§ Order for consideration, as amended, read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
MR. CAREAW (Dublin, College Green)
I beg to move "That the Bill be considered upon this day six months." I move the rejection of this Bill on the ground that the corporation are the proper people to have this matter in their own hands, and that the local town commissioners intended the following year to promote a Bill to get the necessary power. The grounds upon which the Dublin Corporation oppose this Bill are even stronger than those which secured the rejection of the Bill promoted by the Dundalk Gas Company. It may be said that the electrical supply of the corporation has not been of a satisfactory character, but the reason for that is to be found in the fact that the amount of money which the corporation were enabled to spend at that time—namely, the sum of £89,000—in the erection of plant was found to be insufficient to supply their wants, and having exhausted their borrowing powers they were unable to go any further. In the last session of Parliament, the Dublin Corporation Markets Bill extended their borrowing powers to over £700,000. Immediately that was passed the corporation arranged a scheme of electric lighting, and an eminent electrical engineer had estimated that the city of Dublin could be lighted for an expenditure of £250,000. They then applied to the Local Government Board to sanction the raising of that sum, and they placed their scheme before them. A local in- 1071 quiry, which lasted several days, was held at which the promoters of this Bill opposed the corporation scheme, but the result was that the Local Government Board passed the scheme. On the second reading of this Bill, the question of competition was discussed fully and as a result, in a very small House, there was a small majority against the corporation in favour of this Bill. In the meantime, the corporation has succeeded in obtaining a scheme which has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board notwithstanding the opposition of the promoters of this Bill, and I think it would be a very unfair thing on the part of Parliament if they allowed another company to enter into competition with the local authority. In the case of the Dundalk Bill the House would not allow it to pass, and now we ask Parliament not to establish a precedent of this character against the wishes of the local authority. This Bill as it now stands authorises the promoters to construct works and break up the streets of Dublin, and supply electricity in competition with the city of Dublin. One eminent witness at the inquiry was asked if he had ever known a case whore a private company had ever been allowed to enter into competition with the local authority, and he answered "No, I have not." I think that the House of Commons should be very slow to allow such a weak case to override the wishes of the Corporation of Dublin by passing a Bill of this kind. I merely ask the House of Commons to think twice before adopting this measure.
*MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)
I beg to second the rejection of this Bill, and do so on more than local grounds. I object on well-established principles, as I maintain that the corporation should be its own contractor for public utilities, eliminating middlemen. I would ask the House to look further abroad than Dublin in this matter, and to examine what is the general usage in this particular question. I would appeal particularly to London Members to consider carefully the object lesson which this Bill furnishes. Surely the time has gone by when this House will permit monopolies, or, rather, competitions against local authorities who ought to supply these public utilities. About the year 1882 Parliament 1072 partially stopped private monopolies in these things, but did not sufficiently encourage local authorities. We are now concerned with the Act of 1888, under which almost every existing undertaking of this character has been established. The House should remember by that Act company and municipal undertakings were placed under the same conditions as commercial concerns. The companies were allowed rights for forty-two years, and at the end of that time if they were required to do so, they must sell their undertaking and their plant at the price of old metal. With regard to the capital, the local authority had to pay it back within thirty years, and both plant and capital were almost in the same ratio whether owned by a private company or a corporation. The Board of Trade has always given local authorities the preference in granting Provisional Orders, and it has manifestly been the intention of Parliament that public bodies should take charge of public utilities. But public bodies move very slowly, and legislation, both local and Imperial, is generally behind the requirements of public opinion, and legislators have to be stirred up occasionally by the pressure of public opinion. It so happens that shrewd capitalists, foreseeing the requirements of the community, have started by getting Provisional Orders, and here in England they got possession of large areas, notably in such places as Liverpool, Leeds, and Sheffield. In some of these districts by the pressure of the ratepayers and public opinion local authorities have been obliged to take over these undertakings and paid very dearly for them. I have here a long list of figures, but I will refer to only four. In Birmingham, that model city, the amount expended in the installation of the electric light by a private company was £219,000, but the municipality of Birmingham not long ago purchased that undertaking, and they paid for it £420,000. In Liverpool the amount expended by a private electric lighting company was £264,711, and the municipality were obliged to pay for that concern no less than £436,474. In Leeds the amount expended was £ 217,420, and the municipality were obliged to pay £ 370,580. In Sheffield the ratio was almost the same, and similar results occurred in other places. I want to know if this House intends to inflict a similar financial loss upon the ratepayers 1073 of Dublin. This is a most important matter, and many people will agree with me that, in the interests of the community, the electric supply should be in the hands of the local authority, and not be allowed to pass into the private ownership which is set up by this Bill. In debating a subject of this kind we are bound to look at it from various points of view. What is the position of electricity at the present time? The number of private companies supplying electricity with works in operation are fifty-nine, as against 109 by municipalities. In regard to works in course of construction, municipalities possess sixty-seven and companies twenty. In regard to Provisional Orders, municipalities hold 105 and companies only nine. Are we now going to add to that small number of nine instead of adding one to the 105 held by municipalities? Let me compare briefly the charges for current of these systems. I was reading the other day the report of the British Association, and I find that a gentleman read a paper on this subject, and he compared twenty-one municipal undertakings with the undertakings of twenty-one private companies. He found that the cost of production in the case of municipalities was l. 87d. per unit, whilst in the case of companies the cost was 2.71d. The average charge per unit made by these twenty-one municipalities was 4½d., whilst the average charge of the companies was 5½d., or a penny more than the municipalities. This is not my own statement, for these figures were given at a meeting of the British Association, and may be tested by anyone. I have been looking up the question of indiscriminate municipal trading, to which many hon. Members of this House are properly opposed. A gentleman named M. Emile Garcke, who is a great opponent of municipal trading, has carefully gone into the whole question of companies and municipal supplies. He has made a report, and he states that the average cost per unit of production in the case of companies is 5.51d., while that of municipalities is 4.35d. Therefore, it will be seen that these affairs are not so economically managed by private companies as by local authorities. The same authority also states that the profits made by companies was 5.51 per cent., whilst that of municipalities was 5.5 per cent., so that the municipalities produce cheaper and 1074 also make more profit. I have another reason why, as the representative of the City of Dublin, I am for opposing a Bill of this kind, because it proposes to divert and take away a source of future revenue, and place it into the pockets of private shareholders. This is one of the strongest arguments against this Bill. Regarding English cities, in Leeds they have reduced the price of the electric supply ½d. per unit, and they have made a profit last year of £17,258. In Liverpool they have reduced the price from 6.86d. per unit to 4.69d., and in Sheffield they have taken l½d. off the price charged originally, and still they all work at a profit. It is the same all over the kingdom. I am in communication with a gentleman from Brighton upon this subject, in which he says:—I enclose cutting from The Municipal Journal. You will see there that our manager, Mr. Wright, was expert for the company, and, though he objected to Dublin going outside its area for a generating station, he is at Brighton most strongly advocating us going outside to build a new one.Here we have Mr. Wright giving evidence before the Local Government Board in Dublin, and urging as a reason why the new scheme of the corporation should be objected to, that the Dublin Corporation were going outside the limits of the City; while on the other hand we have the same gentleman advocating that very thing in his own city. I will just read a very brief extract from the Municipal Journal. It says—At the first day's inquiry Mr. Healy boasted that his chief witness, Mr. Wright, would contradict everything which Mr. Hammond said. Mr. Wright, when he went into the witness box, did more—lie contradicted himself. Mr. Wright is one of those gentlemen who occupy an anomalous position: he is for the municipality in Brighton and in Whitechapel; for private monopoly in Cork and Dublin, and half a dozen other places; for the Wright patent measuring apparatus everywhere, and for Mr. Wright all the time. A man with such a contradictory professional career cannot be expected to turn out a convincing or consistent witness.I have no desire to attack Mr. Wright or anybody else; I merely mention the facts, and Gentlemen can inquire further into the matter if they wish. In the course of the last debate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade treated the Members who opposed this Bill rather harshly. To those acquainted with the facts it is evident that the Dublin Corporation were unable to develop the 1075 electric lighting scheme owing to the want of funds and the lack of a suitable generating station. Both these obstacles have now been removed, and the Corporation have taken measures to enable them to undertake efficiently the electric lighting of the city. I have made inquiries among the large cities of England, and it is perfectly evident that the profits derived from electric lighting by the municipal authorities is applied to the reduction of taxation. But it appears to me that the City of Dublin is given exceptional treatment in many things. The citizens of Dublin are entitled to fair play and equal treatment from this House with regard to matters which are non-political, and I hope this Bill will be rejected. I have been looking at what the President of the Board of Trade has said on this matter. In the session of 1899 when the General Power Distribution Bill was before the House of Commons it was rejected on Second Reading by 164 to 132, notwithstanding the fact that the promoters of the Bill, in the course of the debate, undertook not to supply electricity except with the consent of the corporations concerned. But here we have a company seeking to obtain a Bill from this House absolutely in opposition to the corporation. In the course of the discussion on the occasion to which I have referred, the President of the Board of Trade is reported as having said—It seemed to him that the principle of the Bill was a direct attack upon the right privileges and duties of municipal corporations, and whatever might have been the contingent advantages which might accrue in consequence of the passage of this Bill, I should have been bound to tell the House I did not think it would be wise in passing a Bill which practically sets aside the existing law which adequately protects corporations in the exercise of the duties which they have to discharge. Any private Bill of that kind, setting aside rights which corporations have by law, ought to be rejected.That is just my position to-day. I take up the position of the President of the Board of Trade at that time. The Lancashire Electric Bill of 1900 came up for Second Reading on the 1st March last, and the hon. Member who moved the rejection referred to this statement of the right hon. Gentleman, when the President of the Board of Trade interrupted and said—That Bill not only took power to go through the streets, but also to distribute light and electric power throughout the municipal 1076 area; my statement referred to that, and when the hon. Member for Macclesfield withdrew that part of the Bill I said he had met my objection and that I would support the Second Reading.I would remark here that the powers thus referred and objected to by the right hon. Gentleman are all included in the Bill of this present company. Towards the end of the debate the hon. Member for Cardiff asked whether the written undertaking of the promoters of the Lancashire Bill that they would do nothing without the consent of the local authorities would apply to the South Wales Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman said—Unless the promoters of this Bill are willing to accept a provision of that kind I should not be prepared to vote for the Second Reading.Under these circumstances I trust that the right hon. Gentleman and those who follow him will vote against this Bill. It seems to mo that the action of the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Heading of the Dublin Electric Lighting Bill is hardly consistent with the course he has adopted with regard to English Bills. A large loan has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board for the purpose of enabling the corporation to carry out an efficient scheme, and where Parliament, through the Local Government Board, has authorised a municipal corporation to borrow money for a municipal undertaking on the security of the rates, and the corporation is establishing or has established an undertaking, these special Parliamentary powers ought not to be granted to a private company, trading for profit, to undertake similar works in competition with the corporation. I am opposed to this Bill because, if competition wore entered into, it would interfere very much with the electric lighting of the city in the future by the corporation. Another reason is the opening up of the streets. The breaking up of the streets is a great obstacle which has been recognised by those outside Ireland. I happen to be a member of the United Kingdom Trade Protection Society, and I find that at a meeting in the City of London the following resolution was carried—That it be represented to the Parliamentary Committee now sitting to consider the question of municipal trading, that any enterprise requiring interference with the surface of public streets, such as gas, water, electricity, hydraulic power, or telephones, trams, etc., should be under the control of municipalities 1077 as trustees for the rights of the public in the thoroughfares of cities and boroughs, but that it is undesirable for municipalities to engage in retail trades.Here you have such a society passing a resolution of this kind unanimously. I would ask the House to reject this Bill by a large majority, because it is an interference with the rights and privileges of municipalities, because it seeks to take away from the ratepayer a revenue which should be applied to the reduction of the rates, and that it will enable a private company to tear up the streets and to interfere with the convenience of traffic in the city. On these grounds, as a representative of Dublin, I trust that the House will reject this Bill.
To leave out the word 'now,' and add the words 'three months.'"—(Mr. Carew.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
*MB. BROWN (Shropshire, Wellington),
speaking as Chairman of the Committee which considered and passed the preamble of the Bill, said it was proved that for many years past the Corporation of Dublin had had power to provide the electric light and had failed to do so. Had the corporation done its duty there would have been no case made out for this Bill. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had referred to the case of the Dundalk Bill, but he denied that there was any parallel between the two cases. He could only say that if the Dublin Corporation continued in the future to manage their electric lighting works as they had done in the past, he should congratulate himself that he was not a ratepayer of the city. What was the case of this Bill? It was that for many years past the Corporation of Dublin had had the power to provide the light, as he had already stated, and had absolutely failed to do so. Under these circumstances, was it not right that a new competitor should be allowed to come in and supply a great want? When the Bill was before the Committee it was proved beyond doubt that the supply of electric light was practically nil. The corporation obtained its Provisional Order in 1892, and what had been the result of its eight years' work? There was general dissatisfaction, the price charged (7d. per 1078 unit) was the maximum allowed under the order, there had been inability to supply without unreasonable delay, and many of the inhabitants of Dublin, because they had been unable to obtain what they wanted from the corporation, had had themselves to go to the expense of setting up private installations. Had any English corporation acted in the same way as Dublin the House would have let in a private competitor. An offer was made to the corporation by an electric supply company in Dublin to supply electricity at a comparatively cheap price, but that offer was refused. The corporation sought to explain their inaction by stating that they had not borrowing powers to enable them to raise the capital necessary for the work they had undertaken, but it should not be forgotten that they could, at any time within the last eight years, have obtained such powers had they applied to Parliament. Then, with regard to the quality of the light itself it had been stated to be "the worst in the kingdom, if not in the world"! With regard to the charges, while many local authorities were enabled to supply the light at even less than 4d. per unit, the Dublin Corporation were charging above 6d., and they were charging more than was charged in Cork, a much smaller city. The company by which this Bill was promoted expected to be able to supply the light at an average cost of 4½d., and it was a matter of surprise, therefore, that the Dublin witnesses before the Committee heartily welcomed the idea of competition. That the corporation scheme had proved a failure was evidenced by the fact that they had only 250 consumers. He hoped the House would confirm the decision at which the Committee had arrived after long and careful inquiry.
§ *MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)
I am sorry, after the long debate which has already taken place, that it should be necessary for me to speak on this question, but I will be as brief as I can. I am in the position of having sat on the Committee which passed this Bill, and of having differed so strongly from the decision arrived at that I felt it necessary to divide the Committee. I am therefore bound to put before the House the grounds upon which I acted. With regard to the facts 1079 of the case I do not think there was any serious difference of opinion between the members of the Committee, or, indeed, between any of the parties concerned. The question at issue was one of policy and of the right interpretation of the facts. The House is being asked, by passing this Bill, to create an entirely new precedent. It has been so far the consistent policy of Parliament and of the Board of Trade to refuse to permit any private company to come in and compete in the matter of electric lighting in any town where the corporation has undertaken the work, and is unwilling to permit any private company to come in. But in this case you are going to make a change. The city of Dublin is the corpus vile upon which you are going to try your experiment, though the corporation is strongly, decidedly, and unhesitatingly against your doing so. You are asked to do this because, during the last ten years, the Corporation of Dublin has not carried out the lighting scheme over a small area in the centre of the city to the satisfaction of some of the ratepayers. I agree with the other members of the Committee, and it was, in fact, admitted by the council for the corporation, that up till the present the electric light supply has been insufficient, and that in many cases there has been good cause for complaint. But are there not some palliating circumstances, and are there not good reasons why the corporation were unable to carry out the work satisfactorily? I think there are. In the first place, the corporation undertook the work at a time when electric lighting was comparatively new, and, in the second place, they only had a small area over which to carry out their operations. It is impossible under such circumstances to get a cheap supply.
The compulsory area was small, but the corporation, if they liked, could supply the light to the whole of the city of Dublin.
§ *MR. TREVELYAN
NO; they could not do that, because they had not borrowing powers, and it was not until last year that they did obtain power to borrow sufficient money to enable them to carry on their operations over an extended area. What the House has to decide is whether the history of the past proves the incapacity of Dublin to manage the 1080 very much larger scheme which the corporation is now prepared to undertake. I myself came to the conclusion that there was nothing to warrant the assumption of general incapacity. It is quite certain that the corporation, during the last year or two, have become alive to the defects of the smaller lighting scheme which they are carrying out, and they have been doing everything in their power to remedy the defects and to establish a larger scheme. As a matter of fact, a year or two before this private company was thought of the corporation was doing everything it could to provide a more extensive scheme. It had obtained the assistance of an engineer whose ability is recognised on both sides of the Channel, and the moment they got the opportunity they went to the Local Government Board and said, "we have now got sufficient borrowing powers, will you give us the powers, necessary for carrying out an extended scheme?" Their request was granted, and at the present moment the corporation has power to spend a quarter of a million upon an extensive scheme; it has power to put up stations all over Dublin, it has excellent engineers to carry out the work, and I maintain that it ought to have an opportunity of accomplishing its object before you admit of any competition. Give Dublin the benefit of the doubt. It has not done very well in the past, but it promises to turn over a new leaf, and to do better in the future. Suppose Glasgow came to this House and said, "We have a small tramway, or electric lighting scheme, or water scheme. We have not done very well in the past for the ratepayers, but we ask you for larger powers." What would be the reply of this House? Would you allow a new competitor to come in in that case, especially if Glasgow told you that your doing so would make it impossible for them to succeed? I do not think you would, and yet you are asked by this Bill to do that very thing in the case of Dublin. I think you ought not to do it, and I trust that Members who are anxious to treat Ireland well, and who have no fixed idea that Irishmen are unable to govern themselves properly, will join with me in trusting Irishmen a little, and will not extend to them the exceptional treatment proposed by this Bill—treatment which I am sure would not in any case be applied to Yorkshire or Lancashire, or to any place in Scotland.
§ * MR. RUTHERFORD (Lancashire, Darwen)
said the real question before the House was, are corporations to have competition under any circumstances or conditions whatever, whether they carried on these undertakings well or badly? He had the honour and privilege of being the Mayor of a large county borough. He was a member of the Committee which sat upon this Bill, and, after hearing the evidence given before it, he came to the conclusion that had his own borough, of which he was chief magistrate, carried cut an electric lighting scheme in the same way as had been done by the Corporation of Dublin, he would have been among the first to advocate the introduction of competition. It was proved beyond all question that the Corporation of Dublin had done its work extremely ill. £ 90,000 had already been spent in electric lighting works, and yet, out of a population of 300,000, the corporation had only got 250 customers for its electricity. Again, they were charging the maximum of sevenpence per unit, while in a smaller city like Cork a much lower rate was being charged, and after one year's working in Cork the system had produced a profit, whereas in the city of Dublin there was a loss of £2,800 a year. The corporation had managed its affairs badly, and one witness stated that, although he had two warehouses separated merely by a street, the corporation refused to allow him to use the light for the two warehouses by carrying the wire across the street. He did not think they would find any private company acting in such a ridiculous manner. Another witness complained that, although he wanted the light, he was told he would have to wait years for it, and another said that, while he had it, it often went out, and they had to resort to the use of candles. Another firm had spent £ 3,000 upon a private installation, but, despite that, would gladly get their supply from a private company should one be established in Dublin. The present system was bad for the corporation and disastrous for the ratepayers, and he therefore hoped the House would endorse the decision come to by the Committee after a very exhaustive inquiry.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
I submit that in this Bill we are debating a question of very great importance. We are asked by it, as has 1082 been pointed out by my hon. friend the Member for the Elland division, to establish a precedent. Anybody who has studied the question of electric lighting must know that it is now the rule for local authorities in England, Scotland, and Wales to light their own towns. I am afraid that Members hardly appreciate the fact that upwards of 100 local authorities are at this moment doing electric lighting business. That is the case in Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Leeds, as well as in several London constituencies, and I think it will be admitted that these local authorities have done the work much more cheaply than private companies could have done it. I challenge contradiction when I assert that the local authorities have succeeded in reducing the price of the electric light to a point lower than has ever been reached by any private company. I believe there are some local authorities who at the present moment are charging an average price of 3½d. per unit, and I am sure that no single private company could produce the light at the same price. I want to ask the House is there any precedent for acting as this Bill proposes? The Chairman of the Committee on the Bill told us that if any English Corporation had acted in the same way as the Dublin Corporation the House would at once have given a private company the right to compete with the local authority. But we have had no experience of the kind. No such case has ever yet occurred, and, for the first time, we are asked to establish the principle of permitting private competition with a public body which already has the power, as well as the duty, of supplying the electric light. I think this House is being asked to take an extremely grave and serious step, and to establish an extremely grave and serious precedent. What is to prevent a private company saying, "We have to complain of the manner in which the Manchester Corporation does its work"? I am perfectly sure that the Manchester Corporation does its work most admirably, but some complaints from some individuals could be brought forward. What would the House think if a number of Manchester capitalists came and told us, "We are a number of Manchester capitalists dissatisfied with the manner in which the corporation does its work, and we wish to be allowed to enter into com- 1083 petition with the corporation"? I venture to say that the House would scout such a proposal, and no one would venture to make such a proposal with respect to an English, Scotch, or Welsh city as is now being made regarding Dublin, in the face of every authority entitled to speak on behalf of that city. The hon. Member said that the Irish member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Derry, supported the majority in the Committee. That, I understand, is so. He is entitled to speak as a man of great authority who has had a good deal of business experience, but the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to speak for Dublin in opposition to the three Members for Dublin with respect to this Bill. He is not entitled to speak for Dublin against my hon. friend who moved the rejection of the Bill, nor for the Corporation of Dublin, which after all is the representative authority of the citizens. I know that some hon. Members will vote for the Bill for a reason which I think is both irrelevant, and, if I may say so without offence, unworthy, and that is, obstinate dislike and disapproval of the Corporation of Dublin. I have heard one or two Irish Members on the other side declare that they would vote against any Bill if they were only convinced the Corporation of Dublin was in favour of it, and that they would vote for any Bill to which the corporation was opposed. What would be said if I came here and asked that the Corporation of Liverpool should not get an electric lighting Bill because there is a permanent Conservative majority there, or that the Corporation of Edinburgh should not get a similar measure because there is a permanent Liberal majority there? This House would say that these matters should be judged locally on their merits, and on these alone. I submit another proposition, and it is this: wherever a corporation or a local authority has had to acquire the property of a private electric lighting company, it has had to do so at enormously increased expense, to the profit of the shareholders and the promoters, and if you allow this company to be established, and if in time the Corporation of Dublin should be forced, as it may well be forced, to buy up the rights which Parliament is going to bestow upon the company, in spite of the ratepayers and in prejudice of the ratepayers of Dublin, I prophesy that the corporation will be bound to do it at a 1084 very enhanced price. In Sheffield the corporation paid the electric lighting company £272,398 for a concern on which the company spent £ 124,472. In Leeds, the corporatien paid £370,580 for what cost the company £217,420. In Birmingham the corporation paid £420,000 for what cost the company £219,000. In Liverpool, where the electric lighting is admirably conducted, the corporation paid £436,000' for what cost the company £264,000. What this House is now asked to do is to put this company in a position to fine the people of Dublin for the purpose of getting back the right to do work which they wish to do now. My hon. friend the Member for South Islington represents in a special manner the local authorities of this country, because he is chairman of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The hon. Gentleman was in Dublin the other day when the annual gathering of that Association took place. The Association consists of men of all political parties, representing different towns, and one of the first things they did was to pass a resolution that electric lighting was one of the things which the local authorities were entitled to hold and have. Two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have been large and generous in their abuse of the Corporation of Dublin with regard to this question of electric lighting. I understand what their vote means. Their vote means that they mean to censure the Corporation of Dublin, and take this work out of their hands, because they think the corporation have not done the work well. I do not know a single member of the corporation, except some of my hon. friends on those benches, who are also members of that body; but I think the case that is made against them has been unduly severe. What are the facts? The corporation spent £90,000 on the electric light supply of Dublin which you will render futile by passing this Bill. When they had spent that sum they found that they had not completed the work, but they were at the end of their borrowing powers. As everybody acquainted with Dublin knows, they have one of the best water supplies in the world. It was a very expensive water supply, and having spent money on that scheme they could not raise sufficient-money to complete the work of electric-lighting. They came to this House long before this company was thought of, and asked the House to give them additional 1085 borrowing powers. The House gave them additional borrowing powers, and the corporation then brought forward a largo and, I believe, a thoroughly good scheme for completing the work of electric lighting, making good the evils and the blots that were pointed out under the insufficient scheme. The scheme was brought before the Local Government Board, an inquiry ordered by the Board was held in Dublin, and the Board sanctioned the scheme, and at this moment the corporation is ready to carry out this larger scheme if only this House will give it the right and the power. I think it is a very strong thing indeed to ask this House on behalf of private capitalists to stand in the way of the corporation, which has the approval of the citizens, who, I think, are largely against this private company. The hon. Gentleman opposite made one point with which I wish to deal. He said, if you do not allow this competition, and if you allow the corporation to do this work, it will be hard on the ratepayers of Dublin. I know that a good many Members have been carried away with the cry that, after all, if you allow this private company to go to work, it will only cause healthy competition, which can do no harm to anyone. I will deal with that. In the first place, this form of competition has never been permitted before, and I daresay will never be asked by any representative of an English or Scotch constituency. I believe any such proposal with regard to Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, or Glasgow would be scouted. It is only when you come to Ireland that capitalists dare propose such a system of competition. Competition may be healthy or unhealthy. It is usually healthy to the consumer. It is unhealthy competition when it is a matter of supplying electric light. Look at the condition you bring the city into by such competition. You have a company making mains and tearing up the roads on one side, and you have the corporation making mains and tearing up the roads on the other side, at great expense and to the great inconvenience of the citizens. The second point is, that this competition will be competition of a private company with the citizens of Dublin. It will not be competition of one private company with another, which is perfectly fair competition. It will be competition of a private company with a public corporation, and I call 1086 that unhealthy competition. As to the rates, I say if you leave this in the hands of the corporation, as I think you are bound to do in justice to Dublin, it will be for the relief of the rates. Why, compare Dublin with other cities. In Liverpool the other day I saw one of the best systems of tramways in the world. In Glasgow recently I saw an excellent system of tramway locomotion. Both these undertakings are in the hands of the corporations. In Dublin the tramway system is in the hands of a private company, and some of the men connected with that company are the men who are behind this electric lighting scheme. The tramway company in Dublin has what, I think, will surprise the House. In any other city the tramway lease is usually for twenty-one years; in Dublin it is for forty years. I will not inquire into the means by which the tramways company obtained this extraordinary concession. I daresay it can be justified, but what is the result? The £10 shares of this company now stand at £19 5s., and very properly, because it has a concession unequalled and unparalleled in the history of municipal enterprise. The company makes a net profit of £40,000 or £50,000 a year, and the profit, which in several other cities, such as Glasgow or Liverpool, is used to relieve the rates and improve the condition of the masses of the people, goes into the hands of the private individuals who are the shareholders of the company. If you give the powers now asked for in this Bill in opposition to the Members for the city of Dublin, in opposition to the corporation of the city, and in opposition to the public feeling of Dublin, and in opposition to the majority of the Irish Members now present, you are going to repeat in the case of the electric lighting system what you did in regard to the tramway system, and you will give £50,000 a year to private individuals which ought to go to the people of Dublin in relief of the rates, and for the improvement of the city. If there is any city in the world which has a right to be saved from this system it is the city of Dublin. I see the hon. Member for South Tyrone in his place. If he were asked to describe the state of the city of Dublin, he would give a picture of overcrowding, disease and poverty unparalleled in any city in the Empire, and is that city to be deprived of the blessing and relief of municipal lighting 1087 given to other cities? If so, it is a cruel wrong, and an injustice to the Corporation of Dublin and to the masses of the people in that city.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
We have listened to a very impassioned speech from the hon. Member, and it is evident that there is some politics behind this Bill. The Bill nominally deals with electric lighting, but I can assure the House that there is a great deal of gas at the bottom of it. It is a remarkable fact that the people who are most anxious for the continuation of this monopoly in the hands of the Corporation of Dublin are the gas company of Dublin. The House will hardly credit it when I tell them that the leading promoter of this competition with the gas company is the chairman and managing director of that company itself, Alderman Cotton, who is a member of the Dublin Corporation. Why, I ask, is the gas company so extremely anxious—because it is the gas company we are fighting to-day, and not the corporation, and the gas company is paying for the opposition to this Bill—why is the gas company so extremely anxious that this matter should remain in the hands of the Dublin Corporation? Because it knows that the corporation, having muddled away with the assistance of the gas company £100,000 of the ratepayers' money, will muddle away another £100,000 more if this Bill is rejected. Why, I want to know, should I as a ratepayer of Dublin have to pay 7d. per unit for my electricity in Dublin when if I lived in Cork I could get it for 3d.? The hon. Member who has just sat down made a long attack upon the tramway company. My remarks may be received with this amount of discount—that when the corporation was endeavouring to obtain a loan I appeared professionally for the tramway company against the corporation, but otherwise I had nothing to do with this Bill. When the Bill came up for Second Reading I declined to vote for it, but all reference to the tramway company has now been struck out, and therefore the question now is between competition in Dublin and a monopoly. I am bound to state exactly why the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has made his attack upon the tramway company. It is this. The chairman of the tramway company is a former Member of this House, Mr. 1088 W. M. Murphy, a well-known Home Ruler. He is the bête noire of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division. What the hon. Member did not tell the House was that this tramway company, for the concession which he said no other company in the universe had got, has to pay to the corporation a rent of £12,000 a year and £300 for every additional mile of tramway which it makes. It is the corporation that ought to be attacked if the bargain were a bad one, but I think the corporation made an extremely good bargain. The gas company runs a newspaper in Dublin called the Freeman's Journal. The chairman of the gas company was its chief director, but he is unfortunately no more. When there was a campaign on the Homo Rule question in Dublin as to the journalism of that city, it was the chairman of the gas company who furnished certain hon. Members of this House with bogus shares to the value of £1,000 in order to oust men like myself from the board of the Freeman's Journal. The tramway company also has an organ called the Daily Nation, and in that paper the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division is sometimes unduly criticised, and no doubt politics are at the bottom of this opposition—politics and gas—and not the question of electric lighting. I desire to say why I think the opposition on the part of the corporation is unwise. The Corporation of Dublin, on the Second Reading of this Bill, were beaten by a vote of this House, and it was decided to leave the matter to a Select Committee. Although we were all glad to hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman above the gangway, curiously enough, although he was a member of the Select Committee, he voted against the Second Reading of the Bill which he was afterwards appointed to sit upon the Committee to consider. That, I think, considerably discounts the position he has taken up in the House, for he sat as a member of a Committee to consider a thing which he had voted should not come before the Committee at all. But that did not save him with the Freeman's Journal, because the most eloquent denunciations against him for his illiberality as a member of that Committee appeared in that journal. Why am I anxious that this stage should not be opposed? The principle of this Bill has been already dealt with on the Second Reading. Its details were con- 1089 sidered by the Committee, who decided that the corporation had for ten years been tried, and had been found wanting. If the corporation attack the decision of this Committee to-day, what will happen to its Boundaries Bill? That Boundaries Bill is of far greater importance to the Corporation of Dublin than this electric lighting business. That Bill is before a joint Committee of the Lords and Commons. Am I to be told, when the House of Lords last year rejected the corporation's Boundaries Bill on the recommendation of its own Committee, that if the corporation does not respect the decision of a Committee of the Commons in relation to this Bill its opponents in the House of Lords will be bound to respect a decision of a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons in respect to the Boundaries Bill? As the Corporation of Dublin have had their run on the Second Reading, and have still a further inquiry in the House of Lords into this question, it is greatly to be regretted that they did not content themselves with the decision of the Committee, and try to amend, if they could, or to secure the rejection of this Bill elsewhere. I am strongly in favour of the Corporation of Dublin having all the rights and legitimate powers possible in regard to this matter. Unlike the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, I live in Dublin; I do my work in Dublin; I pay rates and taxes in Dublin; and it is to my interest that the corporation should be conducted and have its proceedings managed in a manner creditable to the citizens. Still, I do not want to pay 7d. for electricity when I can get it for 2½d. I am not prepared to pay 4½d. per unit for municipalisation. The corporation has already muddled away £100,000. I do not blame them very much for that, because electricity was in a new state, and it was only two years ago that Professor Kennedy contended that two electrical lines could not cross without some system of induction which would be fatal to the whole of the two systems. An American engineer immediately brought forward a little standard advertisement showing that this thing which Professor Kennedy thought was an absolute impossibility was as common as dirt in every city from San Francisco to New York. I therefore do not blame the Corporation of Dublin to any great ex- 1090 tent for the mess into which they had got themselves electrically. The position in which they found themselves was this: They started handicapped with a dead weight and a loss o £100,000, and they could never hope to supply the citizens of Dublin as cheaply as a company which started without any such dead weight would be able to do. It is perfectly true that the corporation did act harshly in some cases, but that may have been the work of over zealous officials. What has resulted is that the corporation have had for ten years the cream of the city, all the richest business parts, and yet they have not been able to make a profit. If that is the case with regard to the cream of the city, are they likely to make a profit out of the slums? Furthermore, as the corporation have not taken advantage of their opportunities as they might have done, nearly all the rich houses in the city have already put in private installations. The corporation cannot supply the General Post Office; they cannot supply even Dublin Castle, which is next door to the City Hall. They cannot supply any single large business establishment in Dublin, with the result that all the large business houses have put in their own private installations, and are now lost to the corporation I am afraid for ever. Under these circumstances the question is, ought a monopoly to be continued in Dublin when wholesome competition will reduce the price? The Corporation of Dublin have muddled away the electrical talents which they had; they have buried the treasure in the ground. It may not have been their fault, possibly they undertook the work too soon. Perhaps private companies managed their affairs better—I do not know how it was. Figures have been quoted by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division and by the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division, but by whom were those figures prepared? Whose were those figures? They are the figures of the expert of the corporation who is to get a fee of £15,000 if the corporation go on with their scheme. I think I am justified in urging that figures emanating from such a source are tainted figures. Generally speaking, wherever corporations have made a success of their electric lighting, it will be found they were towns situated in the heart of the colliery districts of England or Scotland. In such places the price of coal is about four 1091 shillings per ton, whereas in Dublin at the present moment the price is twenty-four shillings per ton, and yet the case of Dublin is compared with that of Leeds or of Edinburgh. The position I take up is a simple one. A member of the Committee has stated that if it was proved that the corporation had suddenly and with a motive brought forward their scheme in opposition to that of the company, he would not be prepared to vote against this Bill. That is what has actually occurred. For over ten years complaints have been made against the corporation; it has been stated that their inactivity was due to the fact that they could not get borrowing powers. On the contrary, the corporation have plenty of power, but it never occurred to them to take any step to improve their position until this Bill was brought forward by the company. As a matter of fact, this extraordinary fact arose. Two or three years ago the corporation asked for the report of an expert, and Professor Kennedy condemned the very scheme which the corporation are now following, and they are actually going on with the scheme directly against the advice of Professor Kennedy. That is the scheme which it was now said is to be brought forward in competition with that of the Bill. If the corporation are going to spend the rates, by all means let them do so; they have the power and the authority. And if this company are prepared to spend money let them do so. My experience of electric lighting companies is that electric lighting is a very lean business; there is not so much money in it as people imagine. For one company that has succeeded, in the heart of a colliery district, there are ten which have failed elsewhere, and where one has made a profit ton have not succeeded in doing so. I think that when this matter has been dealt with by a Committee which has heard all the evidence, the House may very well allow the Bill to go on.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
As a ratepayer of the city of Dublin I would appeal to the House not to pass this Bill. I have listened, in common with many other Members, to the case made out in favour of the Bill by the chairman of the Committee, and what was the chief ground on which he based that case? He did not attempt to deny that in passing this Bill, if it is passed, the House is 1092 asked to inflict upon the city of Dublin a stigma and mark of incompetency that it does not inflict On any other city or town in the United Kingdom. The exact ground, in fact, on which he claimed that the Bill ought to be passed is that the evidence laid before the Committee had convinced him that the Corporation of the city of Dublin was unfit to be entrusted with the carrying out of the electric lighting of the city. Now I appeal to the House to hesitate and to be very slow before they do apply such a severe censure as that on the city of Dublin. The hon. Member for North Louth based some argument on the impolicy of upsetting the decision of a Committee of this House. He said if we set aside the decision of the Committee on this Bill how could the corporation complain if the decision of the Committee on the Boundaries Bill were upset by the House of Lords? I ask, could a more powerful argument be offered against the passing of the Boundaries Bill than that this House had declared by its vote that the Corporation of Dublin is so incompetent a body that they are unfit to do what every small town in this kingdom can do? That is exactly the argument on which the opponents of the Boundaries Bill have based their case; they have run down the character of the Corporation of the city of Dublin, and it would be impossible to supply the Committee of the House of Lords on the Boundaries Bill with a stronger plea for refusing to extend the boundaries of the city of Dublin than that the House of Commons had decided that that corporation was unfit to take care of the electric lighting of the city. Let me direct the attention of the House to two very remarkable clauses in this Bill—Clause 24 and Clause 25. They are very remarkable clauses. Under Clause 24 it is proposed to be enacted that—Nothing contained in this Act or to be done under the provisions of this Act, or under any agreement to be made under its provisions or otherwise howsoever, shall enable the company or any other company or person to generate, transmit, supply, sell, distribute, or use electrical energy or power in any manner and any purpose whatsoever within the urban districts of Rathmines, and Rathgar and Pembroke.And by Clause 25 it is provided that nothing in the Bill shall—enable the company, or any other company or persons to generate, transact, supply, sell, distribute or use electrical energy or power in any 1093 manner for any purpose whatsoever within the urban district of Clontarf, without the consent in writing, under the Common Seal of the Clontarf Urban District Council first had and obtained.That is to say, you protect these small urban townships in the immediate vicinity of Dublin, and provide that the small urban district of Clontarf should not be supplied with electricity, by this company without the consent in writing under the Common Seal of the Urban District Council of Clontarf; but the city of Dublin is to be placed under the heel of this company, and that company is to have power to tear up the streets of Dublin at its own street will, without the consent of the corporation. We have come down here to oppose another electric lighting scheme for the very city in which we are sitting; and one of the strong arguments in favour of that electric lighting scheme is that the vestry of Marylebone have vainly endeavoured to buy out the company, because the company ask an extravagant price. It is pointed out that under that scheme the streets may be torn up instantly on the company's own initiative. In this way Oxford Street was opened up 178 times and Marylebone Road 108 times in one year. That is a state of things to which we in Dublin shall be exposed by this Bill if it is passed. The company will open up every street in Dublin whenever they think necessary. The hon. Member for North Louth says that he is in favour of municipal trading or municipal enterprise, but that he refuses to pay 7d. to the municipality for electricity which he can get from a private company for 3d. or 4d. But by this Bill the company are to be allowed to charge in the centre of Dublin 6d. per unit for three years, and after that 5d. per unit as long as ever they like. We know that in this country many municipalities are furnishing electricity to-day at 3d. per unit; yet here we have a company which offers, as a magnificent boon, to furnish us with electricity at 6d. per unit for three years, and after that for an indefinite period at 5d.
§ MR. DILLON
Of course it is the maximum price. Unless the corporation set up a rival scheme the maximum price will remain the price, because the 1094 company will not reduce the price below the maximum unless there is competition. The hon. Gentleman says that the Dublin Corporation would be utterly unable to compete with the company. What they want is to crush out the competition of the corporation and reduce the rate to 5d. per unit, while making an enormous profit for themselves. We know, if they succeed in passing this Bill, what will happen—what always happens. The company will spend £300,000 or £400,000, and after a few years the corporation and the ratepayers of Dublin will be obliged to pay the shareholders of the company a premium of £100,000 or £150,000 to get rid of them. This Bill in the long run will turn out to be a present to a lot of private shareholders and capitalists of £100,000 or £150,000 out of the pockets of the people living in the city of Dublin, and I do therefore strongly object to this Bill. The hon. Member founded his case in favour of this Bill chiefly upon the discontent of the ratepayers of Dublin in regard to the present state of things. But where is the evidence of this discontent in Dublin? Are the Dublin Members of Parliament in favour of this Bill? We know that the Corporation of Dublin is actively opposed to this measure, and the four Member's of Parliament for the city of Dublin are also opposed to it. Can the hon. Member for North Louth point to a single public-meeting, or any of the ordinary forms by which the feelings of the ratepayers are brought before this House, to show that there is any widespread discontent in Dublin with the present state of things? Those supporting the measure are largely men who expect to make profits, and who are named in the Bill as promoters. I am not seeking to throw any discredit on men because they promote a company, but I repudiate the idea that they represent the feelings of the ratepayers. These men do not claim to have any philanthropic motive, and if this House is so badly advised as to pass this Bill the profits of these gentlemen will be enormous. I maintain that there is no evidence before the House—and there was none before the Committee—of any widespread dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the Corporation of Dublin. Everybody admits that the corporation has not administered some of its affairs satisfactorily, but it must be remembered that 1095 Dublin commenced the work of electric lighting at a time when there was not a single electric lamp in London, and of course they had to suffer, made mistakes, and wasted some money. The city of Dublin was very early in the field, but the real reason why electric lighting was not a success in Dublin was because they had not got the capital at that time to do the work properly. Now they have got borrowing powers, and they have applied for a Provisional Order, and it is only justice to allow them to try and see if They cannot do this work satisfactorily. If the House does what the promoters of this Bill require, it will be inflicting a great injury on the capital city of Ireland. Whatever may have been the failings of the corporation—and I think they have been grossly exaggerated—the past history of the corporation does not justify such a proceeding. The city of Dublin now possesses a system of waterworks which is as good as any in the United Kingdom. It has established a cheap water supply, and I think it might be trusted to try what it can do with electricity. We have heard a good deal
§ of talk about the gas company. I am no friend of the gas company in Dublin, and none of us are who have to light our houses from their supply. But what I cannot understand in the action of my hon. colleague the Member for North Louth is that he is in favour of setting up a fresh private company. If it had been in my power to oppose the gas monopoly passing into the hands of a private company I should have opposed it, for it is a wrong principle that any of these monopolies should pass into private hands. But having learned from bitter experience in the past, we ought to make that experience the motive for a firm resolution that in these common needs of the community in the future we will never allow a private company to get control. I earnestly appeal to hon. Members of this House not to inflict a great insult upon the city of Dublin by passing this measure.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 167. (Division List No. 162.)1099
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gilliat, John Saunders|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Goldsworthy, Major-General|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Gordon, Hon. John Edward|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon|
|Bainbridge, Emerson||Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.||Goschen, George J, (Sussex)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.||Graham, Henry Robert|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Gunter, Colonel|
|Bury, Rt. Hn. A H Smith-(Hunts)||Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)||Halsey, Thomas Frederick|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hamond, Sir Chas.(Newcastle)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Denny, Colonel||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants)||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Hardy, Laurence|
|Biddulph, Michael||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Healy, Maurice (Cork)|
|Bill, Charles||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.||Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)|
|Birrell, Augustine||Dorington, Sir John Edward||Henderson, Alexander|
|Blakiston-Houston, John||Drage, Geoffrey||Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)|
|Boseawen, Arthur Griffith-||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Howard, Joseph|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Howell, William Tudor|
|Bowles, Capt. H. P. (Middlesex)||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)||Faber, George Denison||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Brassey, Albert||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Jessel, Captain Herbert M.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r)||Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.|
|Brown, Alexander H.||Ffrench, Peter||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Finch, George H.||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Butcher, John George||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Jones, David B. (Swansea)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow)||Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Knowles, Lees|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||Lafone, Alfred|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)||Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis||Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Garfit, William||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)|
|Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r)||Gedge, Sydney||Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Gibbons, J. Lloyd||Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.|
|Chelsea, Viscount||Gibbs, Hn. A.G. H.(City of Lond||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea)|
|Coddington, Sir William||Gibney, James||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)||Nicholson, William Graham||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ.)|
|Lowe, Francis William||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Lowther, Rt. Hn. J W (Cum'land)||Pilkington, R.(Lanes. Newton)||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.|
|Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace C.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Macaleese, Daniel||Rankin, Sir James||Tuke, Sir John Hatty|
|Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.(Sheffid)|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.|
|M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W)||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson||Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)|
|M'Killop, James||Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)||Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E(Taunton)|
|Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.||Rutherford, John||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Maple, Sir John Blundell||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Marks, Henry Hananel||Savory, Sir Joseph||Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.)|
|Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks)||Seely, Charles Hilton||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R(Bath)|
|Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Seton-Karr, Henry||Wrightson, Thomas|
|Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Molloy, Bernard Charles||Simeon, Sir Barrington||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Morris, Samuel||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptf'rd)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Younger, William|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute)||Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart||Mr. Arthur O'Connor and Mr. T. M. Healy|
|Myers, William Henry||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||M'Crae, George|
|Acland- Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Ghee, Richard|
|Aird, John||Fletcher, Sir Henry||M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Flower, Ernest||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Maddison, Fred.|
|Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Malcolm, Ian|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Galloway, William Johnson||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe|
|Baker, Sir John||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand|
|Billson, Alfred||Gold, Charles||Monk, Charles James|
|Blake, Edward||Gourley, Sir E. Temperley||Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gurdon, Sir William B.||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)|
|Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur||Harrington, Timothy||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Brigg, John||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-||Moss, Samuel|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Heaton, John Henniker||Murnaghan, George|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Helder, Augustus||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Caldwell, James||Hempbill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)|
|Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)||Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Hogan, James Francis||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Holden, Sir Angus||O'Dowd, John|
|Cawley, Frederick||Holland, William Henry||O'Kelly, James|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Horniman, Frederick John||O'Malley, William|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Houston, R. P.||Palmer, George W. (Reading)|
|Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready||Jacoby, James Alfred||Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)|
|Colville, John||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Crombie, John William||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Price, Robert John|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Dillon, John||Kenyon, James||Purvis, Robert|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Kinloch, Sir John George S.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Doogan, P. C.||Labouchere, Henry||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Doughty, George||Langley, Batty||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Laurie, Lieut. -General||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Duckworth, James||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)||Reid, Sir Robert Threshie|
|Dunn, Sir William||Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)||Rentoul, J. Alexander|
|Ellis, John Edward||Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, John H. (Denbigh.)|
|Emmot, Alfred||Lloyd-George, David||Royds, Clement Molvneux|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Lough, Thomas||Runciman, Walter|
|Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'ton)||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Macdona, John Cumming||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n'sC)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Fenwick, Charles||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Field, William (Dublin)||Maclean, James Mackenzie||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Maclure, Sir John William||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)|
|Smith, Samuel (Flint)||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)||Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)|
|Souttar, Robinson||Wallace, Robert||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Spicer, Albert||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersfld)|
|Stevenson, Francis S.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wyndham, George|
|Stock, James Henry||Warr, Augustus Frederick||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Stone, Sir Benjamin||Wason, Eugene|
|Strachey, Edward||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer||Mr. Carew and Sir Albert Rollit.|
|Thomas Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)||Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)|
Bill read a second time.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered.
§ Amendments made.
§ Bill to be read the third time.