HC Deb 27 May 1902 vol 108 cc742-55

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."

(9.0) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said that in the course of a good many years he had not come across, he thought, a more grossly and thoroughly impertinent proposal than that which they were asked to pass that evening. The title of the Bill was absolutely misleading. It was called a Preservation of View Bill, but it fact it was a Bill to enable the landlord, Lord Dysart, to build over some 176 acres of land now used as common land. They had a circular sent out that morning, almost every word of which was misleading. These circulars were fluttered down upon them as if they came from Heaven, but the gentleman who sent them never favoured them with his name. Why, judging from one of these circulars, one would suppose that Lord Dysart was conferring great public benefit on Richmond and the Metropolis. It was said that the Bill had been urged by the authorities of the neighbourhood, as if they desired to promote this piece of vandalism. He did not complain of Lord Dysart. After all, when one had a piece of land which, as market gardens, would bring in a few hundred pounds, who could blame him if he could induce that House to assent to the building of houses which would make the property worth some £170,000? Therefore, he said, he did not blame Lord Dysart, but he should blame the House of Commons if it assented to such a scheme. The law had already been laid down as to common land within fifteen miles round London being dealt with. What was it Lord Dysart was giving in return for this Bill? He was surrendering his manorial rights over Ham and Peter sham Commons; and he was giving up the right to cart away gravel—a right he had scarcely ever exercised. He was also handing over his title to some thirty acres of land, known as Petersham meadows, and he was giving a cricket field of nine acres to Kingston. He thought they might say that Lord Dysart gave them nothing when he gave them his manorial rights. As to the Petersham meadows, close under Richmond Hill, they could not build over them, because the river repeatedly overflowed them, and besides that they were covered with a network of footways, which rendered building over them utterly impossible. Was it likely that these meadows would have been let to the Corporation of Richmond for a term of twenty-one years, of which sixteen years were unexpired, if they could have been built over? Practically these fields had no economic value. Then, amongst other so-called considerations was a tow-path, which was a public path; but why should Lord Dysart give up a public path with which he had nothing whatever to do? By the side of this path there was a strip of grass land, forty or fifty feet wide, which Lord Dysart had claimed as his own, but his right to it had always been contested. He now pro posed to give that over to the public, and, by setting back some hedges, to increase the width to 100 feet; but in return the local authorities were to construct a wide carriage road, which would be of immense benefit to his property. Finally, he was going to give a sum of £3,000 to the Ham Urban Council. What was the quid pro quo? He would get possession of 176 acres of Lammas land and secure valuable building rights, notwithstanding that Parliament had decided that no common lands within a radius of fifteen miles of London should be built upon. The London County Council and the local authorities had agreed to purchase Marble Hill to secure the view on the other side of the river, for £70,000. Could anything be more absurd than to pay £76,000 to secure the view on one side of the river and to give the noble Lord a right worth £150,000 in order to destroy the view on the other side? If he was asked why the Bill was not opposed on the Second Reading, his answer was that the title was misleading. It was called "a Preservation of View Bill." Those who wanted to preserve the view could not know that it was really a Bill to destroy a view. The promoters of the Bill were heard, and there was no opposition, because the measure was not understood. Although it was unusual to throw out a Bill after it had passed Committee without opposition, he asked the House in the circumstances to do this. Because the local authority might think they had made a good bargain, was no reason why the House should allow a breach of the law that no common within a radius of fifteen miles of London should be built over. The House should not, For the sake of any private individual, or the bargain of a local authority, surrender open spaces. He would, under the circumstances, divide the House on this question.

*(9.20.) MR. BULL (Hammersmith)

would not have intervened in this debate had he not thought this a matter of vital importance to London. The statement circulated among Members was, in his opinion, the heaviest condemnation of the measure. The tremendous bribe given to various local authorities, and the specious suggestions made, cast on the proposal the gravest suspicion. If the Bill were not passed, it was clear that these Lammas lands would remain open to the public. But the promoters would, by this Bill, be able to turn the land into a very valuable building site. Per years he had worked for the preservation of the open spaces in and around London, and he was sorry that certain representatives of the Commons Preservation Society, whom the House had been accustomed to regard as the watchdogs of our open spaces, had, in this instance, gone over to the side of the promoters. It had been stated that if the Bill were not passed, Petersham meadows would be immediately built upon. That was not true, for the meadows were let on lease, and could not be built upon until the lease expired sixteen years hence. The President of the Royal Academy, Miss Braddon, and other leading residents of Richmond were opposed to this scheme, and from no selfish considerations, but in the public interest. As had been remarked by the hon. Member for Northampton, what was everybody's business was nobody's business, and so it had come to pass that there had hitherto been no proper opposition to this Bill. He, a Conservative, hoped, however, that it would not pass.


said he very much regretted the opposition of the last speaker, but he was not surprised at the attitude of the hon. Member for Northampton, who, however, was scarcely one whose advice to throw out a Bill as to which a Committee had shown itself satisfied the House would be willing to accept. He was astonished at the suggestion that the Footpath Preservation Society had in any way bartered its hold on the confidence of the House in favour of a noble Earl who sat in another place. This was a question in regard to which the opinion of the local authorities should prevail, although there seemed, in this case, to be a desire to put their views on one side. The arrangement made was in the public interest and for the preservation of open spaces. The London County Council, which fought for open spaces, had made no objection to this measure. It was an extraordinary proposition that a measure which had gone through the ordeal of Committee should be rejected at the suggestion of an hon. Member who, he believed, was a riparian owner, living in great luxury somewhere on the banks of the Thames, and probably driving down in his carriage, or in the motor-car, which seemed to be the new instrument of progress on the other side of the House. In the interest of the man who went down to Richmond on the 3d. omnibus, he protested against this measure being opposed by plutocrats opposite, whose objection probably really was, although not avowed, to the invasion of the Londoner at the week-end. He hoped the House would not sanction this insolent attempt to reject the measure, which had the approval of the Committee and every local authority interested in it. He wondered would the hon. Member for Northampton have dared to raise similar opposition to a scheme promoted by the Northamptonshire County Council had they ventured to try and bring more people into his neighbourhood. Not a scintilla of evidence had been given to justify the House in rejecting a measure which a Committee had approved and which unquestionably had the sanction of the local authorities.

*(9.30.) MR. CAWLEY (Lancashire, Prestwich)

said that this Bill came before the Committee, which dealt with it as concurred in absolutely by the Richmond Council, the Kingston Council, the Ham rural district authority and the Surrey County Council. He thought the Committee had some right to listen to the evidence of those bodies and to give it full consideration. They did give it great consideration, and they came to the conclusion that those authorities would not barter away their rights, as the hon. Member for Northampton suggested they had done. The hon. Member had said that 176 acres of common lands were to be taken from the public, but the public had no right whatever over these lands. Lord Dysart altogether had given 93 acres of freehold land, as well as his manorial rights over Petersham Common and Ham Common and had given £3,000 to the Ham local authority. The Committee thought that the bargain between Lord Dysart and the local authorities was a fair and square bargain. The scheme was passed by all the local authorities, the members of which knew every yard of the land, and told the Committee in their evidence that the bargain was a fair land reasonable one. The Committee thought it was, and he trusted the House would not reject the Bill.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

contended that too much reliance should not be placed on the attitude of the local authorities. In spite of the support of the Richmond and Kingston authorities, a somewhat similar Bill was rejected in 1896 by the House of Commons. The Bill of 1896 laboured under a disadvantage the present Bill did not possess, viz., that it bore its true title on the face of it. It was called the Petersham and Ham Lands Bill, and was thrown out by a majority of 144, to the delight of nearly everybody in the neighbourhood. What improvement the present Bill had over the 1896 measure was entirely due to the rejection of the earlier Bill. When the House was asked to defer to the opinion of local authorities, he wished hon. Members would remember that when London County Council Bills came before the House. The history of commons preservation during the last forty or fifty years was nothing more nor les than the history of a long struggle against the surrender by local authorities of public common rights over scores of thousands of acres. The hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury had asked where the London County Council were in this matter. That body had no locus, and if they had intervened the hon. and learned Member would have been the first to accuse the County Council of imposing its omnivorous maw or claw where it had no local interest or status. Moreover, the County Council had been too busy saving sixty-seven acres north of this particular spot to have either time or money to interfere in this matter. He appealed to the House of Commons to act up to its past traditions in this respect, and not to yield what Lord Dysart demanded. The Bill contended that a great advantage was being conferred upon the public. But what it really meant was that Lord Dysart, by conceding shadowy rights which he could not possibly maintain, obtained the valuable asset of 176 acres of Lammas land under Richmond Hill, which in a few years time would be worth £2,000 per acre for building purposes. He (the hon. Member) had spent a portion of his Whitsuntide holiday in examining this land, and he assured the House that the view would be greatly impaired by what Lord Dysart was doing. The Bill, in fact, was not calculated to preserve the view from Richmond Hill, but to spoil it. With regard to the thirty-two acres of Petersham meadows which were being given up, they were water-logged, and, if they had been under the jurisdiction of the London County Council, would have been scheduled under the Low-lying Land Act of 1894 as an insanitary and undesirable area, and it would have been impossible to build there. That was one of Lord Dysart's concessions. He suggested that Lord Dysart should copy the generous and public-spirited action adopted by the hon. and gallant Member for Essex in a similar case, and had his Lordship done so this Bill would not have been opposed. This Bill would do nothing for the preservation of that view which they were all so anxious to maintain unimpaired. This Bill would convert land owned by Lord Dysart, which was not worth at the present time more than £60 or £ 100 per acre, into building land which would be worth at least £2,000 per acre for building purposes. He hoped the House would forgive him for wearying them with all these details. It had been his pleasurable duty to take an interest not only in parks and open spaces but also to go into the details of this question in order that the House should be in possession of the facts from both points of view. In his opinion, Lord Dysart did not give to the public the equivalent of what the public were giving him, and was not acting with generosity and public spirit to Richmond and Kingston, from which in the future the value of his estate would be enhanced. He thought that upon this occasion the House of Commons ought to go one step farther, and make Lord Dysart offer such terms as would be mutually beneficial, terms which would give his lordship all he had a right to demand, and which would preserve for this vast city of London one of the most beautiful views and the most valuable aesthetic positions which it was possible to confer upon the Metropolis.

(10.0.) MR. SKEWES-COX (Surrey, Kingston)

hoped the House would not be misled by the speech which had just been made by the hon. Member for Battersea. Lord Dysart was approached by the local authorities with a view to securing for ever those lands which met the view from Richmond Hill. If this had not been done, his Lordship would have been able to build upon those lands. It ought to be clearly understood that from Richmond Hill no one could possibly see even a blade of grass upon the Lammas lands. Of course, they would be able to see those lands from the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea; but, although he lived in the neighbourhood himself, he had never had an invitation to go there, and the point referred to was private property.


I admitted that I was trespassing.


said that when Lord Dysart was asked to give up ninety-three acres of land he naturally asked what was going to be given him in return. Consequently, they had suggested this exchange of land proposed in the Bill, and the public were getting the greater portion. These proposals had all been before the Committee, and had been unanimously approved of, and surely the House was not going to throw out this measure, seeing that it was supported by the local councils and other public bodies. Only one gentleman had written to him, on a postcard, requesting him to oppose this measure. He lived in the neighbourhood himself, and only three residents had objected to the scheme, as far as he knew, and they lived at some distance from the spot. He was perfectly sure that this House would be doing the right thing by passing this Bill. These Lammas lands were not open common lands, and the right to them was supposed to belong to copyholders, and if they could assert any right to them, provision had been, made in the Bill for ample compensation being given. It was not known who were entitled to those rights, but he believed that there were certain members of a family in Australia who were supposed to possess substantial rights. On public grounds, in view of the fact that this Bill secured these lands to the public for ever, he urged the House to pass this measure.

* MR. PIKE PEASE (Darlington)

, speaking as a member of the Committee which passed the Bill, expressed the opinion that no measure had ever been passed through a Committee with so much unanimity as the one now under the consideration of the House. He would like to point out that the Bill of 1896, to which reference had been made, was entirely different in character from the present one, and many of those who supported this Bill were the keenest opponents of the former measure. As to the Lammas lands, there was no evidence before the Committee that any one objected to these rights being given up, nor was there evidence of any kind that any one had any right over these lands. The hon. Member for Battersea and the hon. Member for Northampton seemed to think that some rights of the public round about were being given up, and that a certain amount of breathing space was being absorbed by the Bill. At the same time the hon. Member for Battersea said that that did not matter to the people of Kingston. But Kingston was nearer to these Lammas lands than some of the other portions of the district, and, as no one had any right over the lands, the breathing space was more important to the people of Kingston than to many of the others. He asked the House to support the decision of the Committee, which was composed of four Members with wide business experience, and who had a better opportunity for coming to a sound judgment than the House could possibly have. Within a radius of five miles there were 7,000 acres of open spaces, and within a distance of two miles there were open spaces to the extent of 2,000 acres. Therefore, he had no hesitation in asking the House to support the, Committee upon this measure. He believed Lord Dysart had acted in a most generous manner, and he hoped the House would see its way to follow the advice of the Committee.

(10.15.) MR. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)

said he would refrain from entering into details, because it was quite impossible for the House to judge such matters unless they had expert evidence before them. He would, however, refer to the Motion passed by the House in 1896 in regard to its application to this particular Bill. That Resolution had been quoted by his hon. friend the Member for Northampton. It was based upon the policy of the Metropolitan Commons Acts of 1866 and 1869, which were intended to place common lands within the Metropolitan area under local management, in order that money might be spent upon them for improvements of various kinds. The question now arose whether that Motion was applicable to the present case. There was a very great distinction between this measure and the Bill which was rejected in 1896. In 1896 the public interests which were safeguarded by the Metropolitan Commons Act were to a very great extent disregarded. He entirely agreed with what had been said about the attempts made at that time to drive the local authorities on that occasion. He resented what appeared to be the undue influences which were then brought to bear on those local authorities. Where common lands or public rights were taken by a private individual, it was only right that some quid pro quo should be given. He could not help thinking that this Bill, so far from being in spite of the Resolution of 1896, was a direct consequence of that Resolution. This was a far better Bill. He had no doubt that if they kept on rejecting Bills of this kind, they might by the end of this century get something better than was offered in this Bill. Nevertheless, it was quite true that the circumstances under which this measure was rejected upon a former occasion had been entirely altered. In the year 1900 the Board of Agriculture was asked to sanction a scheme for placing these Lammas lands under regulations, and that Board was asked to carry out the policy of the Metropolitan Commons Acts of 1866 and 1869. What did the Board of Agriculture report upon that occasion? They reported that the conditions under which the fields were held and cultivated would render it impracticable for any Conservators to give effect to such an object—that was, the preservation of those lands for public purposes—seeing that those particular lands were not available for the purposes contemplated by the Metropolitan Commons Act. The Resolution passed by the House never contemplated that under no circumstances whatever were Lammas lands or common rights ever to be dealt with by private Bill legislation. It did, however, lay down a principle that public interest was to be safeguarded in any legislation which was passed by the House with regard to it. This Bill did secure very valuable concessions to the public in return for a consideration which was of very little value to the public. A good deal had been said by the hon. Member for Battersea and the hon. Member for Northampton about the value of the land which Lord Dysart was prepared to give up, but the point which they had to consider was in

regard to the value of the land his Lordship proposed in the future to exercise rights over. He agreed with the hon. Member for Richmond with regard to the value of the Lammas lands, and under the Bill the public certainly did get a very great protection—he would not say a complete protection—of the view from Richmond Hill. He believed that the view from the terrace was absolutely protected. The public would get under this Bill a most valuable extent of ground. There was a large strip of ground near the river which, if this Bill was rejected, could be built upon tomorrow. The arrangement proposed in the Bill was a reasonable one, and would settle a much-vexed and long-standing question. He hoped that the Resolution passed in 1896 did not apply in particular to the special case of this Bill. Although the Bill of 1896 was properly rejected, he thought the House would be extremely ill-advised now if it disregarded the opinion of the Committee which considered the matter.

MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

As a resident at Richmond claimed the attention of the House to briefly state his opinion of the Bill. He had formed the impression, slowly and reluctantly, that the Bill did not propose a bargain that would promote the public interest. It was not so good a bargain as could be driven by the Richmond and other local authorities in dealing with the Dysart Trustees. His impression was that the House would act wisely if it threw out the Bill at the present time. It was absurd to say that if this Bill was rejected the land would be built upon. If that was true now, it was true since 1896, but the trustees had not built upon the land. The fact that they had not done so went to show that the public rights in connection with the land were perfectly well protected. Under this Bill the public would get no sufficient return for the concession which was proposed to be made.

(10.28.) Question put.

The House divided :—Ayes, 179; Noes, 79. (Division List No 181.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Anson, Sir William Reynell Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Anstruther, H. T. Arrol, Sir William
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Arkwright, John Stanhope Atkinson, Et. Hon. John
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Myers, William Henry
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Banbury, Frederick George Grenfell, William Henry Nussey, Thomas Willans
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Greville, Hon. Ronald Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Beresford, Lord Chas. William Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Bignold, Arthur Groves, James Grimble Paulton, James Mellor
Bond, Edward Hall, Edward Marshall Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Pemberton, John S. G.
Brassey, Albert Hambro, Charles Eric Philipps, John Wynford
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x Pierpoint, Robert
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hare, Thomas Leigh Pretyman, Ernest George
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Butcher, John George Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Purvis, Robert
Cameron, Robert Helme, Norval Watson Pym, C. Guy
Cautley, Henry Strother Hogg, Lindsay Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Holland, William Henry Renwick, George
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'd, Brightside Richards, Henry Charles
Cawley, Frederick Hoult, Joseph Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hudson, George Bickersteth Rigg, Richard
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Roe, Sir Thomas
Chapman, Edward Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Ropner, Colonel Robert
Charrington, Spencer Joicey, Sir James Royds, Clement Molyneux
Clive, Captain Percy A. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Rutherford, John
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lawson, John Grant Sharpe, William Edward T.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Layland-Barratt, Francis Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Simeon, Sir Barrington
Craig, Robert Hunter Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Leigh, Sir Joseph Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dalkeith, Earl of Leng, Sir John Smith, H C (North' mb. Tyneside
Denny, Colonel Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Soares, Ernest J.
Dewar, John A. (Invernes-sh.) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Stevenson, Francis S.
Dewar, T. R (T'rH' mlets, S. Geo. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stone, Sir Benjamin
Dickson, Charles Scott Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Sullivan, Donal
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Lonsdale, John Brownlee Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dorington, Sir John Edward Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr. Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Doughty, George Loyd, Archie Kirkman Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth) Tollemache, Henry James
Duke, Henry Edward Macdona, John Gumming Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone Maconochie, A. W. Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Faber, George Denison (York) M'Crae, George Valentia, Viscount
Fardell, Sir T. George M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Fenwick, Charles Majendie, James A. H. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. Warr, Augustus Frederick
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Mitchell, William Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Finch, George H. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Fisher, William Hayes Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Galloway, William Johnson Morrell, George Herbert Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Gardner, Ernest Morrison, James Archibald Wilson-Todd, Win. H. (Yorks.)
Garfit, William Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mount, William Arthur
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. TELLERS FOE THE AYES—
Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Muntz, Philip A. Mr. Skewes-Cox and Mr.
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Bigwood.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Charming, Francis Allston Ffrench, Peter
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Clancy, John Joseph Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Allan, William (Gateshead) Coghill, Douglas Harry Flower, Ernest
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Crean, Eugene Flyon, James Christopher
Atherley-Jones, L. Cremer, William Randal Gilhooly, James
Barlow, John Emmott Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Harmsworth, R. Leicester
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Delany, William Hay, Hon. Claude George
Blake, Edward Dillon, John Healy, Timothy Michael
Broadhurst, Henry Donelan, Captain A. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Burke, E. Haviland- Doogan, P. C Jones, Win. (Carnarvonshire)
Burns, John Duncan, J. Hastings Joyce, Michael
Caldwell, James Esmonde, Sir Thomas Leamy, Edward
Campbell, John (Armagh, S,) Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Levy, Maurice
Lloyd-George, David Norton, Capt. Cecil William Strachey, Sir Edward
Lough, Thomas O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid Thornton, Percy M.
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Toulmin, George
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. O'Connor, James (Vicklow, W. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Weir, James Galloway
MacVeagh, Jeremiah O. Malley, William White, George (Norfolk)
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Pearson, Sir Weetman D. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
M'Kean, John Power, Patrick Joseph Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Price, Robert John Young, Samuel
Mansfield, Horace Rendall Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Yoxall, James Henry
Markham, Arthur Basil Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Moss, Samuel Runciman, Walter
Nannetti, Joseph P. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Shipman, Dr. John G. Mr. Labouchere and Mr.
Norman, Henry Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants Bull.

Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Forward to