§ Lords Amendments considered.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Lords Amendments to this Bill, with the exception of certain useful agreed clauses. This Bill was sent up to the House of Lords by an unprecedented majority of 161—a majority composed of all parties and sections of the House. It was unanimously read in the other House a second time, and was sent to be considered by a Committee presided over by the Duke of Northumberland. The course taken by the Peers who composed that Com- 1014 mittee was to undo the work of this House and set aside its decision, and to provide that the five townships included within the area of Dublin should be reduced to one—that one being the smallest and poorest and least desirable of the entire area. At this stage of the session, I hardly think it would be fair to the House to take up very much time in again going into the question which was discussed here some three or four weeks ago. This House arrived at a verdict, after consideration by one of its Committees, by an enormous majority, and without introducing any political topic. I think this House is entitled to say that its work ought not to be undone by five gentlemen, whether they be Peers or not, and it is upon that that the whole question turns. I do not intend to say one word disrespectful to the conclusions that those gentlemen arrived at, or to the authority of their body; but a verdict of the House of Commons should not be upset, when they have taken a position of that kind, by a Committee of the House of Lords. One word upon the general topic. Let the House remember that the Dublin Corporation are only pursuing the decision of a Royal Commission, which was composed of officials and Conservative gentlemen, some twenty years ago. The Duke of Northumberland laid it down in the Committee that if the Dublin Corporation ventured to come again to the House to obtain the judgment of that House, they would do so at the peril of costs being given against them. This was a remarkable suggestion to come from the noble Peer, because, if a single Irish municipality ventures to come to Parliament for legislation, it is not enough that it will have to conduct its proceedings in a distant country and under difficult conditions; but, having won in the House of Commons, it could only face the House of Lords by being obliged to run the risk of paying the costs. That to some extent showed a most regrettable spirit. One word more and I shall have done. The decision of the Committee amounts to this—that Dublin for all time must lie within the canals, the real, practical, wealthy portion of the city being excluded from its jurisdiction. The House of Lords has actually decided that the Archbishop of Dublin is not to reside in his own city. They have decided that the City of Dublin Hospital is not to be brought within the limits of 1015 the City of Dublin. When I mention these two things—that Drumcondra, where the Archbishop's residence is, is to be made a foreign area, and that the area which contains the City of Dublin Hospital (Pembroke) is not to be within the City of Dublin—I think I have said enough to show the remarkable decision they have arrived at; while, upon the other hand, they have brought the district of Chapelizod, which is probably the most distant and foreign area of Dublin, within the city. I simply take my stand upon this. This House, irrespective of politics or any other consideration, except sanitation and good government, arrived at a decision. We have been asked to rely upon the fair-play of the House of Commons, and, relying upon that fair-play, the great body of Irish Members have not come over. I therefore beg to move that this House disagrees with the Lords on this Amendment.
§ Amendment in Preamble, page 2, line 3, to leave out "the townships hereinafter mentioned (other than the townships of Rathmines and Rathgar)," and insert "township of New Kilmainham," the first Amendment, read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. T. M. Healy).
§ MR. CARSON (Dublin University)
When this Bill was before the House on a previous occasion, I practically moved its rejection by moving to postpone the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee. I would now wish to put before the House how the case really stands. I do not think there is any good reason for disagreeing with the decision of the House of Lords. The Bill, which is a very comprehensive one, proposed to abolish a number of townships. It was referred to a Committee of the House, and of the four members of the Committee two voted for it, and two against, and the Bill was only carried by the exercise of the Chairman's second vote. It happened that one of the members favourable to the Preamble was in the chair, and he carried the day; but if one of the two members who voted against the Preamble had been in that position the Bill would have been thrown 1016 out. The Bill then came before this. House, and the action of the Committee was upheld, because Members always support the decision of the Committee they appoint, and very properly and wisely. The argument used is that the Committee heard the evidence, and that the House has not the material on which to form a judgment. The Bill then went to a Committee of the House of Lords, which held that the Preamble was not proved. Sir, I do not think that this is such an extreme case as the hon. and learned Member represented to the House. The members of the Committee of this House were equally divided, and the Lords Committee, having heard evidence for several days, decided to reject the Bill—not a very extraordinary course to pursue, considering it would have been thrown out by the Committee of this House but for the fact I have stated. How does the case now stand? Two Committees have heard the evidence. One of them was equally divided, and the other, as far as we know, was unanimous that the Preamble was not proved. It is now proposed, under these circumstances, to disagree with the Lords Amendments, which, if carried, can only have the effect of the Bill being lost altogether. If the promoters wish to have the Bill wrecked they would be within their right, but I would point out that it increases the area of the City of Dublin by more than 2,000 acres. One of the complaints of the promoters was that they had no room in the city for housing the working classes, and that they wanted space in which to erect buildings. That complaint has been met by an agreement between the Lords Committee and the county authorities, and a large area has been included in the Bill. One other argument put forward by the Corporation was that they required a revaluation of the city, which has not been revalued for many years. The Bill, as it stands, provides for this revaluation, and it is estimated it will bring in an additional revenue of £50,000 a year to the Corporation. The effect of disagreeing with the Lords Amendments will be to take away the benefit from the Corporation and the City of Dublin, because it will not now be possible to refer this Bill back to the Lords Committee. This is not a case of the Lords striking out certain clauses: it is a case of finding the 1017 Preamble not proved. The very important clauses with reference to how the townships are to be represented in the Corporation has never been before the Select Committee or the House of Lords at all, and for my part, I cannot see how the Committee, particularly at this stage of the session, can possibly be asked to go through these clauses and to bring back counsel and witnesses and other parties. As I have pointed out, the result of rejecting the Lords Amendments will be, that this Bill, which has cost an immense sum of money, and which will, in its present form, largely increase the area of the city, and enable re-valuation to be carried out and the revenue of the Corporation to be considerably augmented, will be almost inevitably lost.
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)
As the representative of three of the townships—Clontarf, Kilmainham, and Drum-condra—originally proposed to be included in this Bill, it would be cowardly on my part if I did not express entire concurrence in the motion made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. Because of the fact that I was the representative of these three townships, I did not back the Bill of the Corporation, and I thought that these townships ought to be allowed an opportunity of laying their case before the Committee of the House of Commons. But having made their case, and certain modifications in the Bill having been agreed to by the Corporation, I came to the conclusion that it would be dishonest on my part, even as the representative of these townships, if I did not express my conviction, in public, that the Bill was a just Bill, and that to throw it out would be an act of injustice. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has been answered already by the vote of the House. The greater part of his speech was delivered on a previous occasion; but, notwithstanding that fact, a majority of 162 supported the opposite view. He has made one point which I think he would not have made if he had known all the facts. He pointed out that the Committee of this House, which investigated this Bill, carried it only by the casting vote of the Chairman. Sir, something like the very same thing occurred in the House of Lords. There the Committee were divided—two on each side, and the Chairman gave his casting vote. And thus it comes about that the point the hon. 1018 and learned Gentleman made most certainly makes as much for us as for him. He also says there would be no time to consider the Amendments of the House of Lords. That is a futile pretext for refusing to pass this Bill. We all know that when the Preamble of a Bill is passed, the consideration of the clauses is agreed to within a remarkably short space of time. I myself have had experiences, as chairman on Railway and Canal Bills, of the procedure in this respect. The whole fight is over the principle, or Preamble of the Bill. As soon as the Preamble is proved, the opponents either take no further interest in the measure, or come to the promoters in a friendly way and settle any disputes that exist. And that is precisely what would follow in this case if the House of Lords had grace enough—which I hope they will have—to pass the Preamble of the Bill. What would happen would be that the promoters would have their clauses ready, and the opponents of the Bill would see that it was futile to resist any longer. The very expense that would be incurred in prolonging the struggle would deter them. In a day or two the whole thing would be adequately considered. That second argument, therefore, falls to the ground. I have said this Bill is a just Bill. I must candidly say that, even without the Amendments accepted by the Corporation, and the modifications as to the exemptions of certain townships, if I were to express exactly what was in my mind, I believe that the Bill was a just one. It is intolerable, to my mind, that merchants and professional men and other people in the City of Dublin, who make their living in the city, and would not live in the townships if they had not business in the city—who come daily to the city and make use of all the city's advantages, and go out again to their pleasant villas in the suburbs—it is intolerable that they should be able to do this without being compelled to pay a single sixpence towards the cost of the city administration. I say it is a shame, and further, that it is selfish in the highest degree. These people know well that a great part, if not most of the misery and drunkenness, and demoralisation that exist in the City of Dublin—as in all great cities, more or less—is produced by the terrible condition of the houses in which the majority of the poor people live. This shoddy aristocracy, which lives in the 1019 suburbs and refuses to pay any contribution towards the expenses of the city, should have their eye to those considerations; but instead of that, they prefer that the children of the city should grow up amidst sights enough to demoralise any community; they prefer that the people should continue to live and to be housed in conditions which drive them to drink; they prefer to know nothing of the miseries of the poor, but only to live among green parks and waving trees. I am bound to add that in Dublin the opinion and the feeling is, that the decision of the House of Lords has been arrived at for political reasons. It is a very curious thing that they have agreed to include in the City of Dublin the one township which is Nationalist at present in its municipal representation, although that is the one township for which a case might be made for exclusion. Kilmainham is a township which has grown up independently of Dublin. Its citizens are people who live by the great railway works carried on in the neighbourhood, and who do not need, and in fact never do, come into the City of Dublin. From that point of view, to subject these people to the same taxation as the city is unjust; and yet that is the township of all the others which the House of Lords have determined to include in the City of Dublin. My conviction is that it is done because there are there only Nationalists in the district council. I hope that even Conservative Members will agree that an injustice has been done in this matter, and that those people who live in the other townships, like Moore's tufthunter, would rather be "genteelly damned beside a duke than saved in vulgar company." But they are the people who ought to be forced to come into the City of Dublin, and forced to contribute to its needs, and do justice to the suffering portion of the community of Dublin.
§ SIR EDWARD CLARKE (Plymouth)
The observations which the hon. Gentleman has just made might lead to a very prolonged and angry Debate; because I do not know why he should describe certain persons in the City of Dublin as being a shoddy aristocracy, or why he should suggest that there are political reasons for the action taken in another place. Of course, if the Debate is to deal with matters of that kind, it may take up a considerable time. These are considerations, however, 1020 I have nothing to do with. If it were question of a controversy between the Dublin Corporation and the townships alone, I should feel myself unqualified to enter into any such discussion. But there is a rather more important question here, and one on which I hold that Her Majesty's Government should accept the decision of the House of Lords, and refuse to start this Bill again on a somewhat perilous course in the House of Lords. It is for this reason: it appears to me that a very sound rule of the House of Commons is being technically observed, but in substance disregarded. That sound rule, which was acted upon when the Bill was before the House on a former occasion, is that where a Committee has decided in favour of a certain course, the House will not take upon itself to review the proceedings of the Committee. Therefore, a large number of Members who were not at all satisfied with the decision of the Select Committee, nevertheless, having regard to that very useful rule, accepted the decision of the Committee, and sent the Bill to the other House. But is perfectly clear that when that rule is observed in a merely technical sense, as in the present case—because the Committee were equally divided, and it was only the accident of one member instead of another being in the Chair which gave the predominance of one in the decision—and when the House sends the Bill forward to the other House for consideration; and when the other House has considered it and has decided against it, in substance, then the House of Commons ought to accept the decision of the House of Lords. There has been, practically, an equal division in this House, and on reference to the other House, that House has decided in favour of a certain course—
§ SIR EDWARD CLARKE
I hope that Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the time at which the matter is being discussed, will accept that decision and not forward the Bill again to the House of Lords. It has been said that the promoters of the Bill would rather lose it than accept the decision of the House of Lords. That appears to me a very unreasonable position indeed. The Bill, as passed by the House of Lords, will do a very great deal indeed to carry out 1021 the objects of those who propose the Bill. ["No, no."] Oh, yes. I do not think it is possible that the Bill does not do a great deal to forward the wishes of those who introduced it into this House. They may, in another session, endeavour to extend to the other townships that government of the Dublin Corporation which those townships do not wish at present to have, but which it is suggested it would be advantageous for them to have. Surely, at this time of the session, it would be ridiculous that this Bill should lapse, or to ask that the House of Lords should reconstitute a Select Committee. The promoters should come to some agreement on this matter. In substance, it seems to me that the rule which has always governed the action of this House will be observed if we now agree to the decision of the House of Lords, leaving it to the promoters to come again in another session for what they desire.
§ * MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON (Leicester, Loughborough)
I have great hesitation in again trespassing on the time of the House; but after the remarks the House has just listened to, I can hardly let the matter pass without answering some of the statements made. The statement of my hon. friend, the mover of this motion, that the people of Dublin would rather lose the Bill altogether than that it should pass in its present form, has been challenged; but after listening to the arguments brought forward, both for and against this measure, I entirely agree with what my hon. friend said. When this Bill left this House, the Committee had proposed to add to Dublin five townships and some part of the county, and practically placing a ring, a mile and a-half wide, round the city from the sea on the south, round to the sea on the north. The argument in support of that proposal was that the population of those townships was practically an overflow of the City of Dublin, that they were citizens of Dublin in everything but the duties and burdens of citizenship, who had gone to live in the suburbs, while they came into the city to earn their livelihood; and the few who were unconnected with the city had come there to enjoy the advantages of living near the city. Another argument was that important sanitary works and improvements were to be carried out in Dublin, and that, owing to 1022 the absence of the class that lived in the suburbs, the burden which would fall on those who remained in Dublin would be so great as to preclude those improvements being carried out. A third argument was that several improvements required to be carried out in the townships themselves, which could be more efficiently and economically carried out as part of the scheme of Greater Dublin. The Amendment of the other House practically cuts out the four of these townships which contain the largest area and rateable value, and leaves nothing to be added to Dublin but the township of New Kilmainham, with an infinitesimal population and value, so that Dublin would be in no better position to carry out these great reforms than it is at present. Under all these circumstances, I think it would be a deplorable thing for us to accept this Amendment.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central
After what has fallen from the hon. Member who has just sat down, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, it is only fair for me to say that when this Bill was before the House for Third Reading, the Government considered the attitude which they ought to adopt, and we decided that our position should be one of strict neutrality. To that course we intend to adhere, and we have no intention of bringing any pressure to bear on any of our followers.
§ SIR H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
The hon. Member for Plymouth appears to be rather of the opinion that this House was equally divided upon this matter, and that there was some doubt as to the proper course to be pursued; that it was practically the desire of the House that the matter should be sent to another place to be dealt with, in order that the differences in regard to it might be got rid of. But this is a matter which must be discussed on its merits, and the fact that the Government put no pressure on their own Party on this occasion, shows that they are in favour of the Bill as it stands. This is a question of the application of principles with which the House of Commons is familiar, and those Members who wish to see Ireland treated in all respects as England is treated, must vote against the Lords' Amendment. No one can doubt what would be the result of any attempt to 1023 resist the enlargement of a large English borough. The House has heard the whole case and decided upon it, and I contend it is the duty of the House to adhere to that decision.
§ * MR. WANKLYN (Bradford, Central)
I should not have intervened in this Debate, but for the fact that the constituency which I represent holds the belief, that where there are large populations contiguous to large towns they ought to be united for the purpose of municipal government. If a city is to deal effectively with such questions as the housing of the poor, which is the most difficult problem of the day, it must have the control of the whole of the outlying districts. How is this question of the housing to be dealt with in our great cities? We all know that there is only one solution—you must get the people out into the suburbs. The congestion is not so much a question of rent as of elbow room, and you have got to get these people out into the suburbs of these cities where they can enjoy fresher air, fresher water, more sunshine, and greater facilities for distraction. It is in that way that on. Gentlemen opposite will solve the temperance question. Then consider the injustice of detachment. You have a population which has come together for a common object, with common institutions, such as hospitals, markets, libraries and banks; and is it equitable that the rich should go out and live in the suburbs, leaving the poor behind to pay an undue proportion of the rates? Further then is the question of over-lapping, and how can Dublin and the district expect to have an effective system of drainage with eight separate Drainage Authorities, and the same observation applies to gas, water, tramways, and electricity. After a con-
§ siderable study of this question, I submit that in all cases of common interest it is imperative that the city should retain the control of the outlying districts. We have been able, in Bradford, to secure, with their consent, five out of the eight outlying districts, but in the case of Southampton, Bristol, Leamington, and Cheltenham, the control of the outlying districts was obtained without their consent. It stands to reason that in measures of this kind there will be officials and interested parties who will oppose. In a great majority of the cases for inclusion the cities have had to come to Parliament in order to secure the control of the outlying districts, and in cases where detachment has been allowed it has always been regretted. It would be unbecoming on my part to detain the House, but I do ask why was this scheme not carried out in 1880, after the finding of the Royal Commission? For this one reason alone—the political equation had to be solved. But are we on this side of the House, who supported the Local Government Bill last year, to allow the political equation to block the way any longer? It seems to me that we cannot do so with any degree of consistency. Thanks to the constructive statesmanship of the Leader of the House I think that happier days are in store for Ireland, and I can only say that I shall vote with hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter, for the reasons (1) that I believe the days of differentiation are over in Ireland, and (2) that I am convinced that all cities should be allowed to possess the control of their outlying districts in justice to the poor of this population.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 52. (Division List, No. 322.)1025
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Charrington, Spencer|
|Ambrose, Robert||Bond, Edward||Clancy, John Joseph|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Broadhurst, Henry||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Arnold, Alfred||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Arrol, Sir William||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Bullard, Sir Harry||Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Buxton, Sydney Charles||Crilly, Daniel|
|Bainbridge, Emerson||Caldwell, James||Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.||Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)||Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Dalziel, James Henry|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Carew, James Laurence||Dewar, Arthur|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Billson, Alfred||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Dillon, John|
|Blake, Edward||Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Doogan, P. C.||Laurie, Lieut-General||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land||Purvis, Robert|
|Drucker, A.||Lewis, John Herbert||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry, S.)||Lloyd-George, David||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Field, William (Dublin)||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liver'l)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Lone, Marquess of||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land||Runciman, Walter|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Macaleese, Daniel||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis||Macdona, John Cumming||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)|
|Fry, Lewis||M'Donnell, Dr. M. A. (Queen's C||Spicer, Albert|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John||Maclure, Sir John William||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward||M'Crae, George||Steadman, William Charles|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||M'Dermott, Patrick||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||M'Ewan, William||Strauss, Arthur|
|Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley||M'Killop, James||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||M'Leod, John||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Maddison, Fred||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Maden, John Henry||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Middlemore, J. Throgmorton||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Ure, Alexander|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Monk, Charles James||Wallace, Robert|
|Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.||Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.|
|Hogan, James Francis||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)|
|Howard, Joseph||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Jebb, Richard Claverhouse||O'Connor, T. P (Liverpool)||Woods, Samuel|
|Johnson-Ferguson, JabezEdw.||Oldroyd, Mark||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Joicey, Sir James||O'Malley, William||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U||Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.||Perks, Robert William|
|Kilbride, Denis||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Duncombe.|
|Knowles, Lees||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Labouchere, Henry||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Langley, Batty||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Fison, Frederick William||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Galloway, William Johnson||Percy, Earl|
|Balcarres, Lord||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Goldsworthy, Major-General||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham|
|Bethell, Commander||Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Brassey, Albert||Hill, Arthur (Down, West)||Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)||Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Curzon, Viscount||Lubbock, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Macartney, W. G. Ellison.||TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr. William Moore and Mr. Carson.|
|Doxford, William Theodore||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Drage, Geoffrey||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Newdigate, Francis Alexander|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Amendments to Preamble disagreed to.
§ Remaining Amendments read a second time.
§ Several agreed to, without Amendment; one amended and agreed to.1026
§ Several disagreed to, and a consequential Amendment made to the Bill.
§ Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.1027
§ Committee nominated of,—Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Johnson-Ferguson, and Mr. Molloy.
§ Three to be the quorum.—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
§ To withdraw immediately.