Page 50, after line 21, add—
Clonmel, Kilkenny, Wexford, Sligo, Drogheda."—(Sir T. Esmonde.)
§ SIR T. ESMONDE
Although the other places are of equal importance, I shall confine my energies to the boroughs mentioned in my Amendment. First, there is the borough of Clonmel. I think this borough ought to be in the schedule, because it has existed since 1641. Kilkenny, too, has every claim to be included. I now come to the case of Wexford. Wexford is one of the most ancient boroughs in Ireland. Wexford obtained its first Charter in 1316, when it was granted by Aylmer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke and Lord of Wexford. That Charter was confirmed by Henry VIII. in 1510, and again by Queen Elizabeth in 1587, and was afterwards confirmed by James I. in 1609. Subsequently the borough of Wexford was granted a Charter by James II. in 1688, and this was abrogated at the time of the union. Subsequently in 1846 the town of Wexford got a special Act of Parliament at a cost of £800, by which it obtained a special Charter. Therefore we Irishmen have a right to claim that the ancient and historic associations of our own towns should be respected. Inasmuch as this is a matter which is not by any means contentious, and inasmuch as it is a matter more or less of sentiment in Ireland, I would suggest that it is worthy of the consideration of the Chief Secretary. It has been stated in the course of this Debate in Committee on this Bill that these Irish towns would 662 lose by being made into county boroughs. Sir, as far as the borough of Wexford is concerned, this objection does not obtain, because I have been in communication with the Corporation of Wexford, and they have specially requested me to press the matter upon the attention of this Committee. Sir, perhaps I may be permitted to read a letter which I have received from the Corporation of the borough of Wexford with reference to this particular point. It is as follows:—
§ "Town Clerk's Office,
§ "14th May, 1898.
The Corporation of Wexford have been engaged in studying the provisions of the Local Government Bill, and as a result of their labours have adopted a resolution, of which the following is a copy:—
'That the Irish Members be requested to have a clause inserted in the Local Government Bill to have this borough constituted a "county borough." Also that we wish to join in the effort being made with the object of having Kilkenny, Sligo, Drogheda, Newry, Clonmel, Galway, and Wexford placed in the same category. Also, that in the event of Members not succeeding in having Wexford made a "county borough," every effort be made to prevent it being placed in a worse position than it is at present; that is, that we have such full control of our finances as we have now.
The Corporation will feel indebted to you if you will assist them in accomplishing the object of the foregoing resolution, and have directed me to add by way of explanation that the Corporation by virtue of special legislation exercise grand jury powers over streets, roads, etc., within the borough boundary, and contribute a proportionate part of the county-at-large charges. The arrangements at present subsisting between the grand jury and the Corporation in respect of county-at-large charges operate to the disadvantage of the borough, and the provisions in the Local Government Bill as to post-roads will entail further loss to the borough. This being so, the Coroporation are anxious to see that provision would be made for having the fiscal relations between the two bodies put on an equitable and satisfactory basis, or, at least, that the loss which the town will sustain by the repeal of the Acts relating to post-roads will be made up for in some other way.
§ "Yours obediently,
§ "W. A. BBOWNE,
§ "Town Clerk.
§ "Sir T. H. G. Esmonde, Bart., M.P.
§ "House of Commons,
§ Therefore the Corporation of Wexford are most anxious that the town of Wexford should be made a county borough. Well, Mr. Grant Lawson, I do not think, this Amendment will in any way impair the operation of the Bill in the particular counties I have specified, and I hope the Chief Secretary will accept it in order to protect the historic associations of these towns.
§ MR. DILLON
I have an Amendment down in the case of Drogheda to be made a county borough. If the Chief Secretary had been pleased to receive the members of a deputation representing the claims of Drogheda, he would have been convinced as to the justice of them. There is no distinction between Unionists and Nationalists on this question, and I am anxious to know what are the difficulties which the right honourable Gentleman feels in not granting the desire of the whole population of these towns. The honourable Baronet has stated the claims of Wexford. Without in the least minimising the claims of Wexford, I would point out with regard to Drogheda and Kilkenny that they have especial claims. Both are extremely ancient cities, and have been practically counties in their own right from time immemorial and therefore they suffer a special grievance in this Act—being deprived of their ancient rights by being merged into the surrounding county. Sir, I know the right honourable Gentleman has already had a full statement of the claims of Drogheda, and I hope to hear what his objections are.
MR. T. M. HEALY
I want to say a few words on this matter before the right honourable Gentleman replies. I have two or three times made the statement that in regard to these special private Acts which govern some of these places I have a feeling that the Government have not given them sufficient consideration. Now, I have listened with some interest to the speeches that have been made in reference to these places being made into county boroughs, and, as far as I could gather, not one word has been said as to the supposed boundary that would arise through the making of these places into county boroughs. Now, I am in favour of some provision different 664 from what is in the Bill, but it is upon purely fiscal grounds. It is no good, I think, at this time of the day arguing with the English Government—which cares nothing for Irish sentiment—upon anything but the common-sense ground of the breeches pocket, and, accordingly, it is purely upon fiscal grounds that I address myself upon this question. I pointed out at an earlier stage the position with regard to these places. Wexford was never the county of a town; neither was Clonmel. But in the case of Wexford it obtained by the Public Health Act of 1871 a division of its roads and bridges in certain respects, and that I do not think this Act touches. Similarly, Clonmel and Sligo are not counties of cities at all, and I have arrived at this conclusion, that this Act does not do an injustice by reason of the clause which the Government were good enough to introduce at my suggestion, leaving intact the private Acts. But the story is different when you come to deal with the county of a city. Take three places: Galway, Drogheda, and Kilkenny. With regard to Carrickfergus, I do not understand it, and I do not believe that anybody else does. Take the case of Drogheda. This is a question of considerable interest from a legal point of view, because what the Bill does is this: it provides that any county of a city or town that does not become a county borough shall for the purposes of this Act be constituted and form part of the administrative county which is adjoining. I would ask the Government to remember, therefore, that there never was a severance by statute as between the county of a city and the county at large, with the result that if you transfer by the 27th section the powers and duties of the merged county board of the city to the county at large, the result will be that with regard to Kilkenny and Drogheda I think it will be open to serious question whether any repairs can be done in those towns except by the county council. Now, in regard to this new proposition, I am struck very much by a reference to the miserably drawn Act passed in 1896 for Drogheda. This Act took in certain portions of the county for fiscal and administrative purposes into the administrative county of the city of Drogheda. Now the meaning 665 of this section, with regard to roads and bridges, is this: that at the present moment there are three grand juries exercising these powers in the county town of Drogheda, By this Amendment you are transferring an area, which has already three jurisdictions, and you are transferring it, I presume, to the county at large. But what is the inference from that? It is this: that in respect of the non-added area the entire jurisdiction as to roads and bridges was in the county of the city. By the 27th section you provide that—Any county of a city or town which does not become a, county borough shall, for the purposes of this Act, be situated and form part of the administrative county which it adjoins, or if it adjoins more than one such county, then such one of those counties as the Local Government Board order.Therefore on the morning when this Bill is passed the people of Drogheda will wake up and find that they have no jurisdiction over even one of their roads or bridges. As far as my opinion goes upon this point, I have not been entirely capsized by the argument from the learned Attorney General, and I hold firmly to the opinion that the jurisdiction of the roads and bridges of the county of the town of Drogheda has been transferred by this section to the county—I presume of Loath—because, probably, that would be the added county. I do not blame the Government for one minute in respect of any omission they have made in this Bill. They have dealt with a large and complicated subject, and they have produced a Bill which has been argued in a non- contentious spirit. Had it been argued otherwise, instead of occupying three or four weeks, a period of six months of the time of the British Parliament might have fairly been taken up without the smallest tinge of obstruction. I am not accusing the Government of want of care, but the whole system of private Acts, in my opinion, has not been adequately—I admit, to some extent considered in regard to this subject. I have taken the trouble to write to some of the officers of the grand juries, and I have 666 received a copy of the presentment from Louth and Meath, and from the county of the city of Drogheda. Here are a number of presentments, and it is perfectly clear that they are presentments for roads, and repairs of roads within the county of the town of Drogheda. My argument is this, that under this Bill that presentment and the power to make it goes over not to the city corporation of Drogheda, but will go over automatically to the Louth grand jury. Will any man tell me that the Louth grand jury is the proper authority to deal with the repairs of the roads in Drogheda? If it had not been a county of a city, separate and distinct, what would have happened under the Public Health Act of 1871? Why, that a Provisional Order would have been obtained in this House by which the incorporation of the town would have been obtained, as they did in Clonmel, Sligo, Wexford, and a number of other places, and they would have obtained separate powers to deal with their roads. Accordingly, I say that it is no discredit to the Government in the least, I respectfully submit that this Bill is to Drogheda a great hardship, and what I say of Drogheda I am sure—although I have not been able to go into the same minutiae—would apply in the case of Galway and Kilkenny. To my mind the transfer of administrative jurisdiction in the case of Galway is an undoubted hardship so far as the corporation is concerned, although I do not think that a fiscal injustice has been done. As to the extent, I am not an actuary, and I have very little to say about figures. In the case of Kilkenny it may be that a fiscal injustice has been done, but I am satisfied that in the case of Drogheda an injustice will be done, because I have gone into the figures. I find that Drogheda in the half-year ending with the Spring Assizes, 1898, presented £1,500. Practically in connection with the roads, prisons, and officials, it costs something like £3,000 a year. Now, what will they get in return? No doubt the county of Louth will have to support their coroner, boroughs surveyor, the sub-sheriff, 667 the judges, crier, the boat-house keeper, the secretary to the grand jury, cess collector, and the secretary to the local grand jury; but upon analysis I find that the total amount in respect of these charges will be a sum of not more than £200. So that they will only be relieved of the civic charges to the extent of £200, and they would have in return for that not merely the county-at-large charges, but also the charges in respect of roads, and officers in the case of Dundalk. Therefore I believe that Dundalk will suffer and Drogheda will suffer severely by reason of this change.
§ MR. ATKINSON
I may say one word as to that; the county councils will, of course, get all the power. The next part of the Bill merges in the county boroughs of county towns those which are not county boroughs. The second sub-section of section 22 provides that the council of the county in which the town is merged should have the power of the county council—that is, all the powers the grand jury exercised over the county in which this town is merged. It may be that there are provisions where it is necessary that some special privileges should be introduced in order to carry out the effect of the Bill.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
In answer to the speech which preceded that of the honourable and learned Attorney General, that of the honourable and learned Member for Louth, I would like to observe that a reform Bill like this, dealing with the position of towns and boroughs in Ireland, is certain to create some changes which are likely to be distasteful to the localities affected. If the desires of the counties concerned were to represent the total, it would be possible to provide some means to deal with it, but I think if it included as a matter of fact Clonmel, Sligo, Drogheda, and similar towns, we should also find that there is another class of towns below those which would also desire to become county boroughs. We must draw the line somewhere; we have drawn that line very much upon the line that was drawn in England. In England the line was drawn at a town with a population of 50,000. We have included in our list 668 of county boroughs all towns in Ireland which have a population of above 25,000, just half that of England. There is one thing further. Although Waterford upon the last census was found to be below 25,000, it has since enlarged its boundaries, and, no doubt, would contain at the present time over 25,000 inhabitants. Now, after that, there is a distinct drop in the number of the inhabitants of the towns—from 25,000 in the case of enlarged Waterford, down to 13,000 odd in the case of Galway. That is the next, and amongst those excluded Clonmel has 8,480 inhabitants, Kilkenny 11,048, Wexford 11,545, Sligo 10,294, and Drogheda 11,873; therefore, the Committee will see, taking the population as a basis for deciding which of these towns should or should not be county boroughs, we have drawn a line distinctly below Waterford. I am quite aware that you cannot pass a Bill of this description and establish a class of boroughs which shall be separate and independent entities without offending the susceptibilities of certain towns which would be willing to come in, and I am sorry that it is so, but I can only say it is not what the wish of those towns may be, but what is reasonable for local government in Ireland. It is not reasonable that places having 10,000, 11,000, 12 000 or 13,000 inhabitants should be treated as separate county boroughs and fiscal entities. I would like to remind the Committee that by clause 45 of this Bill we have provided that—A place which, for the purpose of this Act is a part of an administrative county shall, subject as in this section mentioned, form part of that county for all other purposes, whether assize, sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, general quarter or potty sessions, jurors, militia, coroner, clerk of the peace, or other county officers, or otherwise.In the case of county boroughs you must have all this paraphernalia, and if you are to require it for comparatively small places like Kilkenny, Clonmel, Sligo, Drogheda, and Galway, then we would rather decline.
§ MR. DILLON
I have now heard what I was anxious to know, and that is the Government refusal for giving these privileges for certain towns in Ireland, and it really amounts to this, that where 669 in England the fair limit was 50,000, the fair limit in Ireland is supposed to be 25,000. It is absolutely preposterous. If you are to compare these matters, you must have some idea of the character of the country with which you are dealing, and to say that a limit of 50,000 people in Great Britain is a fair analogue to 25,000 in Ireland is ridiculous and not to be believed. The limit of 25,000 inhabitants in Ireland has only produced six towns large enough to be made county boroughs. I hold that the limit of 10,000 in Ireland would, in comparison, be higher than 50,000 here, and that would be perfectly clear to anybody who knows the two countries. I listened in vain for a single instance where the Government was willing to grant the wish of the population, that which is found to be the wish of the population. If they desire all the paraphernalia of officers, and if they are prepared to maintain them, then they ought to be allowed to do so. I say that 10,000 inhabitants would be a greater limit in Ireland than 50,000 in England, and I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to deal with these facts; in Great Britain you are dealing with the claims of cities of mushroom growth, many of them the growth of the century, but the towns that we are pleading for were important places before many of the English cities were known. Drogheda has been an important seaport for five centuries. As time went on the population in these towns went down, and I believe that Drogheda has a very much smaller population than it had 40 years ago. Here your have ancient boroughs with a great history behind them, and they come and demand with a unanimous voice, not that you will not take away the advantage of local government merely, but that you will not sweep away their historic identity at the same time that you place your English financial laws upon them. I understand that there is no difference of opinion on the subject. There is a strong unanimous desire that the ancient privileges and identity should not be interfered with. The only reason that the right honourable Gentleman gives us is that the limit of 25,000 is small enough. So far as the borough of Drogheda is 670 concerned, I shall raise the question again upon the Report stage, and I shall do so in the hope that the right honourable Gentleman will have considered this important matter in the interval.
§ SIR T. ESMONDE
This is essentially a case where sympathetic treatment would have a very great effect, and it shows that the great misfortune is that Ireland is not governed by an Irishman. He would have had some regard for the ancient privileges and the historic associations of these old towns. The Chief Secretary has spoken about this population, and says that in England a limit of 50,000 was the qualification which was fixed. Would the right honourable Gentleman explain how he arrived at that figure with regard to the city of London, which has not a population of 50,000? If he had gone into this question of the population limit properly he would find that the population of Ireland is one-seventh of that of England; and if the right honourable Gentleman had followed out that principle in the Irish towns and cities and counties he would find that one-seventh of the population of England was the right limit to allow to Ireland, and that would bring the population of the Irish towns down to 7,000. I think it is not fair to take a population limit in connection with Ireland, because the population of Ireland is a decreasing one, while that of England is increasing. I think it would be only just on the part of the right honourable Gentleman if, seeing that the corresponding figure to 50,000 in England is 7,000, he had adopted a population limit of 10,000 for the Irish towns. The right honourable Gentleman said it was necessary to draw a line somewhere, and no doubt it is, but I would respectfully point out that the only cases we have brought before him are those of towns which have made specific requests, and, inasmuch, as the only towns we have pleaded for are those mentioned in the schedule, it is quite open for the right honourable Gentleman to place his population limit below that of those towns. I am afraid there, is an absolute lack of sympathy in the matter. It is not a contentious matter, it is purely a question of sentiment 671 with these Irish towns, and which have made this request to you on their merits; and, irrespective of their populations, you ought to have acceded to their request. If English, Scotch, or Welsh towns had made similar requests to this House, they would not have been refused.
§ SIR THOMAS ESMONDE
But not towns whose position corresponded with these Irish towns. I see no objection whatever to the inclusion of these Irish towns in county boroughs if the counties which are concerned in the matter do not object, and I think they should be allowed to retain their proper status.
* MR. P. O'BRIEN
I think for the fourth time since this Bill has been introduced I have had the honour to put forward the claim the town which I represent has to be made a county borough. The city of Kilkenny has a charter which dates back 700 years. It not only had one Parliament, but two. It had also two corporations. It has a corporation still, and it was your English interference which brought about the second, and now I am to be told that the question of population is to be taken into consideration when you are determining as to whether a city should become a county borough or not. I beg to remind the right honourable Gentleman that if the amount of people there do not come up to the standard or limit entitling them to be a county borough, it is owing to British misrule, which has decreased the population of Ireland, and swept it away from the country. You must remember what system of government it was that made it. What system was it that reduced the population of Ireland from eight millions to four millions but the blighting curse of the British rule? And now we are to he told that the position of these ancient cities is to be taken away. I have protested four times against this being done. This is not a question of politics. I am in a position to say that the consensus of all shades of political opinion is in favour of their being retained. Everyone makes this claim, and the person the most enthusiastic is the Marquess of Ormonde, one 672 of the supporters of Her Majesty's Government. What reason does the right honourable Gentleman give for denying this right to Kilkenny? I was told that Kilkenny would not lose anything by being made an urban council; it turns out that it will lose its sheriff. Is any provision going to be made that it shall have its sheriff? The Government has given no reason for refusing it.
§ MR. CLANCY
May I say a word or two on behalf of other towns? I have not interfered unnecessarily in this Debate, but I now refer to the town of Newry. Although it has a considerable proportion of Unionists, it has a majority or Nationalists, but all Glasses of opinion in the town of Newry have signed a statement to which I should like to draw attention. It points out that it is a Parliamentary borough, and a large manufacturing town, that it is a military station, and is situated in two counties—Louth and Armagh. The two county towns which Newry must have connection, with if it is not made a county borough are situated at a very considerable distance, and are most inconvenient of access. It is the largest town between Dublin and Belfast. the present local government has been incorporated under several Acts of Parliament, and has been incorporated at considerable expense; it is invested with the control of water supply, gas supply, roads, and other matters, and exercises the powers formerly exercised by the grand juries, and, therefore, it should not suffer any diminution under the new Local Government Bill. This is a case which ought to obtain the attention of the Government. I have listened carefully to the speech of the Chief Secretary to ascertain what the reason is for objecting to the change, and I can really find none. Nobody would be injured at all, and everybody desires the change. The only answer the proposal has met was that of the Chief Secretary with regard to a population of 25,000 inhabitants, but the right honourable Gentleman must admit that a limit of 10,000, which included Newry, is not unreasonable. I would only add one word on behalf of my native town, Galway.
§ MR. CLANCY
said lie did not intend to make a speech. If necessary, he begged to move that Galway be included.
Perhaps the honourable Member will conclude by moving the inclusion of Newry and Galway.
At end of proposed Amendment add the words, 'Galway, Newry.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
§ MR. CLANCY
said Galway was a very ancient town, and he hoped honourable Members would not sneer at the local memories. This might seem a slight and trivial matter, but Galway was a subject of pride to every one of its inhabitants. The proposal injured nobody, and he would suggest that if between this and the Report stage, the right honourable Gentleman himself should see any objection from the Imperial point of view, or from the point of view of Ireland, to include this list of towns among county boroughs, he should consult local feeling upon the subject, and take the best opinions he could. With these few remarks he begged to move that Newry and Galway be added to the list of county boroughs.
§ Amendment to Amendment agreed to.674
§ * MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
said he must urge the claims of the city of Kilkenny, which was full of the oldest and most historic traditions, and had always taken a most prominent part in the politics of the country. Parliament used to meet there in the time of the Plantagenets, and why should Kilkenny against its will be thrown into the county? The same observation applied to Louth. He knew nothing personally as regarded Drogheda, but he could speak with great assurance respecting Kilkenny. Clonmel and Newry, which had recently obtained an Act of Parliament, stood on a somewhat different footing. He hoped the Chief Secretary would reconsider the whole matter, that he would give way to the feelings expressed, and that he would not lay the foundations of discontent and a never ceasing grievance for centuries to come.
That the words, 'Clonmel, Kilkenny, Wexford, Sligo, Drogheda, Galway, Newry,' be there added.
§ The Committee divided;—Ayes 65; Noes 118.—(Division List No. 122.)675
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Hayden, John Patrick||Murnaghan, George|
|Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)||Hazell, Walter||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbysh.)||Healy, Maurice (Cork)||Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)|
|Blake, Edward||Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Brigg, John||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|Caldwell, James||Jordan, Jeremiah||Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Kilbride, Denis||Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Knox, Edmund F. Vesey||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Labouchere, Henry||Shee, James John|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)||Spicer, Albert|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Leng, Sir John||Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.|
|Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)||Leuty, Thomas Richmond||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Collery, Bernard||Lewis, John Herbert||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Colville, John||Macaleese. Daniel||Sullivan, T.D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Crilly, Daniel||McDonnell,Dr.M.A.(Qn.'sCo.)||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
|Daly, James||MacNeill, John G. Swift||Tully, Jasper|
|Dillon, John||McDermott, Patrick||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||McHugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Doogan, P. C.||Mandeville, J. Francis||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Field, William (Dublin)||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'ld)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Monk, Charles James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Sir Thomas Esmonde and|
|Hammond, John (Carlow)||Moss, Samuel||Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Galloway, William Johnson||Newdigate, Francis Alex.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Garfit, William||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gedge, Sydney||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Balfour, Rt.Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Goldsworthy, Major-General||Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur|
|Barry,RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Beach,Rt.Hn.Sir M.H. Brist'l)||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||Purvis, Robert|
|Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Billson, Alfred||Gull, Sir Cameron||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Brassey, Albert||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.||Robertson, T. H. (Hackney)|
|Butcher, John George||Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Hornby, William Henry||Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.|
|Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs, N.)||Houldsworth, Sir W. H.||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard|
|Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Kenyon, James||Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)||Stephens, Henry Charles|
|Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.||Loder, Gerald Walter E.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Lowles, John||Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)|
|Dane, Richard M.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Davenport, W. Bromley-||Lucas-Shad well, William||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Denny, Colonel||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)||Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||McCalmont, Col. J.(Ant'm,E.)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Wortley, Rt, Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||Wylie, Alexander|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Milbank, Powlett Charles J.||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Fergusson,Rt.Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)||Milward, Colonel Victor||Young, Com. (Berks, E.)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-||Muntz, Philip A.||Sir William Walrond and|
|Flannery, Fortescue||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Folkestone, Viscount||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)|
§ Schedule 2 agreed to.