I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
In moving this Amendment I am placed in a very difficult position, for, with myself, no Member of this House has any knowledge of what Jarrow would have to say for itself if it had to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Even the Minister of Health does not know anything of the interests at stake in connection with this Measure, for Jarrow has taken care—because, I believe, of its very bad case—not to proceed by Provisional Order, but to proceed by Bill. Therefore, whatever may be the decision of the House on this question, at least the Minister of Health must not be held to be to blame. I consider this Bill to be a very stupid thing, for there is no community of interest whatever between Jarrow itself and the outlying population. The borough of Jarrow covers some 780 acres, and it sets out to incorporate an additional area of 4,354 acres. It is, therefore, practically seeking to make its area five times greater than it is. Jarrow is the execration of all the surrounding areas. One might hear some stories of what the people round about Jarrow think of it. Indeed, if by any chance two people fall out, and the one is desirous of sending his opponent to a place where the punishment would be of the most severe character, the exclamation is, "Gan to Jarrow!" Jarrow has done nothing whatever even for itself. It has neither tram nor water nor gas nor any sort of amenity to offer to any people outside its bounds. Between Jarrow and the outlying districts there is no communication whatever, except some very bad roads. If any borough has done anything for those outlying districts, it is the borough of South Shields.
I object to the Second Reading of this Bill also because of what it is going to cost those other districts in fighting it upstairs. Last year, the South Shields Rural District Council, which forms part of my division, were put to an expense amounting to £4,000 in fighting South Shields, which was then seeking extension, and, on account of the high rates and unemployment, they perforce had to come to the Minister of Health and beg to be allowed to borrow money for the purpose of fighting that Bill. If this Bill goes upstairs, we shall again be taxed to the tune, probably, of £3,000; while another borough, the Borough of Sunderland, is threatening to make incursions into the area next year. I feel sure that the House will have sympathy with these rural district councils. I further object to the Bill because there are so many petitions against it, and, indeed, I shall be more than surprised if a solitary voice is raised in this House in favour of Jarrow to-night. I do not think that any hon. Member who knows Jarrow as we know it would come to this House and state that Jarrow had any claim whatever to any further extension of its boundaries. Let Jarrow legislate so that it may make its town fit for decent people, not to live in, but to walk through. When they have commenced to do that they will have some claim to seek to extend outside.
I know that they have now dropped, or say they have dropped, the inclusion of the urban district council of Hebburn, but they have taken pretty good care to say in their message to their opponents that it is only for this Session. There will be no need even for that, because if they get what they are asking under this Bill, as their proposal now stands, Hebburn would be forced to go to Jarrow. On the one side you have the river Tyne, and for Hebburn the only road out is back to the parish of Monkton; and they seek to take all the land of Monkton bordering on Jarrow and Hebburn right up to the Felling Rural District Council border. If they, get what they are now seeking, Hebburn will be completely hemmed in, and, for the sake of its future, it will have to go to Jarrow, because there is no other road out. It therefore makes little difference to the position of the Hebburn people whether they are dropped now or not, if Jarrow is allowed to do exactly what it seeks to do under this Bill. I remember that in the discussion on the Leeds and Bradford Bill the other night, the House was reminded that any extension of borough boundaries ought to be in accordance with the will of the people whom it is sought to incorporate. In the case of Liverpool, that was the finding of the Committee, and also, quite recently, in the case of Birkenhead. On that basis, what hope is there for Jarrow? In the parish of Monkton 97 per cent. of the people have voted dead against any part of their area being included in the borough of Jarrow. Every soul in Hebburn and in Boldon Colliery have declared their intention that no part of their area shall go in. Four thousand of the inhabitants of Hebburn itself voted against any inclusion in the borough of Jarrow, and only seven voters in Hebburn whom they approached were willing to go inside Therefore we may take it that at least 99 per cent. of the people whom it was sought to include within the boundaries of Jarrow in February last absolutely refused to have anything to do with it. On that ground we claim that we have a very strong case. As I have said, there is no community of interests whatever. The property in Jarrow is not fit to be set beside some of the property in these outside places. In Boldon Colliery, for instance, the business premises are vastly superior to thoes in Jarrow, and yet they are seeking to take away the only hobby that some people have of trying to be consistent in administering their own affairs. If these people get their way Monkton, Hebburn and Boldon will become but units of Jarrow, and we are asking, in the interests of good government, that every inducement ought to be given to people to manage their own affairs in their own locality. In 1888, rightly or wrongly, Parliament passed an Act giving county government. The counties have done their best to carry it out faithfully and well, and have done everything in their power to redress matters and to make the land fit for people to live in. It is not in my judgment for development that Jarrow is seeking to take any of these additional areas. It is purely a case of grab, and of taking away from other areas the right and the opportunity of doing something for themselves. Jarrow has a rateable value of £141,00[...], equal to £3 19s. 7¾d. per head. Hebburn has a rateable value of £113,000, or £4 13s. 6d. per head, and Monkton a rateable value of nearly £44,000, but it is worth £31 16s. 8d. per head, so that you can see well enough why Jarrow is coming along. They propose to take away from Monkton to the extent of £24 15s. per head of its present population for what they are seeking to give them. That would be a very serious matter, not only for the South Shields rural district council, but indeed for the Durham County Council. Surely county government is difficult enough without taking away practically the only source of income that they have. Boroughs seem to think that when rateable value has accrued on their borders it is their business to go and seek it and get it at the expense of county government.
There are other people who are very deeply opposed to this Bill going through. In Hebburn they have petitioned against it, and I will quote some of their words:
The increased financial burden will inevitably seriously handicap your petitioners in carrying on their industry and in developing their property, and may entirely arrest the extension of their works and the development of their property. So heavy will the additional rates and other financial burdens be that the inclusion of Hebburn within the Borough of Jarrow will make all the difference as to whether your petitioners can continue to carry on their present industry.
That in these days is a very servious matter. Surely there is enough unemployment without adding anything to it by Bills like this. One has a right to respect what they say and, if this is true, the House should pause and think twice before they give any sort of help to the people of Jarrow in what they are seeking. I
plead with the House that this is not the time for these Bills. The rates are heavy enough. Five years from now Jarrow will be in no worse position than it is in to-day. Jarrow has never attempted to make itself a borough worthy of the name of a borough. Its object is to incorporate and force Hebburn in with a view to becoming a county borough. We have it all here. Notices have been sent out to people to attend meetings from the County Borough Committee, so we can be quite sure that they are seeking aggrandisement in the belief that a county borough is something greater than an ordinary borough. Let me advise Jarrow to do something more with the borough they have to make it a place which it will be safe for people to go to. Let them cleanse Jarrow. When they have done it I feel sure the opposition I am offering to-day will be very modified.
I beg to second the Amendment.
I think my hon. Friend has shown, and it will be borne out by the facts, that this attempt to extend the boundaries of Jarrow is not based on civic grounds, but rather on the ground of financial importance to Jarrow itself. We labour under very great difficulty because we do not know exactly what the present position is, except in so far as we know that Jarrow intends, whatever modification there has been in its original proposals, to hold to that part of its proposal in which there are going to be industrial ventures which will effect them financially. Originally they proposed to take in Hebburn, Boldon and Monkton. I know the ground very well. I have spent the greater part of my life in Boldon, and I know that there was a very great gulf between Boldon and Jarrow. We used to think we were making quite a journey when we went from Boldon to Jarrow. If there is any expansion at all, it is in the direction of the other towns. I do not think Jarrow seriously meant to have incorporated Boldon when it began its scheme originally, for the whole tendency of Boldon, its business, its roads, its traffic and transport, is in the direction of Sunderland and Shields rather than in the direction of Jarrow.
Therefore, I do not believe that. Jarrow thought for one moment that they would be able to take in Boldon because of the direction in which its developments were tending. Then there comes the question of Hebburn. They were ready to give up Hebburn in discussion, and one wonders again whether they really meant to take in Hebburn as well as Boldon. Finally, I understand that they have come down to Monkton, and they say: "We do not want the whole of Monkton; we only want a part." There were those who thought that Jarrow did not want very much, and that they simply wanted to extend, in order to give their population a chance. It has come to this, that. Jarrow is prepared to give up Hebburn and Boldon, and that part of Monkton which will not improve much in the future; but they claim that section of Monkton where there is a prospect of the development of certain chemical industries. Finally, when it comes to a discussion with Hebburn over two or three acres, it is discovered that there is a prospect of mines being sunk upon those two or three acres, and that is a vital matter to Jarrow.
I have followed the whole of these developments. I know the area, and I can take a somewhat unbiassed view of the situation. From the point of view of their original proposal and the gradual retreat that Jarrow has made, the concessions which they have been prepared to offer, and the ground which they intend to hold, it has made it clear that they are not concerned about civic matters so much as getting hold of part of the county which has a considerable rateable value, and which will be more valuable still, because of prospective industrial development. This House ought to repeat the emphasis which it gave last week in connection with the Leeds and Bradford Bill. It ought to tell Jarrow, and any other town, that if they are coming to this House to ask for extension with the idea of prospective commercial or industrial value, rather than upon civic grounds, this House is not prepared even to let them have a Second Reading of their Bill, and to incur the expense of dealing with a question of this kind upstairs.
I do not execrate Jarrow in the terms that my hon. Friend has execrated it. It is true that a great historical character spent the greater part of his life there. I refer to the venerable Bede. We remember that fact with pride, but the modern town of Jarrow is scarcely worthy of that great tradition. There is a story that a child was in a train which stopped at Hebburn and heard the porter shouting "Hebburn! Hebburn!"; whereupon it asked its mother if the porter was calling out "heaven." "No," said the mother, "we are too near Jarrow for it to be heaven." That indicates the general view. The only grounds that have led Jarrow to seek this extension is that they may get hold of an area which is going to become valuable. The Jarrow people have told some of us in conversation that they will guarantee not to ask for county borough powers for fifteen years. What is that in the life of a town? It is nothing. It may be that they may be after Hebburn in the next few years. I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment, because the Bill is based upon pure financial grounds. Already a considerable expense has been incurred by Durham County, and the areas involved, and further great expense will be incurred if this Bill goes forward. This is not a matter of civic importance so far as Jarrow is concerned, but it is so far as Durham is concerned.
I have difficulty in rising, and it would be easier for me to resume my seat; but I feel that I must say a few words against this Bill. I ask this honourable House to do with this Bill what they did with the Leeds and Bradford Bill. It is a still-born Bill, and I want hon. Members to give it a respectable burial, and make it impossible for its resurrection. Jarrow is a non-county borough, and I ask hon. Members to cogitate as to the motive which has led Jarrow to promote this Bill. They are a little non-county borough, and their motive is to acquire a little more fame and wealth at the expense of our people. That is what we all decry. That is what we say is wrong. I wish to use no hard words, for although hard words break no bones, they do betimes break hearts. A wound seared by a hot iron may heal again, but a wound burned in by the tongue seldom heals. I know the minds of the county council in this matter. I have been a member of that body from its inception. They are absolutely opposed to this extension. The present acreage of the borough of Jarrow is 783 acres, and the area which they propose to take in is 4,354 acres, so that they are seeking to annex an area five times as great as that of the existing borough. We all know what the ideal of extension meant to the German people. It did not come off. I only hope that this will not come off.
The Durham County Council made a liberal offer which, for reasons best known to themselves, the Jarrow Corporation refused. I should be charged with the want of justice and fairplay if I did not acknowledge that Jarrow has become wise after the event. It is willing now to settle on the understanding that it will leave out Hebburn and half of Monkton, but it is not necessary to lengthen this Debate. I feel that the Bill is dead already. The people concerned object to being brought in, and if you are to use force to compel people to accept what they do not want, what then becomes of the principle of self-determination in government? It is a matter of serious concern to the Durham County Council and the other local authorities and bodies who have petitioned against this Bill. Take the case of Monkton, which they had intended to take in. The rateable value is £37,472, which works out at £5 16s. 2½d. per head. In Boldon, which they want to take in, the rateable value is almost equal to that. I do ask this House to see that this injustice is not done. The county of Durham has all the agencies and machinery for the efficient discharge of its duty and obligations, and I trust that the House will reject this Bill.
Personally, I have no interest in Jarrow, but having listened to this Debate and having glanced at the Bill and some of the literature that has been circulated during the last few days, I think that we shall make a mistake if we; do not consider the position of Jarrow. As I understand the speeches delivered so far, their chief point is that Jarrow to-day is in a bad condition, and ought to put its own affairs in good order. The main object of the Bill which we are asked to throw out is to make provision for putting Jarrow in good order, because it consists of nine parts. Eight of them deal with finance, street improvement, sanitary improvements, and various things of that, sort, and one small part, part II, deals with an extension of the boundaries. Hon. Members who have spoken appear to agree that Jarrow ought to have the Bill so far as the eight parts are concerned, but they ask the House to reject the whole and prevent Jarrow from making improvements because of this issue of the extension of its boundaries. As originally deposited, the Bill proposed to take in three places, Hebburn, Monkton, and Boldon colliery. There was great opposition to that, According to the information before me, Jarrow has not extended her boundaries since 1884. It has a very small acreage of 783 acres with a population of nearly 36,000 which represents a density of about 45 persons to the acre. This is a very dense population, so dense that it speaks for itself. That some extension is necessary I understand, provision has been made outside for its housing scheme, in this very district of Monkton. I further understand from the documents circulated that the promoters of this Bill have stated to those who are opposing that they are willing to undertake not to proceed with it so far as the extension is to cover Hebburn and Boldon colliery. With regard to Monkton, they are prepared to meet representatives of Hebburn and discuss what they fear, that is that Hebburn will not be able to expand and grow if the whole of Monkton is taken. There was a suggestion that the promoters of the Bill should meet those who represent Hebburn and see if they could not come to some arrangement.
I will deal with that in a moment. The House has to face this position. You have a borough which has not had an extension since 1884. It is a borough with a dense and growing population, and on the face of it it seems that some extension ought to be granted. I understand from the hon. Member who spoke last that there is more or less an admission that some extension ought to be permitted, and the question is what that extension should be. But the floor of this House is not the place to fight out that issue. The proper thing to do is to let the Bill go to a Committee, and the Committee will say whether the extension ought to be granted, and to what extent. In the Committee room, or outside it, there need be no difficulty, if the parties are inclined to meet each other, in coming to an arrangement. If they cannot come to an arrangement then the Committee will decide.
I do not think anyone will deny, upon the facts mentioned in this House, in fact I challenge anyone to deny, that, Jarrow, with a density of population such as exists there to-day, does require some extension of its boundaries. Surely it is wrong to hold up the proposed improvements of Jarrow, which are dealt with in the eight parts of the Bill to which I have referred, when the whole matter in dispute between the county council, the rural district council of South Shields, and Jarrow, can be dealt with in Committee in a day or a day and a half. My submission to hon. Members who have placed the matter with such ability before the House is that this is not a case of the Leeds and Bradford Bill over again. It is quite a different situation, and there is no reason at all why this Bill should not in the ordinary course get a Second Reading, and be sent upstairs to a Committee.
I would like to add my assent very strongly to what has been said by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. E. Richardson), and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). To my mind this Bill is much worse than the Bill which was before the House a day or two ago, in reference to Leeds and Bradford. There is no possibility of coming to any reasonable understanding between Jarrow and the parts of the county Jarrow wishes to appropriate. Jarrow, itself, is less than one-fifth of the total area which it hopes to absorb. The population of Hebburn, which is next door to it, is very nearly equivalent to that. of Jarrow, and it might have been argued that Hebburn should have absorbed Jarrow instead of Jarrow absorbing Hebburn. Instead of holding an inquiry before coming to this House, Jarrow has taken the extraordinary course of shouldering an inquiry and coming straight to the House with this Bill.
It is true that there are eight parts of the Bill out of nine dealing with the condition of Jarrow itself, but it is that ninth part which is the vital part of the Bill. That vital part occupies only one page of the Bill. I put it honestly to the House that I think the entire abject of that arrangement is that Members of the House should not realise that what is being asked for is a thing which the House ought not to give. What the exact position is may be quite easily seen by looking at the rating per head of the different districts of Jarrow, Hebburn, Monkton and Boldon. The rates in Jarrow at the moment are 19s. 8d. in the pound; next door, at Hebburn, they are 18s. At Monkton, by far the largest part to be taken in, they are 15s. 7d., and at Boldon 19s. 7d. It stands to reason that, Jarrow must, as far as its own population is concerned, be very much the gainer by adding the district mentioned, and that the extension scheme would be very much to the detriment of inhabitants of the remainder of the district. I hope the House realises what the case is with regard to the ground proposed to he added to the borough of Jarrow. I know the land quite well. I have no axe to grind in the matter, because neither Jarrow nor Monkton nor Boldon has anything to do with me. I pass through Monkton on the railway in going to Newcastle. The whole of the ground is fairly good agricultural ground. But underneath lies the coal. The coal will in the ordinary course be worked to the Hebburn pit.
You may be quite sure that, whatever Jarrow may say, Jarrow will not leave Hebburn alone, but will in future try to absorb it in order to get the benefit of the machinery and the pits which are working the coal. In the area of Monk-ton, which it is proposed to add to Jarrow, are eight different seams of coal. It is on these that Jarrow has its eye. In the county of Durham coal has a rateable value and bears rates in the same way as other property. From first to last, as far as Jarrow is concerned, this is simply a matter of adding to Jarrow's rateable value at the expense of those who do not want to be included in the borough of Jarrow. I do not see that there can possibly be any other view of the subject, in spite of what was said by the last speaker. Surely it is rather a large order that a borough of the size of Jarrow, whether it be well looked after internally or not, should ask for powers to add to itself a very valuable property which does not want to be included, and in size is five times its own area. I sincerely hope that the House will in no circumstances allow a Bill of this description to pass.
Almost all the facts have been put plainly before the House, more especially in regard to the position of the area which Jarrow proposes to absorb. We are entitled to ask again why this expansion of Jarrow is suddenly necessary. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. H. Gregory), because I thought we were to get some information on the subject. As I understood his remarks, Jarrow has a very dense population, and therefore considers that she ought to have more room to accommodate her surplus population, for which, judging from the speeches we have heard, she is unable to provide sanitary facilities at the present time. Surely the obvious answer to that is, "If Jarrow has a surplus population, let it settle outside." When it is shown that it is the Jarrow population which is settled in these outside areas, then Jarrow might have a case. They, might say, "Here are all our people settled outside and it is up to us to secure facilities for bringing all these people within Jarrow"; but to say that just because there is, at the present time, a large population in Jarrow, therefore Jarrow should take in surrounding areas, appears, to my mind, to be putting the cart before the horse. Only a week ago we had an example in the ease of Leeds and Bradford, where it was laid down by this House that, while quite prepared in certain circumstances to give these extensions, the House was equally decided that a really good reason must be found before boroughs came to this House asking for extensions of this kind. In this ease no real reason has been shown. The entire principle underlying the granting of these extensions will be negatived if we are going to grant an extension in a case like this, and if a small, and I think I may say insignificant, place is going to get an extension such as is being asked for here. As was pointed out by the last speaker, the extension, if agreed to, would make Jarrow four or five times its present size. I may be asked why I object to this Bill. I am indirectly connected with this area, because I am connected with the railway which runs right through it, and the railway company and all the districts surrounding Jarrow are bitterly opposed to the extension, for very much the same reasons as those which have already been given. Everybody is against the proposal, and, as we have heard, there has been no local inquiry to find out what are the views of the inhabitants of the districts concerned. So far as those views can be expressed by anybody or have been expressed by anybody in these districts, they are entirely antagonistic, and I hope the House will agree that this is not a case in which to grant a Second Reading.
I intervene in a matter of this kind with great reluctance. I should not intervene at all, if any great principle were involved in this Bill, which the House as a whole ought to determine, or if any matter of public controversy were concerned and had to be fought out on the floor of the House. With regard to the merits of the case, not only am I bound by my office to be impartial, but I have no final interest in the matter. With all due regard to the County of Durham and the Borough of Jarrow, I do not care in the least what the ultimate upshot of this controversy may be. What I do care for are the principles upon which the House of Commons approaches the consideration of private Bills, and it is solely on that ground that I feel it my duty to offer some observations to the House. I do not think there is any possible principle involved in this case which the House as a whole should determine. It is a local question and must be determined by local considerations. There is no possible relevance between this controversy and the Leeds and Bradford controversy. In the first place, Jarrow is not a county borough, and whatever area it may seek to take in, will not be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Durham County Council, whereas in the Yorkshire case, the areas concerned would have been withdrawn from the county council. Further, this is not purely an extension Bill. It is an omnibus Bill for all sorts of purposes within the borough of Jarrow. I find there are no less than 143 Clauses and of these only some 44 deal with extension. There are practically 100 Clauses which deal with other matters. I submit to the House that the evil in the smaller number of Clauses must be very great to prevent the remaining 100 Clauses from going in the natural way before a Committee upstairs. Is the proposal made by Jarrowprimâ facie such that the House ought to reject it? A good deal has been said about the acquisitiveness of the borough of Jarrow in wishing to annex these areas. That criticism might have been relevant to the Bill in its original form, but I do not think it is so relevant to the Bill in its present form. One or two speakers referred to the fact that Jarrow wished to annex the whole of the Hebburn area. I have a document before me in which it is distinctly stated formally that the promoters have entirely dropped that part of the Bill.
It is for Parliament to deal with the Bill as it comes before Parliament. If the promoters come before Parliament in some future year with another Bill, Parliament will deal with that Bill on its merits. In the present scheme the promoters have entirely dropped the proposal to annex the district of Hebburn. This is a very much more modest proposal than was contained in the Bill as first presented. A statement has been circulated—and has, of course, been impugned by hon. Members on the ground that the figures are wrong —which is to the effect that in the proposals now before the House, Jarrow seeks only to annex an area of 1,000 acres, which is less than its present area; that the population to be annexed is not more than 700, as against the 35,000 which Jarrow has at present, and that the rateable value sought to be annexed is £6,500, as against £142,000. There are also other figures dealing with the poor rate and the municipal rate.
The borough of Jarrow is in a peculiar position. Its population is very dense, and it has very small opportunity of expansion. On the north is the River Tyne, on the north-east are mud flats, on the east is the borough of South Shields and on the west is Hebhurn, which it is not now seeking to annex. Therefore expansion can only be to the south, and it is to the south they now seek to expand. I do not prejudge, for a moment, questions as to whether even now they may not be asking for too much or whether they ought to extend south or south-west or if in so doing they might curtail Hebburn in the future, but I do say these are matters of which it is impossible for the House as a whole to take cognisance. The very object of the system of Committees to which private Bills are sent, is that matters of detail are to be threshed out in them. It is impossible for the House as a whole to consider these matters in detail. To sum up, this, first of all, is a Bill for many purposes and not merely for extension. In the second place, it is not comparable with the Leeds and Bradford case, because Jarrow is not a County borough. In the third place, there is on the face of it a case for expansion. On those three grounds, and owing to the fact that Committees have been created for this very purpose of discussing these matters of detail, I do say, in virtue of
my office as Chairman of Committees, without pre-judging the ultimate issue, that this is a case which ought not to be decided by the House as a whole., but is eminently a case which ought to go to a Committee. If this House decides on judging questions like this on the Floor of the House and not in Committee, I fear that the whole structure of our Private Bill legislation will be very seriously impaired, and it is on that account, and with no possible interest, official or otherwise, as to the merits of the case, that I personally feel it my duty to advise the House to send this Bill to a Committee in the ordinary course.
|Division No. 108]||AYES.||[9.18 p m.|
|Amnion, Charles George||Ganzonl, Sir John||Randies, Sir John Scurrah|
|Armitage, Robert||Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham||Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Atkey, A. R.||Graham, R. (Nelson and Coins)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Sexton, James|
|Birchall, J. Dearman||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Hancock, John George||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Bromfield, William||Hayday, Arthur||Sutton, John Edward|
|Cairns, John||Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill|
|Cape, Thomas||Insk[...]p, Thomas Walker H.||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Irving, Dan||Wallace, J.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Johnstone, Joseph||Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Kennedy, Thomas||Wilson, James (Dudley)|
|Davles, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Young, E. H. (Norwich)|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket||Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Finney, Samuel||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Foot, Isaac||Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray||Mr. T. Davies (Circencester) and|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Poison, Sir Thomas A.||Mr. Holman Gregory.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Kenyon, Barnet|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Galbraith, Samuel||Lawson, John James|
|Armstrong, Henry Bruce||Gardiner, James||Lloyd, George Butler|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Gillis, William||Locker-Lampson, Com, O. (H'tingd'n)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lort-Williams, J.|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Lunn, William|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Gr[...]tten, W. G. Howard||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Grundy, T. W,||Macqu[...]sten, F. A.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Molson, Major John Elsdale|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Halls, Walter||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Hayward, Evan||Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Perring, William George|
|Casey, T. w.||Hinds, John||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hirst, G. H.||Prescott, Major Sir W. H.|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Hogge, James Myles||Ra[...]burn, Sir William H.|
|Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Holmes, J. Stanley||Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwe[...]lty)||Hopkins, John W. W.||Roes, Capt, J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)|
|Farquharson, Major A, C.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)|
|Fell, Sir Arthur||Howard, Major S. G.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Johnson, Sir Stanley||Robertson, John|
|Forestier-Walker, L.||Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Forrest, Walter||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)||Spencer, George A.|
|Stanton, Charles Butt||Waddington, R.||Wise, Frederick|
|Sturrock, J. Leng||Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)||Worsfold, T. Cato|
|Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.||Watson, Captain John Bertrand||Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)|
|Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)||Wignall, James|
|Thomas, sir Robert J. (Wrexham)||Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Colonel Burdon and Mr. Swan.|
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.