HC Deb 13 June 1899 vol 72 cc1006-53

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.


In moving that this Bill be now considered, I will not detain the House very long. But I think it is desirable that the main facts of this important measure should be put before the House at the commencement of the Debate. The question at issue in this Bill is one of such enormous and vital importance to the City of Dublin that I sincerely trust the House will carefully weigh every aspect of the question before it comes to a decision. The question may be stated in a nutshell. It is whether Dublin, the metropolis of Ireland, is to he permitted by Parliament to extend and develop itself as other great cities in the three kingdoms have been permitted, or whether it is to be for ever handicapped by the refusal of the application of those principles which, in similar circumstances, have been freely applied to scores of other great cities on this side of the channel. This Bill is bitterly opposed, as the House will find out in the course of the Debate, but I make the assertion that it is opposed not one whit more bitterly than were similar Bills in the past which dealt with English or Scotch cities, and I feel perfectly sure that when the House of Commons grasps the main facts of this case, it will not refuse the Bill a second reading. I propose to deal very briefly with the main objections which have been urged against the Bill up to the present, and which now will be urged over again in the course of this Debate. But before doing so I desire, very briefly indeed, to state to the House the main points which I urge in support of this measure. First of all, let me remind the House that this extension of the boundaries of the City of Dublin is no new question. In the year 1880, nearly 20 years ago, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole of this subject. The Commission was a capable one. No one has ever accused it of not being a thoroughly impartial one. It held an extended inquiry, and took evidence from all classes of the population, and in the result it unanimously approved of the addition of the townships to the city, such as is now proposed. It may be asked, how can we explain the delay which has occurred since the finding of that Commission in 1880. I am not sure it is necessary for us to go into that question, but if it were necessary, it might be a fair thing to say that your system of governing Irish private business in this House, with its enormous expense and its attendant risk of matters being decided by people not acquainted with the facts and the locality, may possibly be the reason of this delay. However that may be, the finding of the Commission stands, and it is on record that there has been a unanimous decision in support of this measure. The position of the City of Dublin is absolutely unique, and it presents a stronger case for the annexation of these townships than ever came under the cognisance of Parliament. The area of the City of Dublin is strictly limited; it is 3,807 acres, and the average of population per acre is something like 64. It is horribly congested in some of its districts. Let me remind the House that the average of population per acre in Bradford is only 20, in Sheffield 17, and in Hull 25. At present the Corporation of Dublin has no power to erect workmen's dwellings outside the city limits, and this very fact has the result that when there is land suitable and available for such a purpose, the knowledge that the Corporation cannot go outside inevitably raises the price to an absolutely prohibitive point. Again, from a sanitary point of view, the case in support of this Bill is overwhelming. It is of vital importance to have one central sanitary authority in all large centres of population. Yet the sanitary position of affairs in Dublin is absolutely intolerable. Three of the townships opposed to this amalagamation do not come under the Notification of Infectious Diseases Act, and the result is that under the present system virulent disease may be poured into the city. Dublin is now expending half a million sterling on a great scheme of main drainage. Three of these townships have practically no adequate or proper system of drainage, while the others have a most imperfect system which consists of discharging crude sewage at the mouth of the Liffey, with the result that every incoming tide drives that sewage up the river. Is it likely that the Corporation will allow their large expenditure to be nullified by the action of these two townships? All precedents are in favour of this measure. Dublin is the only city of importance in the three kingdoms which has not had its area extended since 1840. Parliament has always acted on clearly defined principles with regard to these matters. Wherever the populations sought to be amalgamated have not grown really from one centre, where there has been no real business connection or community of interest, no doubt in the past claims of this kind have been refused; but in such cases it was shown that there was absolutely no community of interest, and that each individual community was separate. But in such cases as I know of, where one population was merely the overflow of another, and where the manufactures, business, and commerce and interests were the same—in such cases, I say, the principle has been applied freely by Parliament of permitting this amalgamation. This has happened in the cases of many of the large towns of this country—in Southampton, Cheltenham, Manchester, Devonport, Plymouth, and Bristol, and a number of other cities—and I say respectfully to the House of Commons that it would be an unreasonable thing if, insisting as you do upon bringing Irish Private Bill legislation, at enormous cost, up to here in England, you refuse to apply the same principle to Irish Bills as you do to English and Scotch measures. No one can deny—it was not sought to be denied before the Committee—that the population in the townships is a mere overflow of Dublin itself. The community is practically the same. All the businesses, and manufactures, and commerce are in the City of Dublin, and it is a significant and interesting fact that every day the tramcars alone bring into the city from the suburbs, etc., 45,000 people. That is leaving out of account those who come by the suburban trains and on foot. This population, which comes every day from the suburbs to the city, is absolutely dependent upon the city for its business, for its support, and for its very existence, and it seems to me that it is a monstrous thing that this population does not at the present moment in any degree share the common burdens. I want the House for a moment to consider what are the main advantages that this population of the suburbs derives from its connection with the City of Dublin, and enjoys without making any contribution towards the cost. In these suburbs there is not a market of any sort. The markets are all in the city, but they are used by the suburbs, and surely it is an unreasonable thing to say that the suburbs shall have absolute immunity from any share in the expense. There are no baths or wash-houses in the suburbs. These institutions are maintained at the cost of the city, and within the city boundaries. In all these townships running round Dublin there is only one library, and that is a small one, which hardly deserves the name; whereas the City of Dublin sup- plies magnificent libraries, supported at the cost of the city, and, of course, used by the inhabitants of the townships. I ought to say that down by the harbour there is a little technical school, but the great technical school is in the City of Dublin, and maintained by the city, and it is an interesting fact that one-third of the total number of pupils in that institution have been shown to come from Rathmines and Pembroke. Yet when asked to make a contribution these townships refuse to give one shilling. How about the hospitals? The city authorities contribute towards the hospitals within the city area a sum of about £6,000 annually. There is only one hospital outside the city. It is just outside the limits—about 50yards or so without the boundary—and technically within one of the townships. Yet the Corporation of Dublin contributes towards its support three times the amount contributed by any township. These hospitals are, of course, availed of by the inhabitants of the townships. Therefore, I say it would be a monstrous thing if the present state of things were allowed to continue, and the townships were exempted. The same thing may be said as to the roads. The roads used by this vast population in coming in to their business are, of course, maintained by the city. It seems to me that these facts in themselves constitute an overwhelming case in support of the Bill. What are the main objections urged? First of all, we are told that the townships object. Of course the townships object to being obliterated. It is only human nature. It is a singular thing that no similar measure applying to England or Scotland was ever carried without being opposed by the inhabitants of the suburbs proposed to be included. But on this question I am not at all satisfied that the opposition of the townships is anything like unanimous. Recently, since the Bill passed in Committee, a great deal of attention naturally has been directed to it in Dublin and the suburbs, and it is interesting to see that within the last few days a memorial, signed by more than two - thirds of the electors of one of these townships, has been presented to the authorities, and memorials signed by 25 to 50 per cent. of the electors of other townships. It is true that the bodies which represent these townships object, but I would like to point out that although some time ago an undertaking was given that a plebiscite should be taken in each locality, that promise has not been carried out. I believe that at this moment the majority of the inhabitants of the townships are in favour of this measure. The next objection taken is that the townships are not having adequate representation on the new Corporation, and will not have their interests safeguarded. That was an objection which apparently weighed very heavily on the Committee, and to endeavour to meet it the Committee inserted in the Bill a provision giving the townships a representation greater than that to which they would be numerically entitled. In a Corporation of about eighty members I am informed the townships would be entitled to about sixteen members. The Committee have inserted in the Bill a provision that they are to have twenty-eight members. There is also another fact to be borne in mind in connection with this matter. At the present moment there are in the Corporation no less than fifteen members who reside and are the largest ratepayers in the townships, and who include some of the richest business men in Dublin. Is it to be supposed that these men would sacrifice their own interests or the interests of the townships in which they reside? Accordingly, therefore, the townships will be represented in the Corporation to the extent of about half its number of members. It seems to me that that disposes altogether of the fear that the interests of the townships would be sacrificed to the interests of the city. Then, again, the objection is taken that the first thing the new city would do would be to raise the rates and destroy the prosperity of the townships. I do not believe there is the slightest danger of that. As everyone knows, the valuation of the City of Dublin is ridiculously inadequate. That is not true of the townships, the valuation of which is, of course, more recent. It has been shown before the Committee that the valuation 'of the city is from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. too low, and a calculation has been laid before the Committee that on a revaluation of the old area it would be possible to raise the sum required for the government of the new area by imposing a rate scarcely, if at all, larger than the rate paid at present by some of the townships. That question may, however, be left on one side, because the Committee strongly insisted and inserted a provision in the Bill that the new Corporation should not be allowed to raise the rates in Pembroke and Rathmines for ten years after the passing of the Bill. My information is that the usual limit in English cases where it has been put in at all has been five years; but in this Bill, in order to meet the fears and susceptibilities of the townships, ten years has been put in. In face of that, I fail to see what objection can be raised on the question of rating. Of course, there is another objection—I do not know whether I ought to mention it, because I am not sure whether it will be mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—the political objection. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mention it, because I am one of those who believe it is a misfortune to drag these political questions into matters of this sort. Is the right hon. Gentleman's case going to be that, forsooth, because the majority of the Corporation of Dublin are, not unnaturally, Nationalist, therefore they are to be treated on a different principle to every other city in England and Scotland, and that they are not to be trusted to deal fairly with their fellow-citizens? The right hon. Gentleman is an Irishman, and I hope he will not put forward any such contention. But if he does, I appeal confidently to the House of Commons—to men on that side as well as on this—not to listen to any such reason for rejecting a measure of this kind. If this measure is justified on the grounds I have mentioned, if it is for the benefit of the City of Dublin, if it is not for the injury of the townships, if it is in accordance with precedent and with the principle which has been applied to other cities, then I say it would be a disgraceful thing for the House of Commons to reject the Bill on the ground that the majority of the Corporation of Dublin happen to differ in their political opinions from the majority of the Members of this House, and I have too high an opinion of the fair-mindedness of individual Members to believe that any such reason as that will influence their decision. I ought to apologise for speaking so long, but I thought it right to put the main facts before the House at the commencement of the debate. In conclusion, I call upon the House to rest the case of Dublin on the same principle on which it rested the cases of other great cities which in recent years have had their boundaries extended under similar circumstances. I call on the House further to stand by the finding of its own Committee. This Bill has been adopted by a Committee, and while on this point I may say that nothing new came out before that Committee during the long dreary days of evidence. I do not think that the opponents of this Bill will be able to adduce one single new argument against it from the evidence given before the Committee. They had all their arguments and objections ready at the time of the Second Reading. I submit, if that be true, that their effort to destroy this Bill should have been made on the Second Reading. They allowed the Second Reading to go without Debate. The Bill then went before the Committee, and after the expenditure of thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds on behalf of all the people concerned, they come down here at this stage, after the Committee, and urge objections which were just as well known and just as apparent to them at the time of the Second Reading and before any expense was incurred.


I wish to say why the Bill was not opposed on the Second Reading.


It is not worth while to interrupt now, as I am finishing, but one reason undoubtedly was, that none of the hon. Gentlemen now opposed to the Bill were present.


I was present.


Well, although the hon. Member is a host in himself, he is not sufficient to make a successful effort to defeat this Bill. Under these circumstances I sincerely trust the House will take a broad-minded and impartial view of this matter, and will pass the Bill by a large majority.

Motion made and Question proposed—

"That the Bill be now considered."—(Mr. John Redmond.)

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

I think the last statement of the hon. and learned Member is one that is worthy of some observation. He asked what would appear to be a very pertinent question, viz., why, if we oppose this Bill now, we did not oppose it on the Second Reading. I think the question admits of a very simple answer. When I tell the House that this is a Bill for the extension of the boundaries of the City of Dublin, which now consists of about 3,800 acres, and that it is proposed by the Bill to add something like 18,000 acres, it will see that it was impossible for us who were interested in many parts of this Bill to know what case would be made before the Committee as to why certain portions of that 18,000 acres comprising nearly the whole of the County of Dublin were required. If we who are interested in the development of the townships were to oppose the Bill on the Second Reaching we would be told that we were only dealing with 6,000 acres out of 18,000 acres, and we would be asked why should not the Committee consider what portion of the remaining 12,000 acres ought to be added to the city, so that any opposition on our part would have been premature. Now that the Bill comes before the House, having passed the Committee, and having included the townships—which was our main objection—and when we know that the promoters of the Bill would accept no compromise which did riot include the townships, then I say we are justified in asking the House to reject the Bill at this stage. It has been said that the Committee—which was a Committee of four—passed the Bill. That, in a sense, is true; but I think the House ought to know that a Bill of such vital importance to the City and County of Dublin only passed by the casting vote of the Chairman, the Chairman under the circumstances voting twice. The Committee were evenly divided, and the preamble of the Bill was only passed by the casting vote of the Chairman. If one of the other Members who differed from him had been in the chair, the result would have been directly opposite. Therefore it is not exactly accurate to insist, as is often done, that the Bill has the entire sanction of the Committee at its back. The Bill proposes to add to the City of Dublin five separate townships in the suburbs of Dublin, which contain in all over 6,000 acres and have a population of between 70,000 and 80,000 people. Taking the extreme distance from one part to the other, it would be something like eight to ten miles, so that the House will see that the interests of the outlying suburbs, separated as they are by such a distance from north to south, have absolutely nothing in common whatever. Up to this they have bad their separate governments. In relation to these five townships this Bill proposes to abolish the five existing Corporations which have been set up by Acts of Parliament—one of them under an Act passed as far back as 1847, which has been extended by a number of succeeding Acts. That township contains about 32,000 inhabitants. Pembroke Corporation has been in existence as a separate Corporation since 1863, and the remaining three have been in existence since 1869, 1878, and 1867 respectively, the whole containing about 18,000 acres. It is a strong thing to say that they should be abolished, but it is especially strong—and here I differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House—to ask us to abolish these Corporations when each and every one of them objects to be annexed to the City of Dublin. We are told that all through England and Scotland it has been the practice for great cities to take in the areas adjoining them, but I doubt whether a single case can be pointed out where the inhabitants of the district objected. The great cities always managed to get on good terms with the suburbs. Over and over again this House has rejected proposals to annex outlying municipalities when those municipal bodies objected to be annexed. The strongest case is Glasgow, where one suburb was kept out for a long time, although Glasgow is one of the best governed cities of the day. The extraordinary part of the matter now before the House is this, that of the five townships proposed to be annexed, each of them appeared before the Committee and objected. And when we are told by the hon. and learned Member that he believes the majority of the electors in these townships are really in favour of this annexation, I think it is a very strong thing for him to say, for this reason—that since the Dublin Corporation announced that they were going to promote this Bill we have had elections in the various townships under the Local Government Act passed a year ago, and the main plank in the platform was annexation or non-annexation to Dublin, and not one of these townships is in favour of it as at present governed. The Lord Mayor of Dublin offered himself as a candidate, and he was rejected, and under the extended franchise set up by the Act of last year all the old former Commissioners were re-elected to the urban districts, every one of them being absolutely pledged to oppose this annexation. The hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that a large petition has been signed saying the opposition has been withdrawn; but it was only sent down yesterday, it has been largely signed by illiterates, and there is no way of testing the signatures. The Corporation of the Pembroke township had the matter before it, and passed a resolution that it would still oppose this annexation. May I remind the House that we are now discussing tins question, although only last year we confirmed, by Act of Parliament, those public bodies, and we are now asked, in this legislation by a Private Bill, to put an end to these municipal bodies, which have only been, under the franchise of the Local Government Act, in existence a few months, and throw the whole government of the City of Dublin into a state of anarchy and confusion. I may be asked why these townships objected to be annexed by the City of Dublin; they did so because these townships have grown up and nourished and become prosperous under the excellent government to which they have been subject from the first period of their existence, and they now compare favourably with any great cities of the Empire. Under these circumstances it is not unnatural, and it is not surprising, that the people who represent these townships should ask to be left to govern themselves. Take the case of Rathmines, where, at the present moment, they have 21 representatives whose sole business is to attend to the government of Rathmines. Under this Bill they will have eight members in a house of 90 members, who will not have to confine their attention to the business of the particular township, but to the whole of the city to which I have called attention. Another thing is that in municipal affairs each community desires to govern itself. My hon. friend says that is a Home Rule policy; I should like to hear his sentiments as to putting an end to it. This looks like an anti-Home Rule policy. But the whole tendency of the people has been, so far from extending areas, that they should have a local government conversant with their own local needs, which can be looked after without their being complicated with other questions. I am not going into the political aspect of this case; I have not the least intention of so doing, although a great deal might be said upon it. We have enough to do without touching that aspect at all. I should like to ask the House upon what is founded the claim of the Dublin Corporation to annex these townships, and I put the further question, and I ask those who support this Bill to mention a single advantage which will accrue to these various townships from this annexation by the City of Dublin. Viewing the whole of the evidence, all I can say is that they have not put forward one single advantage which would be gained by the townships being annexed to the City of Dublin. I know that in dealing with these questions the main ground put forward is that the portions to be annexed have been badly governed, but does anybody suggest that here? I do not want to say anything against the Dublin Corporation, but I may make this comparison, that all these townships have been governed as well as Dublin, and in respect of many things they have been governed better. No justification for annexing them was given before the Committee, and Mr. Pember said this: Now, I say at once, we do not ask to bring in such places as Rathmines and Pembroke on account of their misgovernment, or on account of any special danger to Dublin therefrom; that is not, in my judgment, the only or by any means the main reason for annexations of this kind. I quite admit that when you have misgovernment and consequent danger to the parent community it is a very great aggravation of the reasons for which you should bring them in, hut the real theoretical reasons, the reasons of principle, remain beside, behind, and beyond all that. Further on, on the same page, Mr. Pember says: I rely on what is now, I venture to say, a matter of well established principle, and that is that contiguous populations which have grown and spread from a common urban centre ought to he united for the purpose of municipal government. (Cheers.) Yes, but where does he produce his instances in favour of that? The only instances in which it has been done against the will of the municipality have been eases where there were charges of misgovernment. That is the strength of my case. Where a community is well governed and flourishing and prosperous, no advantage can be gained, and naturally they object to it. That is an overwhelming argument against it. Now gaining no advantage, what are the disadvantages? They will have a great liability put upon them by the City of Dublin which it has previously incurred, their rates being far below the rates of that city. The first proposal in the Bill is that the property should be revalued, and the hon. and learned Member says that when it is revalued the valuation will be increased, and that means that the rates of the townships will go up, and with regard to the preferential rates for ten years the statement is beautifully misleading, because they will go and borrow money, and that money will have to be repaid, and the money with which to repay the loans will have to go upon the rates. What is the debt of the City of Dublin? Very nearly two millions. And what is the debt of the whole of the five townships put together? About £490,000.


What is the population?


About 80,000, and you are asked to put upon these townships a share of the £1,899,905 debt which has been incurred by the Corporation. One of these townships has power to borrow many thousands, which it has never been found necessary to exercise at all. If the Corporation take it over they can immediately exercise it, not for the benefit of the township for which it was given by Act of Parliament, but for the benefit of other parts of Dublin. Then there is another disadvantage. You have five townships with separate officers to look after the interests of the people—surveyors, inspectors, and various officers of the kind. All these people are to be dismissed the moment those five townships are abolished. It is said that they will get compensation under the Bill. They get some kind of compensation under the Bill, which will have to be borne by the townships just as well as by the city; and then you will have the salaries of all the new officers, who will be elected by the Dublin Corporation in their own peculiar way, thrown just as much upon the townships as upon the city. Lastly, you will have these people, who have always objected to being made political bodies, made part of one of the strongest political institutions which exist in Ireland, namely, the Cor- poration of the City of Dublin. I do submit to the House that upon these grounds we have shown an overwhelming case why this Bill should not be allowed to pass this House, and why these townships should not be interfered with. Just let me say a word or two as regards the townships under the present system. In Rathmines, which was incorporated in 1847—and I would like to point out that those incorporations were passed without any protest whatever from the City of Dublin—the population at the time of incorporation was 9,640; at the present moment it is 32,000. In 1847 the rateable value was £40,000; at the present moment it is £140,000. Now, Sir, Rathmines, in every single particular, is absolutely independent of the Corporation of Dublin. The authorities gain nothing from them; they ask nothing from them. They have no working arrangements with them of any kind; and they are absolutely independent in every particular. Their water supply has been provided at a cost of £200,000, and they have spent considerable sums in obtaining the electric light. All these undertakings are proposed to be taken over by the Corporation, and instead, as I said before, of having these matters attended to by their own local representatives, all they will have will be a representation of eight out of 90 members, who will constitute the Corporation of Dublin under the new Bill. Passing to Pembroke, I find that it was incorporated in 1863. It then had a population of 13,000; it has now a population of 25,000. In 1863 the rateable valuation was £58,000; it is now £111,000. Since Pembroke was incorporated a township something like £1,000,000 has been spent on houses and on the improvement of the township, besides a large amount in electric lighting. The hon. and learned Member who moves that this Bill be considered spoke of the want of drainage in some of these townships. I think it is somewhat audacious of anybody speaking on behalf of the Dublin Corporation to mention in this House the drainage of any other Corporation. If there is one matter more than another which is an absolute disgrace to the Corporation of Dublin, it is the manner in which they have neglected the drainage of the city. Let me tell you something of the history of the drainage of the City of Dublin, and particularly in relation to Pembroke and Rathmines. As far back as 1871 a Committee sat with reference to the drainage of Dublin and the surrounding townships. In 1871 the Dublin Corporation were authorised to make a system of main drainage, not merely for Dublin but for the surrounding townships. What did they do? Nothing. Pembroke and Rathmines, having waited for some years to see if anything would be done, came to this House and got a Bill to carry out their own main drainage at considerable expense. They spent upon main drainage something like £100,000, and those are two of the townships which you are now asked to annex. They have repaid by means of a sinking fund something like £14,000 or £15,000, and there has been no complaint of the drainage of Pembroke or Rathmines, while the drainage system of Dublin has stood where it was, and is only now being carried out after a lapse of some 28 years. And, Pembroke and Rathmines having got this system of drainage at enormous expense, you are now asked, by one provision of this Bill, to dissolve their Drainage Board and to permit the Corporation of the City of Dublin to take over this system of drainage which deals only with those two townships, and which has been erected for their own benefit. The Board, which has worked well since 1877, is also to be dissolved, and no doubt these townships will be asked to contribute, by the exercise of borrowing powers, to the drainage of the City of Dublin, which has been so long neglected. When the hon. and learned Member put forward this question of drainage I think it would have been well if he could have shown that the Dublin Corporation had put their own house in order before they came to say anything with regard to the drainage of these townships. The case of Clontarf is another case where the rateable value has increased enormously since they got their Bill of 1869. It has very nearly doubled, and the population has nearly trebled. As I said before, the fiercely contested question on the recent elections was, not whether the candidates were Unionist or Nationalist, but whether they were in favour of annexation or not. A candidate who came forward merely as a Unionist or Nationalist had not the least chance of getting on the Board. Therefore you have the position of all the townships objecting to this Bill, and all of them more or less increasing in their prosperity under the system of government which they have already. Why, then, should this Bill he passed? There can be no doubt that it would be for the benefit of the City of Dublin, but that is not sufficient for this House. Why should one corporation swamp five or six other corporations principally for the benefit of the one corporation? It is unprecedented to attempt any such task. But, after all, what has been, and what is, the tendency of legislation in this House? You have set up in England county councils, district councils, and parish councils, so that each locality may have the intelligence of its own representatives to see to the wants of that particular locality. Sir, that is exactly what you are asked to abolish in the present case. You are at the present moment, in relation to London, asked to set up municipalities in place of vestries. What is that except setting up the very townships that you are asked here by this Bill to destroy in Ireland? I submit that no case has been made out for annexation, and no case of advantage to the townships that you are asked to put an end to. Under these circumstances, I earnestly hope that the House will say that this is a matter that requires the very gravest consideration. I know that many Members are led away—and naturally and properly led away—by the fact that after this Bill has passed its Second Reading a Select Committee hears evidence. As I said before, this case is a very exceptional one in consequence of the great divergence of views of that Committee, and under those circumstances I hope the House will reject the Bill. I have only to say that my hon. friend the Member for South Dublin, who, at considerable inconvenience to himself, by reason of an accident which we all so much deplore, came down to the House yesterday when the Bill was down on the Paper—because his constituency, which is partly composed of Rathmines, is very much interested in this Bill—had undertaken to second my motion to reject the Bill; and I am sure the House will greatly regret to hear from the telegram I have just received from him, that he has met with another serious accident, and is unable to attend.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Carson.)

Question proposed—

"That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

*MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON (Leicester, Loughborough)

As Chairman of the Committee that had this Bill before it, the responsibility rested on me of giving the casting vote which decided whether the preamble of the Bill should or should not be passed by the Committee, and I had better at once state the reasons which led me to take so responsible a step. The hon. Member who moved the consideration of this Bill reminded the House that nothing has been done in the way of extending the boundary of the City of Dublin since it was fixed in 1840. Prior to that time the portions of what are now the townships of Clontarf in the north and Pembroke in the south were included within the city boundary; but in 1840 these two districts were cut out of the city. Since that time the population of the city has very largely spread into the surrounding districts, and the five townships, or urban districts as we should know them in England, governed by councillors, have since been formed. On the north there are the townships of Clontarf and Drumcondra; on the west, New Kilmainham; and on the south, Rathmines and Rathgar, and Pembroke. At two points only the County of Dublin 'comes up to the boundary of the present City of Dublin, and the hon. Member for Dublin University seemed to forget that, except at these two very small points, these five townships practically cut off the county district which it was proposed to annex. It would be practically impossible for the Committee or this House to entertain the idea of annexing any portion of the county district to the city without at the same time including the townships within its boundary. In addition to that, these townships have been frequently spoken of as municipal bodies, but they are nothing of the sort. They are nothing more than urban districts as we know them in England, and under the Local Government Act of last year, their governing bodies have simply become urban district councils. What this Bill, in the form in which it passed its Second Reading, proposed to do was to extend the boundary of the City of Dublin so as to include, in the first place, these five townships, having an area of 6,100 acres, and a population in 1891 of 71,000, but now about 85,000. Then you have the comity area, amounting to 7,500 acres, with a population in 1891 of 12,800, now about 14,000. Then there is what is known as "slob-land," extending to about 5,000 acres, being practically the estuary of the River Liffey, the whole of which is covered with water at high tide, and consists merely of sand-banks or mud-banks when the tide is out, and on which there is no population whatever. The Committee decided in the first place to strike out of the Bill that slob-land. That being under the control of the Port and Harbour Board, on which the Corporation of Dublin has a very large representation, the Committee considered it would be exceedingly undesirable to have two possibly conflicting authorities exercising control over land upon the proper management of which so largely depends the maintenance of the navigable channel of the River Liffey up to Dublin itself. They also struck out 6,000 acres of the area of the county which had been proposed to be annexed, because it was evident to the Committee that so far the population of the city of Dublin has not to any material extent spread on to those 6,000 acres. In the Bill in its present form it is proposed to add to the city the five townships and about 1,500 acres of land from the county lying between the townships of Drumcondra and New Kilmainham in the north, and New Kilmainham and Rathmines in the south. The population of these townships and the population of the county area which we propose should be annexed is practically the overflow of the City of Dublin. With the exception of the township of Kilmainham, the whole of the district we propose to annex is a residential district in which the well-to-do inhabitants of the City of Dublin come out to reside. Kilmainham, on the other hand, is mainly occupied with the works of the Great Southern and Western Railway, with a population of 7,000 persons engaged, more or less directly, with those works, while a very large proportion of the men engaged in these works live inside the City of Dublin, and go out in the morning to the works, returning to the city at night. In the second place, the township of Pembroke, though outside the boundary of the municipal City of Dublin, is inside the boundary of the Parliamentary City of Dublin. In the third place, the whole of the area is at the present time subject to the same bridge tax as is the City of Dublin itself; and with the exception of Clontarf and about one half—the northern half—of the township of Drumcondra, it is under the control, and pays the rate towards the maintenance of the Metropolitan Police. With the exception of Rathmines, which has a separate water supply of its own, the whole of these districts derive their water supply from the City of Dublin. With the exception of Rathmines and Pembroke—which have a separate drainage scheme, which the hon. Member for Dublin University has alluded to, but to which I cannot give so high a character as he seems to do—the whole drainage of these districts, where it exists, flows in its crude state, either into the Liffey or on to the slob-lands. So far as New Kilmainham and the area of the county are concerned, it was clearly proved to the Committee that no scheme of main drainage could be introduced for those districts except in co-operation with the main drainage system of the City of Dublin; and so far as Clontarf and Drumcondra are concerned, it would be a much more costly undertaking to construct a separate main drainage scheme for them which, after filtering the sewage, would discharge a clear effluent into the sea, than it would be for them to join the main drainage system of the City of Dublin, which is now being constructed. The whole of these districts derive their supply of gas from works inside the City of Dublin. Then, I must differ from the hon. Member for Dublin University with respect to the indebtedness of the City of Dublin. According to the figures which were laid before the Committee, and which were never disputed, the indebtedness of the City of Dublin at the present moment is £1,562,000, of which about £720,000 was expended in the construction of the waterworks—a highly remunerative undertaking, the whole of which will be paid off within the next 45 years. In addition to that, the City of Dublin has an income derived from other sources than that of rates, of something like £80,000, of which £30,000 is derived from the rents of the Corporation property, an item which is rapidly increasing in value, and which was stated in evidence would in the course of three years, owing to the falling in of leases, yield to the city a clear annual rental of £37,000 a year. £30,000 of this income is derived from the sale of water by the Corporation for manufacturing purposes, £10,000 is derived from an annual payment from the Tramway Company in the City of Dublin for the use of the streets, while there is £10,000 derived from other sources. Lastly, I should like Members who sit for constituencies in England or Scotland—who are not familiar (as I myself was not) with the methods of valuation in Dublin—clearly to understand that the system with respect to valuation pursued in Ireland seems to be totally different from the system in this country. There seems to be no power of raising the valuation—in fact, it was given in evidence before the Committee that there is no power of raising the valuation of a property after it has once been valued, except a general valuation is taking place, or unless some important structural alteration is made in it. So that in the case of an old city, such as that of Dublin, while the valuation may fall if the property depreciates in value, it cannot be raised where the property increases in value. I took the responsibility of sending over to Dublin for Mr. Barton, Commissioner of Valuations, in Dublin Castle, and he gave it in evidence before the Committee that if a re-valuation takes place, as provided for in this Bill, the valuation of the City of Dublin itself would be raised by from 20 to 25 per cent., while that of the townships would be raised by from 10 to 15 par cent. Now, Sir, I also notice that the hon. Member for Dublin University stated that t was entirely contrary to the custom of this House to extend the boundary of cities in opposition to the wishes of the districts to be annexed. I entirely differ from him. I fully admit that some twenty years ago that was the custom of this House, but it certainly has not been the custom of the Committees upstairs for the last ten or fifteen years. In the case of Leamington, when it applied for powers to absorb the urban districts of Milverton and Lillington, that was contested before an Inquiry instituted by the Local Government Board, it was contested upon the Provisional Order upstairs, and I believe the contest was carried on even to the House of Lords. Southampton in precisely the same way, in the face of strenuous opposition, absorbed Shirley and Freemantle. In 1891 Cheltenham ab- sorbed Charlton Kings and Leckhampton. There again it was fought with the utmost determination. In 1897 Plymouth absorbed Compton Giffard and some other urban districts surrounding it, while in the same year Bristol, having been defeated in 1895 in its efforts to extend its, boundaries, got its Bill through Parliament, absorbing Stapleton and Horfield, with a population of between 70,000 and 80,000, although the Bill was fought right up to the House of Lords. In 1898 Devouport had a Bill granted it which included within it St. Budeaux and Penny Cross. We have had a very good example in this House within the last few weeks. Have we not in this House been engaged recently constituting a City of Westminster? Have hon. Members entirely forgotten the opposition to the Bill which was made by the Strand to its absorption inside the City of Greater Westminster. I hold here a circular—which was probably sent to every Member of this House—containing a list of twelve resolutions passed by different bodies within the last few months inside the Borough of the Strand, protesting against being included in the City of Greater Westminster, and in every case the objections urged against their absorption—and which were ignored by the House—were precisely the same objections as those which are now being urged by these townships against being included in this City of Greater Dublin, namely, the destruction of their self-government and the probability of their rates being materially enhanced. In every case where the House has to deal with these questions—or where a Committee upstairs has to deal with instances of this kind—what the Committee has had to decide is—are the circumstances of the case and are the arguments brought forward in support of the case sufficiently strong to justify them in overriding the opposition of the districts which it is proposed to annex. I certainly will not trouble the House with attempting to go through the evidence of the 71 witnesses, hut there is the evidence of two gentlemen who came forward in support of this Bill, to which I wish to call the attention of the House, because these two gentlemen occupied exceptional positions. They cannot be considered in any way ex parte witnesses, and from the position which they occupy now—or have occupied in the past—they have had exceptional means of knowing what the circumstances of this particular case are. The first gentleman is Sir Francis MacCabe, who from 1878 to 1888 was the Inspector of the Dublin District under the Local Government Board of Ireland; and from 1888 to 1898 he was the Medical Commissioner of the Local Government Board of Ireland. I may summarise the evidence which he gave before us thus: that the Sanitary Staff of Dublin is one of the most efficient in the United Kingdom; that the maintenance of separate sanitary stalls for the five separate townships was both extravagant and inefficient, and that three out of the five townships had not even adopted the Notification of Infectious Diseases Act; and, lastly, he had no hesitation in saying that it is impossible for the sanitary condition, and therefore the health, of Greater Dublin to be made what it ought to be unless the whole district is merged in one city, and under the supervision of the Medical Officer of Health of Dublin, so as to have one uniform sanitary authority over the whole of that city. The other gentleman to whose evidence I wish to draw the attention of the House, is that of my hon. friend the Member for Tyrone, the Secretary to the Local Government Board of this country. I would summarise his evidence in these words. The reasons he urged for the extension of this boundary are (1) that the interest of the city and townships are common interests; (2) that the present position under which the rich go out of the city and leave the poor to bear the burdens is essentially unjust to the City of Dublin; (3) that the rate of mortality is a scandal; (4) that the disposal of the sewage of the townships is a scandal; and, lastly, that the maintaining of five or six different sanitary staffs leads to inefficient and extravagant expenditure. I wish to quote one or two extracts from his evidence, so that the House may hear the opinion of the hon. Member in his own words. He says: I do not know of a single interest that is not a common interest between the City of Dublin and these townships. That is the first reason why I am in favour of this amalgamation. Then he was asked: I suppose this population to Which you refer coming into the city in the morning and going out of it again at night is a large population, and has increased during your own recollection since you have been resident? And he replied: Yes, decidedly; very hugely increased. That is my second reason for favouring the principle of annexation. I think that the present position of affairs is essentially un just to the City of Dublin. The tendency for 30 years has been for the rich and the well-to-do classes to leave the city and to migrate to the townships. I do not complain of it. It was absolutely necessary that they should do so: but the fact is as I have said, and it tells heavily against the interests of the city. And then he goes on to describe what has taken place, and after giving an instance, he finishes with these words: I attribute it almost entirely to the fact that the poor have been left simply to stew in their own juice, and the rich and well-to-do have gone where forsooth they have lower rates, and these people are left to take care of themselves as best they can. It is deplorable Then he is asked this question: I suppose this part left behind contains almost all the poor? And he answered: In the north side of the city that is almost so. Then he is asked: Those are the artisans who work in Dublin and round about, I take it? To which he replies: Yes; and what is true of the Poor Law is true of other improvements in regard to the city, because the city is depleted of this class of people and of the resources and aid that they would bring to the city. Works of great improvement which ought to be carried out in Dublin cannot be undertaken because the rates are at a point where it is almost dangerous that they should be increased. To collect them would defeat their own ends. In the third place, I am quite convinced that the best interests of both the townships and the city are involved in the settlement of this question. I will take the case of the public health of Dublin. The public health of Dublin is at a very low ebb. I know that a great many people try to make it better than it is, but I have been behind the scenes, and I have proved this for myself, and I apply to the City of Dublin the same tests that I would apply to an English city of the Local Government Board. Typhoid is almost permanently resident in our midst. I affirm that. The infantile mortality of Dublin is a scandal. I know of no city in the United Kingdom where the infantile mortality is as high as in the City of Dublin, and if tire Committee ask why that should be so my answer is plain. Take the main drainage of Dublin. He goes on to say— The reason why the main drainage of Dublin was not taken over 25 or 30 years ago has been absolutely the lack of money. It is for no other reason. The Dublin Corporation, I feel perfectly free to say, is not an ideal corporation from my standpoint, but I am firmly convinced that the Dublin Corporation would have tackled a scheme of main drainage 25 years ago but for the enormous cost involved in it and the poverty of the people in the main who are the ratepayers of Dublin. Now, if we have typhoid resident amongst us, and if this infantile mortality is, as I said, a scandal, and such as is to be found nowhere else, it is almost entirely due to two causes—the lack of main drainage and the very imperfect system of house drainage that we have. But these things I represent are due to want of funds, and the want of funds is largely due to the fact that the well-to-do have gone from our midst and left us to get on as best we may. There is only one other extract which I will read. The hon. Member said:— If I were asked what the townships would gain by being annexed to the City of Dublin, I should state that I think they are in reality citizens of Dublin in everything but the duties of citizenship. That is my first answer. I say that they spend their day in Dublin; they make their fortunes in Dublin; they use the streets of Dublin; they use all the institutions of Dublin; and then they leave all these things to be kept up by people much poorer than themselves. I say that is a state of things which ought not to exist; and instead of the townships asking what they are to get, I ask the question, What do they owe to the city where they make their fortunes, and which they use every day of their lives? I say in everything but the upkeep of Dublin they are citizens. I will not trouble the House with any further quotations from the evidence of my hon. friend. I do say this, that in the face of such evidence as that it requires the very strongest arguments on the part of the opponents of the Bill and the very strongest evidence to show that the evidence of my hon. friend and Sir Francis MacCabe is not to be relied on by the Committee. Now, let us see what the evidence of the opponents of the Bill was. I say that the opposition to it was mainly a rating opposition. Time after time I put this question to representative witnesses when they came before us, "Is it not in the main owing to the fear of increased rates that you are objecting?" And the answer was almost in every case, "Yes, in the main it is." Now, how far is the evidence of my hon. friend borne out by witnesses on the opposition side? Take the case of Kilmainham. A Mr. Michael Flood, who came forward as a witness on behalf of the Urban Council of Kilmainham, stated that the township was in debt to the treasurer; that where there was any drainage at all it was in a very bad state, and the drains go into the Liffey; that the Notification of Diseases Act has not been adopted; and that, though they make no payment whatever to the City of Dublin towards the hospitals, they send all their patients there when they have to be sent to a hospital at all. For Drumcondra Mr. H. Lindsay came forward, and his evidence was that the financial position of that township was very bad, and that the Government auditors' remarks were unfavourable to the township management. Mr. Petit, clerk to the Urban District Council, in cross-examination, said that the township was not provided with any sanitary appliance or oversight; while Mr. J. Buckley, C.E., surveyor to the township, said that though they had a certain kind of filtration scheme, over 686 loads of sludge from tanks was allowed to accumulate for 12 months in the very centre of most thickly populated parts of the townships and no attempt had been made to clear it away, though repeated complaints had been made to the sanitary authorities. This is a question of rates. I see it is stated as an argument against the Bill, in a circular by one of the townships, that the rates of that township were only 3s. 6d., while those of the City of Dublin were 9s. 4d. That is incorrect, for it compares the whole rates of the city with the municipal and sanitary rates of the township. The position is this, that in the city the municipal rate is 6s. 4d. while in the townships it varies from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 10d. in the £, or an average of 4s. 6d. Allowing for the fact that under the re-valuation which will take place the valuation of the city will be raised 20 per cent., and the valuation of the townships 10 per cent., that would correspond to a rate of 5s. 2½d. for the city against 4s. 1d. in the townships, or a difference of about 1s. in the £1. Well, as the hon. Member for the City of Dublin has reminded the House, the Committee tried to deal with that by providing that in the case of the townships of Rathmines and Pembroke the rate should not exceed the present rate for a period of ten years, because we considered that, having constructed a main drainage system, though not by any means a perfect one, still they deserved more favourable treatment than the other townships; and that in the case of the other townships and the two county areas which are to be included with them the rate is not to exceed the present rate for a period of five years. Another objection which was taken to the inclusion was that under the scheme of the Bill the representation which was proposed to be given them was totally inadequate. We met that by dividing this area, after very great trouble, into seven wards, giving to each of these wards the same representation as the city wards—three councillors and one alderman to the ward—thus giving to the added area an aggregate representation of 28, as against 60 for the fifteen wards of the city. I venture to think that by that representation and by the method in which we dealt with the rating of the added area, we entirely met everything which may be considered a real grievance on the part of the opposing parties. When I look to the fact that the evidence of Sir Francis McCabe and my hon. friend the Member for Tyrone was of such a serious nature as I have read to the House, and seeing that during the whole of that inquiry the accuracy of my hon. friend's statements was never challenged, and that the facts which he brought before us were never in the slightest degree disproved, I venture to think that I had no other course open to me than to give my casting vote for the Bill.

*MR. FISON) (York W. R., Doncaster

I was one of the Members of the Committee upstairs which for a long period heard witnesses and arguments on this case, and therefore desire briefly to address the House. I should like to say, in the first instance, that at the beginning of the inquiry, if I had any bias at all, it was a sentimental one in favour of allowing the City of Dublin to have a larger and more prosperous area. But after sitting on the Committee for 17 days, and hearing all the evidence, I came to the conclusion that the proposals of the promoters of the Bill were not really conducive to the good government of the district. The bias of my mind was changed by the evidence and arguments brought before us. We heard sonic ten thousand questions put and answered, and certainly I think it would be unfair if I were not to say how much the Committee were indebted to the members of the Irish Bar on both sides for the great assistance they gave us. I do not wish to go over again the ground so ably traversed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University; but I would remind the House that this is a Bill for the inclusion of five townships and a large portion of the County of Dublin in the new area of the City of Dublin. Perhaps the strongest reason given for the proposal was that the City of Dublin is at present congested, that the City is unhealthy through that congested population, and that the population want more room. One eminent witness informed us that Dublin would not be a healthy place until 50,000 of the population had gone out of the present area. That, I think, is an exaggeration; but what I want to point out to the House is that the whole tendency of the promoters of this Bill was not to go in for a wider area of the county, but to go for the populous and wealthy areas of the townships. That will not be contradicted by anyone who followed the evidence. If you were to take Rathmines and Pembroke from the scope of the Bill, I believe the Corporation of Dublin would be scarcely inclined to go on with it. I do not think the House can put the opposition to the incorporation of the townships on the local authorities alone; for the inhabitants themselves are opposed to it. It is quite true, as an hon. Member opposite said, that a plebiscite was not taken, but that applies to both sides.


There was one in the city.


On the other hand, there were no petitions in its favour. There was brought before the Committee on a late day a simple telegram from one of the smaller townships, saying that there was a feeling there in favour of the Bill. But I would call the attention of the House to the local elections which took place in January, in which annexation to the city was made a test question. These elections were held on a much more popular basis than was previously the case in Ireland. The electorate of Rathmines increased in January from 1,800 to 6,000. In every case the representatives carried at these elections in all the local bodies, irrespective of political party issues, were men pledged to resist this Bill. No evidence was submitted to us that there was even a substantial minority which was in favour of the Bill, and I do not think any better test than that could be given of the wishes of the inhabitants. It appears to me that the two largest townships—Rathmines and Pembroke—are really the key of the situation. Rathmines has a population of 32,000, and Pembroke of 25,000. There are 211 boroughs in England and Wales, of which 20 return Members to this House which have a less population than Rathmines; and 195 boroughs in England and Wales which have a less population than Pembroke. It is quite true that Pembroke and Rathmines are not municipal areas; but why draw a distinction between urban district councils—which you have only recently created—and municipal areas? These areas have governed themselves well in the past. I would ask the House to compare the way in which the City of Dublin has done its work with the way in which these townships have done their work. Rathmines has an independent water supply, and in 1893 the City of Dublin had to come to Rathmines to ask that township to help the city with its water supply. As to drainage, the story has been told how, in 1871, the Corporation obtained a Bill along with the townships for drainage purposes, how the Corporation refused to carry the scheme out, how Rathmines and Pembroke allowed their scheme to hang up for twelve months to permit of the Corporation coming in, and how the Corporation have even yet done nothing except to start their drainage scheme. I cannot agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Loughborough has said as to the excellence of that drainage scheme; but I think that the evidence showed that the joint drainage scheme of Rathmines and Pembroke is an excellent one. We are asked to deal, therefore, with two townships—one of which has been in existence for half a century and the other for 36 years—and both of which have managed their own affairs better than the City of Dublin. It would, I contend, be a very strong step to annex them to the City of Dublin against their wishes. We are told that differential rating would meet the case; but differential rating would be only a temporary remedy, and it would give opportunities to the City of Dublin. to raise money, which all would eventually have to pay off. In regard to representation, it is true that this Bill gives a larger representation to the townships than formerly. There are 15 wards in the City of Dublin, with a representation of three councillors and an alderman, which gives 60 for the city; and it is proposed to add seven wards with an alderman and three councillors for each, or an aggregate of 28. I want to put it to the House if a town council of 60 has not managed its affairs as well as it ought to have done, how a council of 88 is to manage better. We are told that there are no precedents for the course we are taking, but I venture to say that there are no precedents whatever for including five townships in a city extension area when these townships were unanimously against it. There may no doubt have been precedents where the House has over-ridden the objections of townships, but these have been cases of bargain-making, where the townships were wanting to come in, but did not think the terms fair. There are no precedents, however, where so many townships were annexed totally against their wishes.


The House has derived a very erroneous impression of the state of affairs relating to the annexation of these townships to the City of Dublin if dependence is placed on the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Waterford and Loughborough. These hon. Members have informed the House that they believe the majority of the people in these townships are in favour of annexation, but if they will believe that they will believe anything. Only two days ago there were meetings in several of the townships to consider the scheme, and the voting against it was as 14 to 1. In Rathmines the opposition to the Bill is quite unanimous, and in Clontarf it is also unanimous; and how the hon. and learned Gentleman has come to the conclusion that the majority of the people in these townships are in favour of annexation is a thing I cannot possibly understand. The hon. arid learned Gentleman spoke of the want of public spirit on the part of these townships in not supporting the Dublin hospitals, and from that the House might be led to believe that the Dublin Corporation had the supervision of a certain number of hospitals in Dublin. But they have not the supervision of any hospitals in the City of Dublin, though they may subscribe to some of them. What struck me as a strange act of ingratitude on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that he forgot to mention that on the Estimates every year a sum of £15,850 is voted by the Government for the Dublin hospitals.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

That is in accordance with the Union compact.


At any rate, that leads us to believe that the financial relations between the two countries is satisfactory. I hold that no just cause for passing this measure has been made out by the City of Dublin. My hon. friend the Member for Tyrone, South, appears to think that the better classes in Dublin were disappearing, whereas the poorer classes were crowding into the city.


What I said was that the rich had gone to the suburbs, and had left the poor behind to take care of themselves.


That strikes me as pretty much what I had said. I did not say that the hon. Member had said that the better classes had disappeared from the face of the earth, but that they had disappeared from the City of Dublin. I find from the census of 1891 that the professional and commercial classes had, compared with 1881, increased in Dublin to the number of 3,000, whereas the industrial classes, who I suppose are the working classes, had decreased by 7,500. The number of dwellings in Dublin had increased by 1,800. So that you have a decreasing industrial population, an increasing professional and commercial population, and likewise an increase in the number of houses, and I want to know how is this tremendous congestion of population, of which so much has been made, taking place in the City of Dublin? I cannot help thinking that that argument of my hon. friend has not much weight. Now, the objections of the townships to join with the Corporation of Dublin are to my mind very well founded. The hon. Member for Waterford drew a tremendous picture of the sewage which is discharged into the sea outside Clontarf, but I wonder, when he mentioned sewage at all, he did not say that the main sewer of Dublin has always been the river Liffey. The Corporation of Dublin had a Bill pass through this House 20 years ago to carry out an improved system of drainage; but what have they done? Practically nothing. I am aware that at the present moment they are engaged in carrying out some works, but when they will be finished Heaven only knows. What the Corporation of Dublin really wants is more money. They have come to the very edge of their legal borrowing powers, and the only way in which additional funds can be procured is to increase the area of taxation by the annexation of these townships. But there are other objections which the House will easily understand on the part of these townships to be amalgamated with the Corporation of Dublin. The House will recognise at once that I would be the last man to introduce political considerations in a case of this kind; but the objections taken by the townships to be incorporated with the City of Dublin are undoubtedly affected to a considerable extent by political considerations. There is no doubt of that. I consider these townships were amply justified in investigating the manlier in which the business of the Corporation is conducted. In this hum-drum country over here, when you are about to choose officers to carry on the business of a Corporation, the first question you ask is whether the candidate understands anything about the business or the conduct of municipal affairs, and if he shows that he does, probably the man will be appointed; but it is not so in Dublin. Let me remind the House that how the business of a Corporation is carried on has a very great interest of a pecuniary nature to the ratepayers. When an office in Dublin is vacant the last thing which ever apparently strikes the Corporation is to ask whether the candidate is fit for the post, or whether he understands the business of a Corporation. One of the great points in the City of Dublin apparently is to find out whether the candidate has been in gaol or not. If he can show that he has "done twenty years' time," or that he has been in gaol, no further questions are asked as to his capacity for understanding or managing municipal affairs. At present they are rather short of such candidates in Dublin, because just now they have only two ticket-of-leave men in the employment of the Corporation. It is absolutely necessary that this objection of the townships to incorporation with Dublin should be known. As I have said, there are only two ticket-of-leave men serving the Corporation at present, but there were more. How are these gentlemen elected? The House will understand that it is no very little objection on the part of the law-abiding and loyal townships to join a Corporation which carries on its business after this fashion. I will not go over the whole list, but let me take a few. There is Mr. Henry Campbell, a man whose great ability is known in this House. It does not appear that he knew much about municipal affairs. The Freeman's Journal at that time stated that there was something of an experiment in the appointment, an experiment which, for the sake of the people of Dublin, it hoped would have a successful issue. I do not think that these experiments commend themselves to the people of the townships. Then there is another case, that of a man named O'Brien. He is, I believe, a ticket-of-leave man, and is at present in the employment of the Corporation, his qualification apparently being that he was in prison. Still, that is not the sort of recommendation that is likely to be approved in the townships, and I think the House of Commons would object to a public servant being employed on such a ground. There was also another ticket-of-leave man, since dead, in the employ of the Corporation. His qualification was that he fired at a policeman, and on that qualification he was immediately made inspector of weights and measures. According to the ideas which obtain in Pembroke and Rathmines, that is a questionable reputation, and one which, in their opinion, did not fit him to he a very high official in the Corporation of Dublin. Another man was elected to a position, although he was in America at the time. He was sentenced to prison for 20 years, and that was sufficient to qualify him for the appointment. He was made sword-bearer. I need not proceed any further, but I think the people of Pembroke and Rathmines do not look at such cases with approval. They are law-abiding men, and they deal with the business of the townships purely on business principles, and the result is that they are opposed to this Bill, and we find Nationalists and Roman Catholics joining with Protestants against it. That cannot be denied; at any rate it may be denied, but its accuracy cannot be disputed. The townships say, "We never had a helping hand from this Corporation; they have opposed efforts of ours, fortunately unsuccessfully; we have worked out our own prosperity, and we have made the townships a credit to Dublin and to Ireland." I believe those townships show what Irishmen can do when they leave these wretched political questions aside. The people of the townships reason further. They say, "We are loyal men; we are in favour of the continuance of the Union, and we do not see why, against our will, you should throw us into the arms of this municipal octopus, which desires to swallow up our prosperity." The Corporation refused before the world to pass a vote of thanks on the occasion of the Queen's JUbilee—an occasion which ought to modify even the political rancour of Irishmen. The town ships say, "Here is a Corporation carried on on strictly political grounds; it chooses melt on political grounds, and if this Bill passes there will be a tremendous field for appointments, as the 20th section practically disestablishes, although it does not absolutely disendow, all holders of office. There will be rejoicing among all ticket-of-leave men in the country, as the Corporation is a sort of Greenwich Hospital for Nationalist wrecks." I think the townships are justified in resisting a proposal to swallow them up in a Corporation carried on on purely political grounds. I read a speech made some time ago by the hon. Member for East Clare, when he was seeking election as Lord Mayor of Dublin. That speech, if the hon. Member will permit me to say so, was, I thought, eminently to his credit. He said he would refuse to stand for the position of Lord Mayor of Dublin, or to support Home Rule, if he did not believe and expect that the minority would receive fair play.


If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will permit me, I will explain what I did say. There was no question of standing for the position of Lord Mayor. What I did say was that I felt perfectly certain that the Corporation would give fair play to the minority, and that as far as I was personally concerned I would not have anything to do with any transaction which did not give the fullest possible fair play to the minority.


I think that was eminently to the credit of the hon. Member. But the Corporation of Dublin did not make him Lord Mayor; they only made him an alderman. A man who held such views would never be made Lord Mayor of Dublin, and I do not see why these townships, which now conduct their business on a purely businesslike footing, should be handed over to this political organisation, which, to my mind, in the past has shown itself eminently unable, and possibly unwilling, to manage its own affairs in a businesslike way, and which, if it gets the management of these townships, will certainly treat them in the same manner. The hon. Member for Loughborough has quoted some cases where legislation of a similar kind was carried out in this country, but he did not give any cases in which it was refused. He might have mentioned Glasgow, in connection with which Partick and Govan successfully opposed annexation. No instance has been attempted to be produced before this House of any great township, such as Rathmines, Rathgar, or Clontarf, being forced against its wish to join such a Corporation as Dublin; and believing as I do that if this Bill is passed, instead of adding to the prosperity of these townships, it will have an opposite effect, and that it is unfair to hand these townships over to a municipality which has proved so untrustworthy in the past, I hope the House will reject the Bill.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

I do not think anyone will accuse me of taking Home Rule views or of sympathising with the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I have always held that we should treat Irish questions as English questions are treated, and that is the backbone of our position. I would ask the House, in spite of what my hon. and gallant friend has said, if there were a similar case in England or Scotland, where a large municipality, particularly such an important one as Dublin, was asking, on grounds of sanitation, or public health, and other reasons of an important character, for an extension of boundaries, and if the Bill had passed Committee, would the House throw it out? We know perfectly well it would not do that in the case of an English city, and I therefore protest against doing it in the case of an Irish city, above all in the case of the capital of Ireland.


Unlike a great many other Members who have addressed the House, I can claim to be a burgess of the City of Dublin, and an inhabitant of the area which hon. Gentlemen opposite say will benefit by this Bill. But although that area will be benefited, the change would be unjust to the townships, and it is therefore my duty to support my hon. and learned friend the member for the University of Dublin in his opposition. I was an interested spectator of the proceedings in the room upstairs when the hon. Member for Loughborough was Chairman of the Committee, and I should like to take this opportunity of dissociating myself from some of the criticisms which have appeared in the Irish papers on his conduct as Chairman. Although I differ from him and his conclusions, I do say, not in any feeling of impertinence, that he made an admirable Chairman. At the same time, that does not permit me to regard the decision of the Committee as any more than a decision obtained by the casting vote of the Chairman, and under such circumstances it is open to this House freely and impartially to decide whether that casting vote was properly or improperly given. The Committee had not, and the Chairman had not—I venture to say so respectfully—the entire circumstances before them. As my hon. and gallant friend has stated, a very large amount of the opposition against this Bill on the part of the townships arises from political distrust of the Corporation of Dublin; and when it was intended to produce before the Committee evidence on that point, and when it was suggested that the Dublin Corporation was guilty of political misconduct, the Chairman said that the Committee had no power or right to go into political questions. That, I think, was right. The proceedings might be interminable if such an area were opened for debate, but that does not prevent this House from taking such matters into consideration, and it is the first time that the townships of Dublin have had an opportunity of stating before the House one of their main objections to the scheme. We are asked, under this Bill, to destroy an active municipal life. Whether the bodies which carry on those duties outside the metropolis of Ireland are called Urban District Councils or Corporations makes very little difference. The only difference is that in one case the officer is called a town councillor, and in the other a councillor, and I make the hon. Member for Loughborough a present of the distinction. We have five municipalities, all actively carrying on their work to the satisfaction of their own inhabitants, and we are asked to take from them that power and to subject them to the tyranny and despotism of the Corporation of the City of Dublin, where only five Unionists are allowed to take part in municipal affairs. Counsel, in the address which was made for the Corporation of the City of Dublin before the Committee, persisted in saying that no accusation of misrule could be made against the townships, but such cannot be said of the Dublin Corporation. The Corporation is a gigantic political debating society, and not till after they have finished debating political questions will they turn their mind to the welfare of the citizens. From time to time the Corporation have, under an ancient right, appeared at the Bar of this House in support of some academic proposition like Home Rule, the relief of evicted tenants, or the release of the political prisoners; but have they ever approached this House in support of any single movement for the material prosperity of the country? Have the Corporation ever petitioned on behalf of Irish industries or the promotion of our fisheries; have they ever done any substantial thing outside the area of the purest party politics? That is the Corporation which is to deprive existing municipalities of the right to carry on their duties which they have performed to the satisfaction of those living under their government. Two-thirds of the rates of Dublin are paid by Unionists; they are able to return one Member of Parliament, but the wards are so gerrymandered that, as regards municipal government, they are only able to secure seven representatives. The Corporation have always devoted themselves to politics; they have rewarded political supporters with money contributed by Unionist ratepayers, and have neglected their proper business. While Rathmines and Pembroke were developing their drainage the Corporation did nothing. How does Dublin stand with regard to electric lighting? Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not contradict me when I say that Dublin is, as far as electric lighting is concerned, the worst lighted city in the three kingdoms. The Corporation have spent £98,000, and they have only 81 arc-lamps, or ten lamps in each of the eight streets lighted. It is absolutely impossible to obtain an electric lighting supply from the Corporation, and the money is absolutely thrown away. Reference has been made to a plebiscite. It is true that there was a plebiscite in Dublin. The Parnellite Corporation submitted the idea of swallowing these townships, and everyone in Dublin thought it would he to their advantage. When the Corporation came before the Committee, so anxious were they to carry the Bill that they deliberately, without any authority from the population, agreed to forego for ten years the rates which Pembroke and Rathmines were to pay before the plebiscite was taken. Either they were authorised or not; if they were authorised then the ten years provision is illusory; if they were not authorised the Bill is entirely different from that supported by the plebiscite. On every point concession after concession was offered by the Corporation, in such a way that the original principle of the Bill has been destroyed, and it is enough to make anyone suspicious of it. What is the real object of this Bill? Under the Public Health Act, as we all know, a municipality in Ireland has power to borrow to twice the extent of its annual valuation, and the borrowing power of the Dublin Corporation would amount to 1½ millions. But they have already borrowed £1,700,000, and it is because their Exchequer is exhausted, and they want to replenish it, and for political reasons also, that they are so anxious to annex these townships. It is suggested that they want additional land to set up buildings for the industrial classes, but it was proved before the Committee that there are still 400 acres of land available for that purpose within the city, which is quite enough to keep them going for a good many years. Then the argument is used, because people come in from Rathmines and Pembroke to do business in the City of Dublin, that therefore they should be rated. I quite agree with that principle, but if they are to be rated they should he rated in their offices and warehouses in the city, and the fact that a man who lives in Pembroke should be rated any more than if he lived at Kingstown does not apply. You might as well tax an Irishman who comes to London and makes a profit here. Some hon. Members on the other side of the House may regard this matter as trifling, but I would assure the House that it is very important. If there were not a strong feeling in the matter, it is hardly likely we should have today such an unusually large representation in this House from all parts of Ireland. Time after time, before the Committee, the question was put as to the advantages which the townships would derive from the scheme, and it was jocularly remarked by one witness that they would have the honour and glory of belonging to the Municipality of Dublin. That is not an honour for which all of us in Ireland are ambitious. I would point out the deliberate unfairness of one of the sections. The Gas Company is the controlling influence in Dublin municipal politics. (Cries of "No"). Hon. Members may say "No," and they may have their reasons; but I do know that the Gas Company has the right to supply Dublin at the rate of 3s. 5d. per 1,000 cubic feet, and that it charges the townships 4s. 6d. Now, it would be imagined as a matter of fair play that when the townships were dragged into this scheme they would share the same benefits as Dublin; but Section 59 states that nothing contained in the Bill is to affect the rights and privileges of the Gas Company, the plain English of which is that, although the townships are dragged into the scheme, they will still have to pay 4s. 6d. That shows the spirit and the unfairness of the Bill, which are also indicated by the abject readiness of the Corporation to surrender all these concessions, such as the ten years' rating limit and the twenty-eight members representation, being well aware that these safeguards are utterly illusory. One of the instances which the hon. Member for Loughborough relied on was that of Bristol, but the hon. Member forgot to tell the House that Bristol has been up to the present day unable to annex Westbury - on - Trym, which is to all intents and purposes analogous to Rathmines and Pembroke. There is only one other matter I wish to touch upon. It is quite true that in the case of Belfast the boundaries were ex- tended. But there is a great difference between the cases of Belfast and Dublin. Many years ago the authorities of Belfast saw that it might be fatal to the extension of that city if the adjoining townships were allowed to grow up. But in Dublin they allowed them to grow, and it is only when the Dublin Exchequer is practically exhausted that they show a desire to bring in the townships. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Waterford that the same law should apply on both sides of the Irish Channel. I cordially endorse that; but I would point out that you are proposing to do in Dublin the very reverse of what you are doing under the London Government Bill. Under the latter Bill you are creating separate municipalities, whereas in Dublin you are seeking to merge prosperous townships in the city.


I propose to support the Dublin Corporation in this matter, for I think it would be absolutely ridiculous for this House, which over and over again has supported the principle of local government for Ireland, to refuse, for political reasons, this demand on the part of the Corporation of Dublin.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Cork, N.)

The argument brought forward by the Member for Trinity College was that there were three Conservative divisions, and that it would be unwise to include these three divisions in the area of the City of Dublin. But there are six divisions affected by the proposal. The County Council of Dublin is Nationalist, Kilmainham is Nationalist, Clontarf and Drumcondra are Nationalist. Therefore, out of the six divisions three are Nationalist and three Conservative, but Pembroke will not long remain a Conservative division, because it will be Nationalist as soon as the Nationalists care to take the trouble of attending to the register. Rathmines will probably always remain Conservative. Therefore, when you are opposing this Bill on the ground of political prejudice, you must recollect that you are not opposing the Bill as a whole, which affects Nationalist equally with Conservative areas. It is most unfair, in regard to the capital of Ireland, that this House, having abolished its Parliament and otherwise curtailed its prosperity and influence, should now discuss this Bill on such grounds. Let any man consider what Dublin has already suffered by the Acts of the Imperial Parliament. Before 1800 Dublin was confined within its present municipal area. Dublin then enjoyed a Parliament, and in Sackville Street alone there were the residences of 40 peers. Her squares were inhabited by Commoners, and by the nobility and gentry of the island, but they all departed with the Union. First the nobility, and then the gentry left, and I remember well, Sir, the late Sir Herbert Stewart, who was killed at Abu Klea, furnishing an entire terrace of houses in London with the splendid decorative stones and chimney - pieces which he had quarried from out of these Dublin residences. They were some of the finest specimens of art, but they are now all gone, and what have remained? Only the premises of the merchants, with a few of their residences. The Borough Funds Act did not, when it passed this House, apply to Dublin. Before 1870 the work of private legislation was costly, and there were no citizens rich enough and public spirited enough to oppose the various measures by which the City of Dublin was robbed, and these little townships secured their privileges. In 1890 the tramways of Dublin were extended far out into the suburbs, but these suburbs are only imaginary divisions. These are the results of the rush for fresh air and more room, and the desire to avoid the taxation of the city. Now, Sir, what are the tests of a town? What are the tests by which we shall decide whether or not they shall be reckoned separate towns? These tests are its markets, its fairs, its amusements, its stock exchange, its courts of justice. Not one single one of these townships possesses one single attribute of this character. If Dublin were to be abolished, they would be abolished too. They are merely the excrescences of the city, and do not possess one single element of real urban life, and could not under any pretence be considered as separate entities. They are only divided from Dublin by a canal, and to call them separate areas is an absurdity. Dublin is the only city since Her Majesty the Queen came to the throne which has not extended its area. But, unfortunately, in the case of Dublin, its area has actually been reduced, and portions of these districts were actually at one time within the area of the City of Dublin. It is said that the Government of Ireland is a continuity, but I will, Sir, point out that so far back as 20 years ago a Royal Commission with a Conservative President, and with the present Chairman of the Local Government Board as one of its members, unanimously reported in favour of the very proposal now before the House; and in 1882 Lord Spencer promised to do by a Public Act what the Dublin Corporation are now seeking to, do by a Private Bill. Now, how does this House treat the capital of England or of Scotland? Is it in the way it is. now proposed to treat poor Dublin? Edinburgh has extended its boundaries, Glasgow has extended its boundaries, so have Londonderry and Belfast. In fact, every city in Great Britain has done so, and there has been no question of political prejudice. In regard to this very question of political prejudice, the City of Dublin has suffered more by the Act of Union than any other city in the three kingdoms. We are told that this House is competent to legislate for Ireland, that it is willing and anxious to do so sympathetically; you say, "True you are (oily 80 members, but there are 600 English members prepared to do you justice; but what are the conditions under which Ireland struggles in regard to public measures only? If we succeed in getting only one Act through we go home proud, but the conditions in regard to Private Bills are even worse. The Irish municipalities have to come here and litigate at an enormous. cost before this House. A Bill is proposed, as in the present instance, to be read a second time. There is no objection taken to it. It is read a second time and sent to a Committee, whose verdict it is understood shall influence the House in its final decision. There is no Irish representative on the Committee. The Member for Trinity College admits that he and his friends gambled on the verdict of the Committee, and it is only now when the verdict of the jury is in our favour that he comes forward and opposes it. That is, Sir, after the verdict of a jury on which no Irish Member sat, and a verdict has been arrived at after seventeen days' discussion, and in the course of which 17,000 questions have been asked, and after the Dublin Corporation has expended from £20,000 to £25,000, the hon. Member asks the House to reverse the decision. What justice is there in such proceedings? The people of Ireland, it is said, are very ignorant, are very stupid, and very uneducated; but the poorest man in Ireland, the most stupid and uneducated, will know how the rejection of a Bill of this kind, of this magnitude, supported as it is by the Local Government Board and its officials, how the rejection of it has been brought about by one of the Orange Members of the North of Ireland. Sir, I am amazed that a question of this great importance should be treated in this way by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. He referred to the main drainage of Dublin. What has stopped this main drainage scheme? Why, it is because instead of having one authority to deal with there were no less than eight, and why should an unfortunate decayed corner of Dublin have taken upon its back this scheme of main drainage, involving, as it did, an expenditure of three-quarters of a million, without the townships contributing at all? We are told that Rathmines and Pembroke desired to carry out a scheme of drainage, but that Dublin opposed. No, Sir, what Dublin opposed was this. They opposed the delivery of the sewage into the mouth of the Liffey, where it would be washed back at every tide into the town to contaminate the whole town. It is said again that Rathmines has a water supply. Yes, at sixpence higher cost than Dublin; but it is unfiltered. But even unfiltered water ought to be good enough to put out a fire, but I read the other day that the great factory belonging to the eminent Conservative Member, Mr. Pym, and employing over 300 hands in Rathmines, caught fire and would have become a total loss if it had been left to the precious care of the two men and a boy who comprised the Rathmines Fire Brigade. There was no adequate fire brigade in Rathmines, and the Rathmines water would not squirt. I do not know whether it is the want of a filter or the want of pressure, but it was certain that but for the presence of the Dublin Brigade that factory would have been destroyed, and so it was the Dublin Fire Brigade was always coming to the rescue of these little townships, who paid nothing to the support of the brigade and who would be helpless without it. Then, there is the question of the repre- sentation. I have always been in favour of giving the Conservatives a greater representation on the Dublin Corporation than they now have. Five years ago in a Water Bill I engrafted a scheme of minority representation, but though it passed through this House, it was rejected in the House of Lords, that august body declaring that minority reports were not germane to water. Let me again remind the House of this fact, if political prejudice is brought forward against this measure, that every member of the Conservative party on the Dublin Corporation is in favour of this Bill, and some of them gave evidence before the Committee, while others were here yesterday trying to apply an antidote to the undignified lobbying of certain members of the other House, who for private reasons are opposing this Bill. I think they might very well wait to defend their personal interests until the Bill reaches the Second Chamber. The House, in conclusion, from every point of view is making a mistake if it rejects this Bill. It has been said that the Dublin Corporation has given positions to political prisoners. For myself, I was only in prison a very short time, but I look back upon that period as the proudest time cf my life. I am very proud of having been in gaol for Ireland, prouder than I am of anything else in my career, and if the Corporation has taken pity upon a man who has suffered likewise, and sooner than he should die of hunger or tramp the streets, given him a small position, I see no reason why it should have been put forward as ground for opposing this Bill. Mr. O'Brien, the man referred to, has been given the charge of the baths and washhouses, and he was an old soldier, he was released by a Conservative Government so far back as 1877, and I really think that after 22 years there should be some Statute of Limitations. I am quite sure that if the Belfast Corporation appointed to some such office one of the Orangemen convicted and sent to prison in connection with the Belfast riots of 1886, or Mr. de Cobain when he comes out of prison, to some such office, we should not bring it forward as a ground for opposing a Bill of the Belfast Corporation. Again, Sir, may I point out that this Bill has been supported by the report of a Royal Commission, promised to be embodied in a Public Act by Lord Spencer, and surely in following such advice this House cannot be going wrong. Let me finally say this, the very smallest performances of the Dublin Corporation have been opposed by a narrow clique of this House and elsewhere. In 1590 the Chief Secretary gave Dublin the power to collect its own rates, but, notwithstanding the whole weight of Lord Salisbury, the Bill only passed the House of Lords by a majority of eight votes. It is a pure matter of party prejudice, but I caution this House, and I warn it—you cannot declare at the hust-

ings that you are willing to give Ireland everything, and now upon a narrow question of extension which you have granted to every large city in the United Kingdom, you will strike a greater blow at the Union than any that has been given by all the Ministries of the previous 90 years.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 188.)

Allan, William (Gateshead) Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton) Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton
Allison, Robert Andrew Cubitt, Hon. Henry Haldane, Richard Burdon
Ambrose, Robert Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Hammond, John (Carlow)
Arrol, Sir William Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Harrington, Timothy
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dalkeith, Earl of Hayden, John Patrick
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hayne,Rt.Hon.Charles Seale-
Baldwin, Alfred Dalziel, James Henry Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Barlow, John Emmott Davies,SirHoratioD(Chatham Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan Healy, Timothy M. (N.Louth)
Bartley, George C. T. Davitt, Michael Heaton, John Henniker
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Denny, Colonel Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Helder, Augustus
Bigwood, James Dilke, Rt. Hon, Sir Charles Hemphill, Rt. Hon.CharlesH.
Bill, Charles Dillon, John Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)
Billson, Alfred Doogan, P. C. Hobbouse, Henry
Blake, Edward Doughty, George Hogan, James Francis
Bolitho, Thomas Bedford Drucker, A. Holden, Sir Angus
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Holland, W.H.(York, W. R.)
Bond, Edward Dunn, Sir William Horniman, Frederick John
Broadhurst, Henry Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Brown, Alexander H. Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Fardell, Sir T. George Jacoby, James Alfred
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Farguharson, Dr. Robert Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.) Johnson-Fergusson, Jabez E.
Burns, John Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry, S.) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Burt, Thomas Fenwick, Charles Joicey, Sir James
Buxton, Sydney Charles Ferguson,R.C.Munro(Leith) Jolliffe, Hon. H.George
Caldwell, James Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r JonesDavidBrynmor(Swansea
Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) Ffrench, Peter Jordan, Jeremiah
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Field, William (Dublin) Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU
Campbell,Rt.HnJA (Glasgow Firbank, Joseph Thomas Kearley, Hudson E.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Kenyon, James
Carew, James Laurence Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Kilbride, Denis
Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton Flavin, Michael Joseph King, Sir Henry Seymour
Causton, Richard Knight Flower, Ernest Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth
Cawley, Frederick Foster,Harry S.(Suffolk) Kitson, Sir James
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Knowles, Lees
Clancy, John Joseph Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Labouchere, Henry
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis Lambert, George
Clough, Walter Owen Fry, Lewis Langley, Batty
Coddington, Sir William Gibbons, J. Lloyd Laurie, Lieut.-General
Coghill, Douglas Harry Gibney, James Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John LawsonSirWilfrid(Cumb'land
Collery, Bernard Goddard, Daniel Ford Leng, Sir John
Cummins, Andrew Gold, Charles Leuty, Thomas Richmond
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Gordon, Hon. John Edward Logan, John William
Cooke,C.W.Radclifie(Herefd) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Lough, Thomas
Corhet, William J. (Wicklow) Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley Lowles, John
Corbett, A.Cameron(Glasgow) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lowther,Rt.Hn.JW(Cumb'land
Courtney,Rt.Hon.Leonard H. Gretton, John Lloyd, Archie Kirkman
Cranborne, Viscount Greville, Hon. Ronald Lyell, Sir Leonard
Crilly, Daniel Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) MacAleese, Daniel
Crombie, John William Griffith, Ellis J. macdona, John Cumming
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Gunter, Colonel MacDonnell,DrMA(Queen'sC
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Philipps, John Wynford Steadman, William Charles
Maclean, James Mackenzie Pickard, Benjamin Stephens, Henry Charles
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Pickersgill, Edward Hare Stevenson, Francis S.
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Pierpoint, Robert Stewart, Sir Mk.J.M'Taggart
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Pilkington,SirG.A.(L'ncs.SW) Stone, Sir Benjamin
M'Dermott, Patrick Pirie, Duncan V. Strachey, Edward
M'Ghee, Richard Platt-Higgins, Frederick Strauss, Arthur
M'Kenna, Reginald Pollock, Harry Frederick Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
M'Killop, James Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
M'Leod, John Power, Patrick Joseph Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Maddison, Fred. Price, Robert John Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) Tennant, Harold John
Marks, Henry Hananel Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen,E.)
Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Thorburn, Walter
Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W.(Yorks.) Purvis, Robert Thornton, Percy M.
Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Tully, Jasper
Minch, Matthew Reckitt, Harold James Wallace, Robert
Molloy, Bernard Charles Redmond, J. E. (Waterford) Walton, John L.(Leeds, S.)
Monk, Charles James Redmond, William (Clare) Wanklyn, James Leslie
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) Warde, Lieut-Col. C.E, (Kent)
Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Rickett, J. Compton Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Wedderburn, Sir William
Morley, Rt. Hon. J.(Montrose) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Weir, James Galloway
Morrell, George Herbert Robson, William Snowdon Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L)
Morris, Samuel Roche, John (East Galway) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Morton, Ar.H.A.(Deptford) Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Royds, Clement Molyneux Williams, John C. (Notts.)
Moulton, John Fletcher Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Murnaghan, George Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Wills, Sir William Henry
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Schwann, Charles E. Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
O'Connor, J. (Wicklow,W.) Seton-Karr, Henry Wilson, John (Govan)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wilson, J.W. (Worcester, N.)
O'Kelly, James Sinclair, Capt.John(Forfarsh.) Woods, Samuel
Oldroyd, Mark Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
O'Malley, William Smith, Samuel (Flint.) Young,Commander(Berks, E.)
Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Soames, Arthur Wellesley Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading) Souttar, Robinson Yoxall, James Henry
Parnell, John Howard Spicer, Albert TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Paulton, James Mellor Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. Mr. Patrick O'Brien and
Perks, Robert William Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth) Captain Donelan.
Aird, John Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Hornby, Sir William Henry
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Howell, William Tudor
Allsopp, Hon. George Dixon-Hartland, Sir. F. Dixon Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil
Anstruther, H. T. Dorrington, Sir John Edward Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Doxford, William Theodore Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Drage, Geoffrey Jackson, Rt.Hon.Wm. Lawies
Bailey, James (Walworth) Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Jobb, Richard Claverhouse
Banbury, Frederick George Fisher, William Hayes Jenkins, Sir John Jones
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Fison, Frederick William Johnston, William (Belfast)
Barry, Rt. Hn.A.H.S-(Hunts) FitzGerald, Sir Robert P.- Kemp, George
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin Fletcher, Sir Henry Kenyon-Slaney,Col. William
Blakiston-Houston,John Folkestone, Viscount Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn
Boulnois, Edmund Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Lawson,John Grant (Yorks.)
Bousfield, William Robert Galloway, William Johnson Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.
Brookfield, A. Montagu Garfit, William Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)
Brymer, William Ernest Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond. Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)
Butcher, John George Giles, Charles Tyrrell Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.) Gilliat, John Saunders Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Goldsworthy, Major-General Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Calmont,Col.J.(Antrim,E.)
Charrington, Spencer Graham, Henry Robert Malcolm, Ian
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Hanson, Sir Reginald Maple, Sir John Blundell
Colston, C. E. H. Athole Hardy, Laurence Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Heath, James More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson Hill,SirEdwardStock (Bristol) Morrison, Walter
Curzon, Viscount Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Mount, William George
Murray,Col.Wyndham (Bath) Round, James Tritton, Charles Ernest
Newark, Viscount Russell,Gen.F S.(Cheltenham) Usborne, Thomas
Nicholson, William Graham Rutherford, John Valentia, Viscount
Nicolm,Donald Ninian Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S. Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Seely, Charles Hilton Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Sharpe, William Edward T. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Penn, John Sidebotham,J.W.(Cheshire) Williams,J.Powell-(Birm.)
Percy, Earl Sidebottom, William(Derbys.) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Pilkington,R.(Lancs. Newton) Simeon,Sir Barrington Wortley,Rt.Hn.C.B.Stuart-
Pretyman, Ernest George Smith,Hon.W.F.D.(Strand) Wylie, Alexander
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Spencer, Ernest Wyndham-Quin,Major W. H.
Rankin, Sir James Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Renshaw, Charles Bine Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. Mr. Carson and Colonel
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray Saunderson.

Main question put, and agreed to.

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