||Holland, Hon. Lionel R.||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Howard, Joseph||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Howell, William Tudor||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)|
|Chelsea, Viscount||Hughes, Colonel Edwin||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Jebb, Richard Claverhouse||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Ryder, John Herbert Dudley|
|Colomb, Sir John C. R.||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Colston, C. E. H. Athole||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Knowles, Lees||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lafone, Alfred||Shaw-Stewart.M.H. (Renfrew)|
|Crilly, Daniel||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Simeon, Sir Barrington||Usborne, Thomas||Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-|
|Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Valentia, Viscount||Wylie, Alexander|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Verney, Hon. Richard G.||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Stanley, Lord (Lancs)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart||Warr, Augustus Frederick||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Stone, Sir Benjamin||Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)||Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)|
|Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.||Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Tomlinson, W. E. Murray||Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)|
|Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)|
§ Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.