HC Deb 02 July 1900 vol 85 cc221-53

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the" third time."

MR. CAREW (Dublin, College Green)

After the very exhaustive discussion of this Bill last week, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House more than a few minutes to-day. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that the consideration of the Bill was carried at the close of the last debate by the narrow majority of thirteen. Since that date a special Committee,. presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Colne, which was appointed for the purpose of considering Bills promoted by electric syndicates in the north of England to supply electricity to different towns, have come to a decision which has a very important bearing on the question before the House at the present moment. They considered, that while granting power to these syndicates, it was their duty to safeguard the rights of local authorities by providing that, where a local authority shows its willingness to provide, on reasonable terms and within a reasonable time, a supply of electrical energy, it should not be subjected to the competition of a private company. That proviso represents what the Committee regard as proper in the case of English and Scotch communities. I wish to know why Irish communities should be treated in a different manner. At the present moment the Dublin Corporation has got over the financial difficulties which prevented it from giving to its citizens that supply of electricity which they desired. The strength of the opposition to this Bill lies in the fact that the corporation has not up to the present given satisfaction to the consumers. But it could not do so, because it had exhausted its borrowing powers upon a water scheme which has secured for Dublin the best water supply to be found in the United Kingdom. But last year it set its house in order. It has already spent £89,000 in establishing a generating system, and that proved a failure simply because the amount of money invested in it was too small. To meet that difficulty the Dublin Corporation have now obtained further borrowing powers, and it has arranged for an enlarged scheme by means of which, when it is in full working order, it will be able to give a supply of electricity which, it is hoped, will afford as much satisfaction to the citizens of Dublin as does the water supply at the present moment. The promoters of this Bill allege that the Dublin Corporation has already had sufficient time to make its supply a success. The reason it has been a failure, however, has been the inadequacy of its capital. That difficulty has now been got over, and I therefore ask the House to apply to Dublin the principle which its special Committee has laid down in regard to English and Scotch schemes, and to reverse the decisions already given in favour of this Bill. If this Bill is passed you will have competing systems in Dublin, which must give rise to friction, as the corporation is the sole road authority. It alone has the right to pull up the streets; it has established a drainage and water system; it has laid cables underground, and by moans of the further borrowing powers it has obtained it will now be enabled to establish a full and complete system of electric supply. On the Second Heading of the Bill the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Antrim, whose name is on the back of it, argued in support of it that the new company would be enabled to supply the light on the same terms as those on which it was supplied by many other companies—namely, 4d. per unit. But that argument does not now lie in his mouth, because the result of one clause which has been introduced will be that it will have to establish a scheme under which the light cannot be produced at a cost of less than 6d. per unit. I think the House would be taking a very serious step in departing from the principle laid down by its special Committee for safeguarding the rights of municipal authorities, and I therefore ask it to reject this Bill.

*MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

I beg leave to second the motion. This is a Bill to incorporate a company under the name of the Dublin Electric Light Company, with a share capital of £500,000 and borrowing powers to the extent of £160,000, and it empowers such company to construct works, to break up the streets, and to supply electricity within the city of Dublin in competition with the corporation. I have no desire to detain the House unnecessarily with details because we have quite recently had a long debate on this subject. But I wish to point out that there is a great principle underlying the opposition to this. Bill—a principle well worthy the attention of the House. It seems to me rather strange that in a House of 351 Members the motion for the consideration of the report stage of this Bill was only carried by a majority of thirteen. I venture to say that such a small majority is unprecedented, because the tendency of this House has always been to support, strongly the decisions of its Committees. It is admitted that this Bill is entirely without precedent, and I therefore contend that we are thoroughly justified in again asking this House to reconsider its decision. It has so far been carried against the wishes and opinion of the Members for Dublin, and I maintain that Dublin is entitled to the same treatment as would be accorded to an English or Scotch city. Although we were defeated by a small majority we now appeal to the House for equality of treatment, on a matter which is non-political, for the city which we represent, because such a measure could not be passed for any city in Great Britain. What has occurred since the last debate? A special Committee of this House, which has been sitting upstairs to deal with various Bills seeking electrical powers, has adopted a resolution in further confirmation of the principle that where a local authority shows its willingness to provide, on reasonable terms and within a reasonable time, a supply of electrical energy, it should not be competed with by private undertakers. If that principle is good, for England and Scotland, why should it not also be applied for Ireland?

*MR. BROWN (Shropshire, Wellington)

The hon. Member has not read the whole of the resolution.


No; I will leave that for the hon. Gentleman. I assert that if competition is not to be allowed by private individuals against municipal corporations in England and Scotland, the same principle should be applied to Ireland. In all English Electric Bills passed this session clauses have been inserted prohibiting the promoter supplying electricity in competition with the local authorities. Yet this Bill will allow such competition against the Dublin Corporation. This would establish through legislation a particular exception, as against Dublin, which is not to be in any way protected against competition in the supply of electricity, although clauses are inserted for the protection of Rathmines, Rathgar, Pembroke, and Clontarf. How is that to be justified? Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Dublin Corporation were now for the first time promoting a Bill with regard to the electric lighting of Dublin. What would De the position of the promoters of the Bill we are now discussing? They would not have even a locus standi in this House. They would have no power to oppose the Corporation Bill. But here, because the corporation have already been exercising powers for the supply of electricity, they are now to be subjected to the competition of a private syndicate. Could anything be more extraordinary? I submit that there are broader grounds underlying the opposition to this Bill. There is a great question of public policy involved. It will be generally admitted that that public policy in respect to electric lighting has been clearly laid down by the special Committee on Electric Lighting Bills, and by the House itself in the various Electric Lighting Acts which it has passed. That policy has been in effect to constitute the local authority as the proper party to undertake the duty of lighting within its own district. That being so, I respectfully affirm that the question of determining such a point of public policy should not be dealt with by a Select Committee. It should be left to the House itself, and that is why we are asking this House to reject this Bill, I quite admit that we are taking an unusual course, but then there are exceptional circumstances in this case, and I would suggest that no reflection whatever will be case upon the Committee if its decision is reversed and the Bill now thrown out. This is the wrong time to pass such a Bill. The Corporation have obtained further borrowing powers which will enable them to carry into effect the plans of an eminent engineer for the proper supply of electric light. I also object in the strongest possible manner to public utilities being handed over to private companies, and I believe the House will vindicate the principle which has been laid down, that public utilities should be left in the hands of the ratepayers generally. Therefore, I am not in favour of the gas monopoly in Dublin, being as strongly opposed to it as are the promoters of this Bill, and I entirely object to permit a further extension of allowing a private syndicate to take over a source of revenue which should be devoted to the reduction of taxation. In English and Scotch cities taxation is being reduced because the municipal authorities have the ownership of the electric light, and it is obviously unfair to the city and citizens of Dublin, who are already so heavily burdened with taxation, that exceptional treatment should be accorded to that city, and that the revenue derivable from public utilities should find its way into shareholders' pockets, instead of going towards the reduction of the rates. In conclusion, I will read a summary of the objections of the corporation to this Bill. They are as follows:—

  1. "1. There is no precedent for such a Bill. Such powers would never be granted in any English or Scotch town, against the local authority.
  2. "2. The Corporation have been providing a partial supply, and within a very short time will have a supply of electricity for the entire city.
  3. "3. All the streets of Dublin are already occupied by sewers, water mains, gas mains, and many streets by the underground feeder cables of the electrical tramways, by underground wires of the National Telephone Company, and postal telegraph wires, and the present Corporation electric light mains. When the Corporation system shall have been completed the opening of the streets by another lighting company would create an intolerable situation.
  4. "4. Capital invested by a local authority under the provisions of an Act of Parliament should be able to claim from Parliament that protection which Parliament always affords to capital invested by statutory companies.
  5. "5. The passing of this 15ill would be in derogation of the powers for self-government so recently conferred on Irish municipalities, and the execution of the works there under would cause serious inconvenience and injury to the ratepayers of Dublin.
  6. "6. It is idle to contend that this Bill is promoted in the interests of the citizens of Dublin. The Corporation are the representatives of the citizens, and the election of its members is entirely within the control of the citizens."
For those irresistible reasons I beg to second the rejection of this Bill, and I trust the House will throw it out by a substantial majority.

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

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


said that, speaking on behalf of the Committee which passed the preamble of the Bill, be had to ask the House to support the decision to which it came after a very considerable amount of labour. The hon. Member who seconded the rejection of the Bill had referred to the resolution passed by the special Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Colne. But he did not quote the full terms, which set forth that the local authority must be prepared to give a full and adequate supply of electric energy for all purposes, and that, in the event of disputes arising, the question should be submitted to the Board of Trade. The course pursued by the opponents of this Bill in thus renewing their opposition at successive stages and after the Bill had been carefully considered upstairs was most unusual. The Committee, after full inquiry, came to the conclusion that the Dublin Corporation had practically done nothing to carry out the powers it possessed in relation to electrical energy, and therefore an alternative company should be formed and authorised to give the city and some of the out-townships a supply of electric light. A great deal had been said about the difficulties with which the corporation had had to contend, but there was nothing in the evidence to lead him to believe that, if they had been in earnest, the could not have overcome such difficulties. He did not believe that any English corporation would have acted in a like manner. If the Committee had thrown the Bill out they would have given the Corporation of Dublin a monopoly which was not enjoyed by many corporations in England. The policy of Parliament, too, was against the creation of monopolies. As to the question of the roads, he might point out that if the Dublin streets had to be broken up for the service of the private company the corporation could do the work at the cost of the company, so that no conflict of authority would arise. They need not, therefore, fear any difficulty in that respect. Then again, it had been suggested that after a given period of years the corporation would have to buy up the system of the competing company. But that was optional and not compulsory, and if the corporation was giving a good supply he saw no reason whatever why it. should have to buy out the company. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would confirm the decision of the Committee:


I think we have every cause to complain of the pertinacity with which this Bill has been assailed at every step and stage in its career. We had a division on the. Second Reading, and those who, like myself, knew the merits of the case were- not surprised to find that the Corporation. of Dublin, backed and aided by the Freeman's Journal, did their best to- burke all inquiry and to stifle all discussion with regard to the merits of the measure, and to prevent the Bill going before the Committee. On that occasion the House was satisfied that the Bill had. sufficient merits to entitle it to go upstairs, and by a majority of twenty votes it was so decided.. The Freeman's Journal and the corporation, however, watched the progress of the measure, and nothing could equal the disgust expressed by them when the Committee, after full consideration, found it was their duty to accept the Bill. It may interest the House to see the attitude taken up by this combination of the Freeman's Journal and the corporation. The hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire voted against sending the Bill upstairs, and it would seem to me that as he was to sit on an impartial Committee it would have been better if he had not voted on any issue in the House. In any event, he then voted against the corporation, and the Freeman's Journal attacked him, as follows— Mr. Trevelyan is supposed to be a Radical, but in this instance he appears to have developed a hostility worthy of Sir Henry Fowler to the Liberal principle of the municipalisation of monopolies. It is not a good beginning to a Liberal career. That is the way the Freeman's Journal criticises the free action of Members of this House. It is part and parcel of the system of tyranny which is never lost sight of when that organ wishes to destroy anything in which the Unionists are interested, and in which the real well being of the community is concerned. I protest against criticism like that being levelled against a member of a Committee- who was simply doing his duty. Then hon. Members were obliged to come over from Ireland Co take part in a division on the Report stage. Again the House affirmed the principle and confirmed the decision of its Committee, and the Report stage was carried by a majority of thirteen. The Freeman's Journal then said they would change the scene of operations to the other House; but they have altered their mind, and although no circumstance has changed, we are now asked to reverse the decision of the House on the Second Reading, the decision of the Committee up- stairs, and the decision of the House on the Report stage, and we are asked to do this without even any suggestion of any change of circumstances since the -Bill was last considered. Interested as Members from Ireland are in having the procedure with regard to Irish Bills facilitated and cheapened, we have a right to complain of the way in which this Bill has been attacked and obstructed at every step. I should like to answer one question put by the hon. Member opposite. He asked what would be the effect of this Bill passing. The effect would be to relieve the people of Dublin from a most grinding monopoly. How has this power in the hands of the corporation been exercised? The Central Hotel in Dublin put up a gas engine because they could not get the power for electricity from the corporation. They had permission from the corporation to make a subway under the street to other parts of their premises. The instant the corporation found that these people were going to run a wire along the subway to supply power generated by this gas engine, the permission for the subway was withdrawn. Irish Members will recognise the name of Todd and Burns, a leading drapery firm in Dublin. They are obliged to supply their electric light with their own engine because it is impossible to get it from the corporation. But when they wished to connect their premises on the other side of the street the corporation immediately threatened to take proceedings against them before the magistrates. In every way the corporation have exercised their powers in the most tyrannical manner, and the desire is to get the traders of Dublin under their thumb in order to dictate the terms upon which they shall have their electric light. It is because of those things the promoters of this Bill have found it necessary to come before the House to ask that the decision of its own Committee should be affirmed, and the Bill passed into law. It really is very amusing to see the course the corporation have adopted. Last year, when the corporation were interested in another Bill, a number of Members of this House were taken across the Channel to see the beauties of Ireland, and they were told that the only view in Ireland as to that particular Bill was in its favour. This year again, with the same purpose—there is no secret about it—the Association of Municipal Corporations were invited; they were entertained in a similar way by the Lord Mayor, and it was endeavoured to pledge them to support this Bill. There is an amusing scene reported in the Irish Times of the Lord Mayor and the hon. Member for South Islington sitting after the dinner at the Mansion House. The Lord Mayor says, "The light is very good to-night," and the hon. Member for South Islington, being obliged to praise the light the same as he would have to praise his host's wine if asked a similar question, said it was remarkably good; whereupon the Lord Mayor said there was no necessity for any Bill whatsoever. I think this red-herring business of trying to capture the Association of Municipal Corporations will, under the circumstances, fail. The association seems to have added a new maxim to the constitution—that corporations can do no wrong; but in the present case the Dublin Corporation have had this power since 1891, but have done nothing except spend £90,000, and the people of Dublin are still left without the means of having their houses lighted with electricity, which is one of the commonest facilities in every English town. Under these circumstances I cordially support the Third Reading of the Bill.

MR. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

I do not think the hon. Member opposite has paid a very high compliment to the House of Commons in the speech he has made. The whole of that speech was formed around a few expressions which, in his judgment, would excite and animate the hostility of this House against the Corporation of the City of Dublin. Time after time reference was made to the Unionists of Dublin. But this is a question which has nothing whatever to do with matters of politics. If you set up a scheme in competition to the cor- poration, not only will you injure the Nationalist, but also the Unionist ratepayers of the city. I am surprised, too, at the attitude taken up by the hon. Member who presided over the Committee. It was his duty to defend the decision of his Committee when the Bill came to be reported to the House, but the moment he had done that I conceive his duty as chairman ceased; and to make such a speech as his on the Third Reading is to take a distinctly partisan attitude. But I do not think he has impressed hon. Members with his knowledge of how municipalities should be treated, or convinced the House that the Committee over which he presided gave a Bill of this importance that fair consideration to which it was entitled. What is the position of the citizens of Dublin? For the past eight or nine years there has been a partial scheme of electric lighting carried on by the corporation. It was an experiment; it was only a partial scheme. The only feeling of dissatisfaction in the city was that the scheme was not a complete and thorough one extending to the whole of the city. But the corporation was not in a position to extend the scheme to the whole of the city, their moans wore limited; their borrowing powers were restricted; they had to wait to see whether the system they tried was a success, and they had also to wait until they could get additional borrowing powers. Last year those additional borrowing powers were obtained, and the corporation are now able to go on with the work. The very moment they got those powers they applied to the Local Government Board for money to carry out an extensive scheme of electric lighting. Practically the syndicate promoting this Bill appeared before the inquiry hold by the Local Government Board, and gave evidence against the scheme; but, notwithstanding that, the Local Government Board approved of the loan to the corporation. The citizens of Dublin would not object to two rival companies competing with one another in supplying the electric light, but it is a wholly different thing when the citizens have to pay out of their own pocket for any loss occasioned to them by competition with the company. The position with which they are now presented is that they will probably have to invest the money of the rate- payers to buy out the syndicates. There is no provision in the Bill to prevent this. If the corporation goes on with its undertaking simultaneously with the company it will not be a success, and the company have only to give as much trouble as will compel the corporation to buy them out. Would any other city in the Empire be treated in the same way? The hon. Member for North Antrim knows that no other city would be treated in that way by this House. I do not wish to dwell very long upon this question, but I think the hon. Member will admit that there are very few corporations in the United Kingdom that have done as much during the last twenty years to develop their city as the Dublin Corporation.


I admit there are very few like it.


At all events, what I contend is that you have no right to set up in the city of Dublin what you would not set up anywhere else. The Corporation of Dublin had to come to this House to extend the municipality to the various townships around the city. They endeavoured to establish gas works, but they were absolutely refused the powers, and the only way in which they could enter into competition with the gas company was by means of the electric light. Now it is proposed by this Bill to put the corporation in competition with a new electric lighting company, but it is only a competition against the ratepayers themselves, and on one side or the other they will have to pay. If the company go on with their scheme the ratepayers will have to buy them out eventually, and if the corporation proceed with their own scheme in competition with the company it may not be remunerative. I hope the House will not treat the citizens of Dublin as they have not treated the citizens of any other city in the Empire.


I am a citizen of Dublin, and a considerable ratepayer, and in that capacity I desire to say a few words to the House upon this Bill. I cannot conceive how it is possible for the hon. Member for North Antrim to introduce politics into this question. How does the Freeman's Journal come into a case of this kind? How does he manage to shoot in the question of the Lord Mayor's salary? How do all those things come into a Bill which ought to be discussed calmly and on its merits? I beg of the House not to be turned aside from doing what I think fair justice to the citizens of Dublin by any political red herring which might be drawn across their track. I speak solely as a citizen of Dublin. I have been asked over and over again how it came about that the Corporation of Dublin, with the powers they have had under the provisions of the Act of Parliament, have neglected their duty in regard to electric lighting, and how it came about that they had failed to give a proper supply. I think anyone who knows the city of Dublin can give a reason for that which will satisfy the House of Commons. It has been said that the borrowing powers of the corporation were exhausted, and therefore they had not the capital. There is more in that statement than the House sees at first sight, for the Dublin Corporation with its limited borrowing powers had to choose between a great scheme of main drainage, affecting the health of the citizens; between spending money on artisans' dwellings or clearing insanitary areas, and the giving of the electric light to a certain number of people. The Dublin Corporation may be all that the Member for North Antrim has stated, but I think the Dublin Corporation has exercised a wise discretion in deciding to purify the main drainage of the city, and build homes for the poor, rather than supply electric light. It is not for the reason which has been put forward that they had failed, but because the corporation had to choose between things which they deemed to be more pressing and more urgent than even the supplying of electric light. How does the question stand now? The Dublin Corporation went to the Local Government Board and asked for an increase of their borrowing powers, and that is quite a common thing for English corporations to do. The Dublin Corporation were charged with a great sum of money borrowed for the waterworks some forty years ago, but they have now been relieved from that charge. They have just got a loan of £275,000 sanctioned by the Local Government Board. Hitherto the corporation have been unable to proceed for lack of funds which have been spent in another way. They have now managed to get released from charges which they could not avoid; they have the money and they have got the scheme sanctioned; and now this company proposes to come in to do the same work and enter into competition with them. Dublin is a poor city and it requires all the relief of the rates which can be given to it. It already makes a handsome revenue out of water, and I think it can also make a revenue and relieve the rates out of the electric light. That is, I think, a fair ground for the corporation to object to this Bill. In view of these facts, and altogether apart from politics—for politics ought never to have been introduced—I think a fair case has been made for the Dublin Corporation. Dublin is not an ideal corporation, and is capable of improvement but I will say—and I speak with a knowledge of many local authorities in England—that I know of no corporation in England or Scotland which is contending against greater difficulties than the Dublin Corporation. It is a very poor city, and therefore anything which will relieve the rates is a very grave consideration for the city. Besides I wholly object two or three years hence, if these gentlemen get their way, to spend the rates of the city in buying them out, for that is really what it amounts to. I beg of the House to mete out to the Dublin Corporation the same treatment it would mete out to any English borough, and if hon. Members will only do that I am not afraid of the issue.

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

said the case against the Corporation of Dublin was very much more doubtful than people would be led to suppose by just listening to the debate. In proposals of this kind he felt that it was absolutely impossible for them to get at the truth, and he did not think they were assisted even by the fact that they had had a speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee. It was said by the Member for the Harbour Division that the functions of the Chairman should be confined to what the House had relegated to the Committee, which was the question purely of the commercial and other merits of a particular proposal. But in the House they had to deal with general principles, and it had been a puzzle to him more than once to know what broad line they could lay down for their guidance in these matters. They had a debate in the House not long ago when there was a question of electric powers before the House, and they then got some light on the subject. He was not opposed to giving powers to private firms and individuals, because the supplying of electricity upon a large scale for commercial purposes was not like supplying gas or water; that was a matter which concerned the individual, but electric lighting fell in another category. The House had already laid it down as a principle that where a corporation was able to fulfil the duty of supplying the electric light—and this corporation claimed to fulfil that duty—any private company should be prevented from interfering. That principle gave a broad line of guidance to the House, and unless they adhered to it they would fall into chaos. He was very glad that the hon. Member opposite had made those remarks, because it gave them some idea as to what the views of the Government were.


I said that I was not speaking for the Government, but I spoke only in the capacity of a citizen of Dublin.


hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would give them the benefit of his great experience in dealing with private Bills, and if he did so he thought the right hon. Gentleman would tell them that it was bettor to adhere to the general principle laid down. Upon the broad principle that this Bill had nothing to do with municipal trading he was going to vote against this Bill, for it was contrary to the practice of the House, and he felt that they would be getting themselves into difficulties on future occasions, if they did not stick to the rule which had been laid down. If the House were dealing with an application from Edinburgh or from Birmingham, and the views of those places had been made so clear as they had been in the case of Dublin, he had no doubt on which side Members would cast their votes.


The hon. Gentleman opposite has applied to me in regard to the general principle according to which the Board of Trade act in such cases as this. I have no hesitation in saying that the general principle upon which we act is that where a corporation and a company applied for a Provisional Order we should certainly give the Order to the municipality and not to the company. That is the general principle, about which there is no dispute. But that is not quite on all fours with an application for a new supply, as in this case. I presume hon. Members opposite who oppose the measure will be prepared to admit that this would be carrying the principle a great deal too far. It is said that the Corporation of Dublin have grossly neglected the obligations cast upon them by the Act, and that is alleged as ground of opposition to the measure before the House. Under the circumstances the company were bound to proceed by means of a Bill instead of a Provisional Order. The argument in favour of the Bill is that the corporation have had electric lighting powers for eight years, and have neglected to fulfil their duty. My hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board says there is a good excuse for the corporation not having fulfilled its duty, and the reason he states is that the corporation wanted the money for some other purposes. But they deliberately refrained from raising the money which was required to carry out what was their duty under the powers they had obtained. I confess that if it could be shown that the corporation could not during all those eight years have raised sufficient money to perform their duty both as a sanitary authority and as promoters of the electric light—if that could be shown, then there would be some grounds for the argument put forward by my hon. friend. But I cannot myself believe that the position of the Corporation of Dublin with regard to their powers was so feeble as to render it impossible for them to obtain the money required for the purpose of carrying out their powers under the Electric Lighting Act as well as to perform their ordinary duties as a municipal corporation. My hon. friend has spoken about drainage works, the erection of artisans' dwellings, and the clearing of insanitary areas carried out by the Corporation of Dublin. But such work has had to be performed by every sanitary authority in the kingdom, and if they did not do it they wore neglecting their primary duty. The people of Dublin have complained of the way the corporation have managed electric lighting. [Cries of "No, no!"] Is it to be supposed that the people of Dublin are so stupid and wanting in common sense and knowledge of their own convenience as not to complain about not getting that supply of electric lighting which the corporation had undertaken, when the corporation were only supplying some 215 persons? Is it contended that that is a condition of things under which the Citizens of Dublin had no right to complain? In discussing these matters we ought to consider them more from the point of view of the consumer. It is rather curious to remember what took place two years ago in regard to the Marylebone electric lighting scheme. There a company was already in existence, and the vestry applied for a Provisional Order to supply Marylebone with electricity. And what did the company say? The company said it was unfair to inflict upon them competition from a local authority, although they did not mind competition from another company. Now, in the case of Dublin, the boot is on the other leg. In Dublin the ratepayers say they cannot stand the competition of a private company. Although I do not speak upon this question as a member of the Government, yet, for my own part, I am prepared to support the Third Reading of this measure.


Perhaps I may be allowed to correct a misapprehension. The Corporation of Dublin had not the power to borrow, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Twice they promoted a Bill for power to allow them to borrow the amount of money which they had expended on their water supply, but their Bill was thrown out in the House of Commons, and it was only the year before last that they carried their measure.

*MR. RUTHERFORD (Lancashire, Darwen)

Being a member of the Committee who sat on this Bill, I hope the House will bear with me for a very few minutes while I say a word or two on the merits of the Bill. The position is that the corporation of Dublin have already spent £90,000 upon electric lighting, and one of their own witnesses, Major Cardew, said that they ought to have made a profit with a full load. But the result was, instead of making a profit, they had made a loss of £2,800, which has to be provided by the ratepayers of Dublin for what?—to give an inefficient supply of electricity to 250 consumers. The Secretary to the Local Government Board has stated that this undertaking will be a profitable one, but if the Dublin Corporation cannot manage successfully electric lighting works with a capital of £90,000 how can we expect them to manage successfully an undertaking with a capital of £340,000? Besides it would not be right or fair to overcharge the consumer of electricity in, order that the rates might be relieved. Why should Parliament give this monopoly to the corporation when the supply is both bad and dear? Without going further into this question, I hope the House will decide the matter upon its merits. One word in regard to the Municipal Corporations Association. When the Bill was before the House last Tuesday that association sent a circular round which may have influenced a considerable number of hon. Members, but, so far as my research of the records goes, this association has never discussed the evidence given before the Committee at all. I might call the attention of the House to a previous circular issued by this association in regard to electricity Bills, including this very Bill. I submit that is exactly what has taken place in Dublin. Well, I can only say that, after hearing the evidence, that is the decision the Committee arrived at; and even the member of the Committee who differed from us, admitted that the Dublin Corporation had not done what they might or ought to have done. I hope in the interests of the consumer and the development of electricity, the House will confirm the decision of the Committee and pass the Third Reading of this Bill. I have made a research into the records of this association, and I find that it is only a very short time since this question of electricity has come before them at all. But the association had issued a circular previously in regard to Bills before the House, including this very Bill. And what did they then say?— It is submitted that in order to justify the granting of electrical powers to a private company in any town already supplied by the local authority, it ought to be clearly shown that they have failed in their duty, or are not doing their best to develop the undertaking, or are negligent of or indifferent to the wants of the town. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] As one of the members of the Committee, I submit that that was the decision we arrived at; and even the member who differed from us admits that the Dublin Corporation had not done what they could. I do hope, in the interests of the consumer and the development of electricity, the House will pass the Third Reading of this Bill.

*MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

It seems to me that the course of this debate and the narrowness of the former divisions furnish justification for those who feel strongly, as many of us do, that to pass this Bill would be a calamity to the city of Dublin, and a very great infringement of the rights of the corporation of Dublin to ask once more the judgment of the House upon it. It is well that we should find what the governing principle is which should animate us in considering this Bill. I affirm it to be the settled view of the House that with reference to those public utilities, powers to exercise and take charge of which have been granted by the general law to municipalities, these ought not to be interfered with. I do not say that there is a rule without exception; but the corporation ought to have the first chance at any rate, and a fair chance to discharge their duty. The President of the Board of Trade has pointed out that that is the rule of the Board of Trade with reference to competing applications. In all the Acts which have been passed lately there has been no case in which competition was allowed when the municipality came first, and that is a perfectly right principle to go upon. Those who talk of monopoly being an evil in the case of the Dublin Corporation suggest the very opposite to what I believe has been accepted as a very sound principle. A corporation monopoly is not an evil monopoly, of which an invidious use may be made. It differs from a private monopoly, which is a monopoly for private gain from the discharge of public duties. A monopoly with reference to public utilities granted to a corporation with a popular organisation, such as now exists in Dublin, where there is the popular control of a great city with a quarter of a million of inhabitants and 40,000 voters, is a monopoly of all for the benefit of all. It is not the monopoly of a few for their own private benefit at the expense of all. Where can you have the power of a more vigilant and effective control of the management than when the managers are elected by the ratepayers who gain or suffer? Where you have everything done in public, with the people on the spot watching over the affair, the position is very different from the control exercised by a board of directors of a private company. What is asked here? It is that the corporation should retain full municipal rights in respect to all that class of matters which involve interference with the arteries of the traffic of the city. It is of the greatest consequence that full consideration should be given to the question whether a scheme involves any interference with the streets, as, for example, drains, trams in more modern times, water, gas, and electricity. All these things involve more or less interference with the streets, and that interference would be doubled or trebled if power were given to private individuals or companies to deal with the streets. Moreover, it would render more difficult and remote that to which I look forward—namely, the creation of a great system of subways or conduits under the main streets for the enclosure of all the pipes, wires, cables, and so forth, the machinery of these public utilities, so as to prevent the constant breaking up of the streets. So there is a special reason why the corporation should have not merely the first chance, but the sole power over the streets, and why no additional power of interference with the streets should be given to a private company; otherwise we shall have the corporation breaking up one side of the street and the private company the other—to the inconvenience of the public and the constant interruption of the traffic. Again, if a private company obtains such powers it only means that inevitably at some future time the corporation will, in order to regain full control of their own streets, and their own functions, have to buy out the company at a greatly added expense. Therefore, I maintain that unless a case is made out for altogether exceptional treatment, the Corporation of the City of Dublin have a right to the opportunity of putting into force their full powers for the electric lighting of that city, unhampered by the powers proposed to be given by this Bill. Is there then any reason why you should not give to Dublin that which you give to many other smaller and less important towns? Dublin is the capital of Ireland; its corporation is very ancient; there are a quarter of a million inhabitants within its restricted limits, and 75,000 sleeping outside these limits; and the opinion of this House has been twice most emphatically expressed that these 75,000 ought to he enclosed within enlarged limits and merged in the electorate of the Corporation of that City of Dublin, which is now said to be incapable of managing its own electric lighting concerns. There is no case here for exceptional treatment An appeal was made by the hon. Member for North Antrim—which, I think, must have been heard with regret—to English and Scottish Unionists not to support the Corporation of the City of Dublin, but to vote for the Bill. I thought, if there was one thing more than another to which the Unionists, of whom the hon. Member claims to be one, had pledged themselves on hundreds of platforms here and in Scotland, it was that, although they would not grant political self-government to Ireland, they would give Ireland the fullest, freest municipal government—equal treatment, similar treatment, simultaneous treatment to that conceded to England. That was the pledge of the Unionists, and now these gentlemen call out for inequality of treatment, for a different treatment. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] The House will judge by what has been said, and will decide between the statements of the hon. Member below mo, who was a member of the Corporation Committee, and those of the hon. Member for North Antrim. I say, then, that to act in the way proposed by this Bill would be contrary to the general practice, contrary to recent legislation, and to the manner of dealing with much smaller and less important municipalities. It would be an action, I think, unworthy of men who I am sure are honest Unionists, and who should be the last to do it in the special circumstances of this case. It is said, however, that the Corporation of the City of Dublin has shown its incapacity, and that it has been so incapable in the past that it ought to be pronounced impotent for all time to handle such a business as an electric lighting concern. We ought not, I submit, to be very assiduous to enter into the question of whether the corporation have acted well or wisely under their powers. It may be very difficult adequately to deal with that question. We must always remember that if Dublin has erred, it is Dublin that has suffered; if Dublin errs now it is Dublin that will suffer. I look for a future when electric power will be very generally employed, and the electric light put into many houses, and I believe it would be better to give cheap electric light and. power, and spread their use than to keep up high prices and limit their use. We ought to do all we can to promote the adoption of the electric light. In Canada and America it is commonly employed in every town of any importance, but here its adoption has been slow and haphazard. The conduct of the whole business of the practical utilisation of electrical energy, especially in the development of electric lighting, is no great credit to the English nation, but rather one to be ashamed of. But I repeat that if Dublin goes wrong on that point of view it is Dublin which will suffer, and if Dublin Corporation keeps going wrong the citizens are well competent to make their representatives, who are yearly elected, do their duty. Dublin, at any rate, did not err by waiting a long time. It was one of the earliest corporations to take up electric lighting while yet in its infancy in this country It established a small plant at the cost of £30,000—these are facts which I gathered as well as I could from the reports of the proceedings before the Committee. I do not understand it to be denied that the best system and the best materials which were then available were used and the system for some time was satisfactory in its working though the extent was small. It was increased from time to time, but not to the extent which it might have been increased, owing to the limitation of the corporation's borrowing powers. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Local Government Board has pointed out that other things were being done by the Corporation at the same time. But they had been engaged in creating the Vartry water works at a much earlier date, and the money which might have been used for this purpose was so absorbed. £700,000 was deducted from their borrowing powers, which £700,000, in the end, it was acknowledged by this House, ought not to have been deducted, so that difficulty was, but only last year, removed. In that state of the case the corporation, not being able to spend more, spent gradually up to the sum of £90,000, which was the limit to which they could go. Then as to the quality of the light. In the first instance there was no complaint as to the quality of the light, but after some years it turned out that the cables that had been used, which had been purchased from a firm of the highest reputation, and which were supposed to be the best that could be obtained, from some cause failed; there was something wrong with the rubber casing or something of that kind, and they failed more or less, and the light became unsatisfactory. The same thing happened with several boroughs here. A couple of years ago plans were adopted to make this good, and somewhat to extend the system and bring it up to date; that was done, but there has been some misapprehension as to the cost. It was said that some £30,000 that had been spent had been lost by means of these defective wires and cables, but that is not the fact. I find the cables cost between £4,000 and £5,000, and that £26,000 or £30,000 was taken and mainly used for the purpose of utilising the most scientific knowledge and most scientific machinery in order to bring the extension up to date in accordance with modern ideas. No blame can be put on the corporation for those defective wires. Of course, while the decay was going on and now work and reorganisation was in progress the disorganisation grew greater, and then it was that that item grew up to which the hon. Gentleman referred as a charge upon the rates of £2,800 a year—in reality, of £2,800 for one single year, 1899, at a time when the corporation was re-modelling the whole of the work, and the whole affair was in an impossible condition. But since the works have been re-modelled, confidence has been restored, and a considerable number of new subscribers have come in. As to the quantity of the supply it is totally inadequate. Nobody has said that it is sufficient to light the whole city, and the sufficient reason given for its being insufficient is that the corporation had not the funds to make it so, and that the want of lighting power is due to the want of borrowing power. It is also said that the price is too high, and that may be so, because where you have a small supply, you always do have a higher price than you would with a large supply, because the fixed charges do not rise pro- portionately with the increased demand. Therefore, you can supply a large number at a lower price per unit than you can a small number. And that is what Dublin wants to do, and is prepared to do, and that is what it is proposed by the promoters of this Bill to do. The hon. Member spoke of a charge upon the rates of £2,800; with regard to this I will give the House a few figures which I have drawn from the reports of the proceedings before the Committee. Since 1892 the Corporation has paid out of the profits, first of all the working expenses, then £1,000 which they have put aside for depreciation account, then over £10,000 for the interest on the construction loans, and over £10,000 more towards the sinking fund for redeeming the capital of the loans. So that over £20,000 has actually been paid out of the receipts in respect of matters which, in the case of a company with a share capital, would not have been chargeable, and thus a substantial dividend would have been realised. That is what the corporation has done apart from the rates. The rates paid during the whole eight years are less than £ 6,000, the whole of which, save £200, has gone in further payments to the sinking fund for the redemption of the loan. So that what the Dublin ratepayers have done is not to pay for the keeping of the works going even in the last year of disorganisation, but to pay £6,000 towards the redemption of the capital of the loans raised by the corporation for the purpose of creating the works, and Dublin is so much the better oft' for every penny spent in that way. I have touched upon these questions, but really what we have to deal with is a later and altogether a different situation, the situation which obtained and existed at the time this Bill was applied for. What was it? It was acknowledged that the situation as before was a temporary one and could not last. It was not contended that the corporation could continue with only 250 consumers and eighty lights. It did not think so itself. It had twice made efforts to obtain relief from the limitation of its borrowing powers, and it made a third effort in the year 1899, and the real question is how things moved in that year. In the anticipation of this relief, on the 29th of March, 1899, the corporation called in a consulting engineer who has since been made consulting engineer to the works, to prepare a scheme, and from that time onward negotiations went on, and a scheme was being elaborated. In the meantime the Bill for their relief was going through Parliament. On the 9th of August the Bill received the Royal Assent, containing a clause striking out the charge in respect to the borrowing powers of £700,000 by a charge on the waterworks. They were therefore free to act on their scheme upon a large scale in the month of September, and on 22nd September the agreement with the engineer was reported to Council. It was not until the month of November that notice was given of this Bill, so that the corporation, when they saw the prospect of obtaining these borrowing powers, had, even before the Bill passed, in the hope that it would pass, moved in this matter. Notice of this Bill, as I said, was given in November. What happened? The expenditure being about a quarter of a million, application was made to the Local Government Board to sanction the loan. There was the usual public inquiry and the loan was opposed; but it was sanctioned; and tenders were invited with the most satisfactory results. The proposed charge per unit on the average between public and private lighting is about 3½d., comparing favourably with the company's valuation. It is plain, therefore, that the moment the corporation had the funds—and even in anticipation of getting the funds—they took such steps as they could. They proceeded with due diligence, and they had their scheme in order long before this Bill came to Parliament. With regard to coal the generating station is at a convenient point, and the price of coal there will be as cheap as anywhere in Dublin, and there is no reason why the corporation's plan should not result in their producing electric light as cheaply and as satisfactorily as it would be produced by any public company. The people of Dublin want their own electricity. Their council ask for it, and their members speak for it in this House. Then why should their aspirations be set aside, and a company set up to do that which is pre-eminently the work of the corporation. Is it because Dublin was so much earlier in this matter than other cities here that she is to be treated as a defaulter now? The question of default has to be treated as at the time of the default; I show here that the question of default does not now arise. Here Dublin has got the money, and she is ready to go on; the problem was attacked, and the determination arrived at before there was any notice of this Bill. Is it to be said that that determination is to receive exceptional treatment? Is that the Unionist notion in England or Scotland? Is it because Dublin has too much of this work to do? The Dublin Corporation has only got the water, which it does well. It has not got the gas, and it has not got the trams. It has only got the water and, as it hopes, the electric light, which it is now in a position to undertake—that is all. I suggest it would be a fitting thing for this House to leave the corporation and the people of Dublin to deal with their own electric light, to let the Dublin people manage their own affairs according to their own desire. It is they who will gain by success, and it is they who will lose by failure. Let them take the risk, if they wish to take it, with a free hand and full responsibility. I believe you would do so if Dublin were in England or Scotland, and I hope you will do so even though Dublin be in Ireland.


The Local Government Board of Ireland, after an inquiry in which all interests were heard, lately granted powers to the Corporation of Dublin to borrow over a quarter of a million of money. That was done for the purpose of enabling the corporation to go on with their scheme. If we go against the decision of the Local Government Board in Ireland, we will admit of proceedings which are very adverse, if not entirely ruinous, to the Dublin Corporation. I admit that the corporation have been in default. They might have borrowed this money before, but whatever the fault previously to the powers for this loan being obtained, they had to prepare their plans and say how much money they would require when application was made for borrowing powers. That scheme was initiated before this Bill came before Parliament. The powers were granted to the Corporation of Dublin to enable them to go on. I am bound to say if the Corporation of the City of London were in the same position, and if they had received the sanction of Parliament to borrow enough money to go on with the scheme, I do not think this House would allow the City of London to be hampered in carrying out their views. I do not see, for my part, why the City of Dublin, which may have been dilatory in the past, should not have a fresh start. There has been no default since this loan was granted, and I see no reason to dispossess the corporation of their prior right to light their own city.

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

It is stated that you are doing by this Bill what you would not do for any city in England or Scotland, but I repudiate that suggestion. I say that in my judgment the gravest injustice would be done to the ratepayers of Dublin generally unless this Bill is passed. Fancy an English city appealing to mo as an Irishman under these conditions: "For ten years I have covered the ground, and by the Statute of 1882 I have been able to shut out all competition. I have expended in these ten years £100,000 of the ratepayers' money. How many of the ratepayers have I served of the quarter of a million people in my area? I have served exactly 250." What right would any English municipality have to come to me and say, "Now will you, as an Irish Member exercising your vote in this House, see that no competition with an authority of that kind is to be tolerated until the end of time?" That is the sole position, and I say for myself that if any English corporation from Manchester to Leeds, and from Leeds to Bradford, having had the expending of £100,000 of the citizens' money, and was only able to supply 250 people in the interval, made such a request I would freely vote to allow some competition to be introduced. My hon. friend the Member for North Longford has said, and said truly, that electric lighting is in a disgraceful position in the three kingdoms. Why? Because of this Act of 1882; because, instead of allowing competition and the free play of enterprise and capital, you said, "We will give it over solely and wholly into the hands of municipalities." That was the policy Parliament laid down in 1882. You had to correct it in 1888, and yon had to make a further correction in 1890. We have to take up this position—should there be free trade in a matter of this kind, or should there not be free trade? That is the whole question. I want to know what satisfaction it is to mo to pay sevenpence to the corporation. If they were John Smith, I would kick against it. What satisfaction is it to me that it is the ratepayers' money that is being spent? I want the electric light for twopence-halfpenny—I do not care whether it is from the corporation or anybody else. Then it is said, "Oh, if you grant this Bill you will have to provide £300,000 or £400,000 at some other time to buy out this company." The only places where sums of money have been given to electric lighting companies to buy them out were places whore the corporations had no rights at all. The companies started, and the corporations bought them out after they had been put on a good footing, and it was well worth their while to do so. What is the case here? They have got their own rights and their own powers. We are told that they have got the means of carrying it out. Why do they not carry it out, and why should not the citizens get the benefit on the one hand of the action of the corporation, and on the other hand of the action of the promoter's of this Bill? I want to know the necessity for buying anybody out. Give them a fair field and no favour. If it is in the interest of the corporation to buy them out let them do so. I do not see why a corporation, having spent £100,000, and prepared to spend £300,000, should be anxious to buy anybody out. The only other point I wish to allude to is this: we are told that the corporation have now got a new scheme, and that the old defects were owing to the fact that they started originally with no borrowing powers and with a small capital. I want to know, if I have any undertaking what business I have to get a monopoly if I have not the means of carrying that monopoly into effect efficiently. Why should the corporation begin such an undertaking upon a small capital? Would any merchant be listened to in such a case? Supposing I make nails or anything else, and I begin with a small capital, and I claim that you should not let anybody interfere with me. Would that be listened to for a moment? Why is what is regarded as absurd in the case of an individual to be sacred in the case of a corporation? Why did they begin with insufficient funds? Why did they throw away £100,000 of the ratepayers' money? If they threw away that sum, why should the corporation now be allowed to shut out anybody else who are prepared to do better what they have failed to do? Before the corporation's scheme can be carried into effect the permission of Pembroke township, through two miles of which the mains must run, must be got, and Pembroke township is fighting the corporation tooth and nail in the Committee of the House of Lords, and Pembroke will never give that permission.

MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)

There is a clear understanding that Pembroke will withdraw its opposition.


I should like to know upon what grounds that clear understanding was given. Pembroke has been asked again and again to withdraw its opposition, and the solicitor for the Pembroke township said he would do his best in the matter. I have discovered that the same gentleman is also the solicitor for the Dublin Gas Company. I want to know also why is it that the most effective lobbyist—and I never knew a Bill to be lobbied as this has been—has been using his influence against this Bill? The statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has been challenged by the Member for the Harbour Division as to the action of the corporation in regard to the Central Hotel. All I have to say about it is that I have received a communication from that company myself bearing out everything the hon. Gentleman opposite has said upon that subject. I do not think, however, that this question should be considered from that point of view at all. I think we have now arrived at much bigger issues. The question is whether this House will allow Free Trade to be established where there has been in the past a total failure on the part of municipalities to do their duty.

MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

I desire to say a word in support of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The promoters of the Bill are the Dublin Corporation. I have lived through the history of a kindred enterprise—I refer to the tramways of Liverpool. Exactly what occurred there is, I believe, what will occur in this case if this Bill is granted, and this company comes into the domain of the corporation. It will not be many years until, as in the case of the Liverpool tramways and the Birkenhead tramways, the corporation at considerable expenditure of the ratepayers' money have to buy out the private company then in possession. This company is not a company of philanthropists. They do not go there for the purpose of conferring some gift on the citizens of Dublin. I think they go there with the idea of making money for themselves when they have created a successful concern. It is merely on that ground that I wish to speak strongly in support of those hon. Members who are opposing the Bill. I cannot sit down without saying that, as a strong Unionist, whether this involves the question of Home Rule or not, we should look at this as one of the matters which principally, I would say almost entirely, concern the Corporation of Dublin. Can it be supposed for a moment that if Ireland had charge of her own local affairs Dublin would be treated differently from any city in England? For these reasons I intend to vote against this Bill and to give what support I can to the corporation.

Question put.

House divided:—Ayes, 168; Noes, 174. (Division List No. 166.)

Anstruther, H. T. Bigwood, James Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Blakiston-Houston, John Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bond, Edward Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Arrol, Sir William Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Atherley-Jones, L. Boulnois, Edmund Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)
Atkinson, Rt Hon. John Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex) Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.
Bainbridge, Emerson Brassey, Albert Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.
Balcarres, Lord Brown, Alexander H. Crilly, Daniel
Baldwin, Alfred Brymer, William Ernest Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)
Banbury, Frederick George Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgw) Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S.-(Hunts) Carvill, Patrick George H. Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Curzon, Viscount
Beach, Rt. Hn W. W. B (Hants.) Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Hudson, George Bickersteth Pollock, Harry Frederick
Dorington, Sir John Edward Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Pretyman, Ernest George
Drage, Geoffrey Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. Rankin, Sir James
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Johnston, William (Belfast) Remnant, James Farquharson
Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph D. Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Renshaw, Charles Bine
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mnc'r) Kearley, Hudson E. Richards, Henry Charles
Ffrench, Peter King, Sir Henry Seymour Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Lafone, Alfred Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.
Finch, George H. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H. Round, James
Fisher, William Hayes Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Leighton, Stanley Rutherford, John
Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.) Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R. Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.
Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis Lowe, Francis William Seton-Karr, Henry
Fry, Lewis Lowther, Rt. Hn J (Kent) Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew
Gedge, Sydney Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Macaleese, Daniel Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Gibney, James Macartney, W. G. Ellison Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Goldsworthy, Major-General Manners, Lord Edward W. J. Stewart, Sir Mk. J. M'Taggart
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Goulding, Edward Alfred More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Graham, Henry Robert Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr) Thorburn, Sir Walter
Gull, Sir Cameron Morris, Samuel Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Gunter, Colonel Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir W. H.
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Warde, Lieut. -Col. C. E. (Kent)
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George Murray, Charles J.(Coventry) Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E. (Tauntn
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)
Hanson, Sir Reginald Myers, William Henry Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford) Newdigate, Francis Alexander Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth) Nicholson, William Graham Wilson, John (Govan)
Henderson, Alexander Nicol, Donald Ninian Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath)
Hickman, Sir Alfred O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead Paulton, James Mellor Wylie, Alexander
Hornby, Sir William Henry Percy, Earl Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Howard, Joseph Pierpoint, Robert TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Howell, William Tudor Pilkington, R. (Lancs Newton) Mr. Arthur O'Connor and
Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C. Mr. William Moore.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Cawley, Frederick Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Channing, Francis Allston Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Aird, John Clancy, John Joseph Galloway, William Johnson
Allan, William (Gateshead) Clark, Dr. G. B. Goddard, Daniel Ford
Allison, Robert Andrew Crombie, John William Gold, Charles
Ambrose, Robert Daly, James Gourley, Sir E. Temperley
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dalziel, James Henry Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Gurdon, Sir William Brampton
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Dillon, John Haldane, Richard Burdon
Baird, John George Alexander Donelan, Captain A. Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-
Baker, Sir John Doogan, P. C. Heaton, John Henniker
Bethell, Commander Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hedderwick, T. Charles H.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Duckworth, James Helder, Augustus
Billson, Alfred Dunn, Sir William Hogan, James Francis
Blake, Edward Emmott, Alfred Holden, Sir Angus
Blundell, Colonel Henry Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton Holland, William Henry
Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur Evershed, Sydney Horniman, Frederick John
Broadhurst, Henry Fardell, Sir T. George Houston, R. P.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Farquharson, Dr. Robert Hughes, Colonel Edwin
Bryce, Right Hon. James Fenwick, Charles Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Field, William (Dublin) Jacoby, James Alfred
Bullard, Sir Harry FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea
Burns, John Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Keswick, William
Burt, Thomas Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth
Buxton, Sydney Charles Flannery, Sir Fortescue Laurie, Lieut.-General
Caldwell, James Flavin, Michael Joseph Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)
Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow) Fletcher, Sir Henry Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Flower, Ernest Leng, Sir John
Causton, Richard Knight Flynn, James Christopher Lewis, John Herbert
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans'a) O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur Spencer, Ernest
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine O'Kelly, James Spicer, Albert
Lowles, John O'Malley, William Steadman, William Charles
Macdona, John Cumming Parnell, John Howard Stephens, Henry Charles
MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n'sC.) Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington Stevenson, Francis S,
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Strachey, Edward
Maclean, James Mackenzie Perks, Robert William Tanner, Charles Kearns
Maclure, Sir John William Pickersgill, Edward Hare Tennant, Harold John
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Power, Patrick Joseph Thornton, Percy M.
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Price, Robert John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Dermott, Patrick Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
M'Ewan, William Reckitt, Harold James Wallace, Robert
M'Ghee, Richard Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wanklyn, James Leslie
M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim) Redmond, William (Clare) Warr, Augustus Frederick
M'Kenna, Reginald Rentoul, James Alexander Wason, Eugene
M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Wedderburn, Sir William
Malcolm, Ian Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F. Robson, William Snowdon Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)
Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants) Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)
Morgan, Hn. F.(Monmouthsh.) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Woods, Samuel
Murnaghan, George Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Wrightson, Thomas
Norton, Captain Cecil William Sharpe, William Edward T. Wyndham, George
Nussey, Thomas Willans Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Sheehy, David Yoxall, James Henry
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Smith, Samuel (Flint) Mr. Carew and Mr. Harrington
O'Dowd, John Souttar, Robinson

Question put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Third Reading put off for three months.