HC Deb 11 June 1901 vol 95 cc9-21

Order for Third Beading read.

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

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

said he was sorry to intervene at this stage, but he thought a very important principle was involved in the point he was about to raise, and felt bound to call the attention of the House to it. This Bill contained a proposal by the South Metropolitan Gas Company to raise additional † See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxv., p. 592. capital, and the Committee had varied one of the Standing Orders of the House with regard to the conditions under which the capital was to be raised. The Standing Order was perfectly clear and definite with regard to what should be done by every gas company and every water company when it wanted additional capital. It said that in every Bill to authorise the raising of additional capital provision should be made for the offering of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price at which it could be bought, and if the Committee recommended any variation from that condition it was bound to state its reasons. That Standing Order imposed upon the House fundamental principles with regard to gas and water legislation. It provided that whenever any additional capital was issued it should not be offered to any favoured class of stockholders or consumers, but should be offered to the public, and should be sold to the highest bidder. That was known as the Auction Clause, and it was embodied in every Act dealing with this matter. Before the Auction Clause was introduced scandals arose with regard to the allotment of capital in these companies. The shareholders had had a right, whatever capital was required, to claim that it should be allotted to them at par price; and this scandal had been found so serious that the House of Commons in 1876 adopted the Standing Order which was embodied in the Auction Clause. The Standing Order constituted no hardship to the companies, because it gave them the very thing which a company wanted; it gave them their capital at the lowest prices at which it could be obtained; but this Committee had been induced by the company to allow its stock to be offered to the employees of the company, or consumers of the company's gas, at £5 below the market price. That was a very extraordinary clause, and, if the House would look into it, it would be seen that it was not even provided that all the consumers, or all the employees, should lave an opportunity of taking the stock. £5 was a compromise. The first proposal had been that it should be offered at £7 10s., and it was only on the inducement of a friend of his, who was a member of the Committee, that the figure of £5 was decided upon. This was a very serious matter, because if £5 was to be adopted in this Bill why should not £10 be inserted in any other Bill? It constituted a most serious infringement of the principle laid down with regard to this legislation during the last twenty-five years. The Committee were supposed to give reasons for making a change in the Standing Order. What were their reasons in the present case? The Committee said that evidence was laid before them that the proposed variation would be such as to carry out very effectually the object of the Auction Clause; namely, to obtain for all capital issued by the company the highest possible price. But that, he submitted, was not a good reason for a variation of the Standing Orders of the House. The Report said that the object of the Standing Order was to secure that capital should be allotted at the highest price obtainable at the time. The idea was to prevent any hole-and-corner work—to prevent any favoured class from securing the stock which a public company under Act of Parliament had to offer. They ought to look at the effect which this proposal would have upon the public. This was a very large company, which had a big capital held by the public, and he believed the Committee were induced to allow the capital to be offered in this manner by the idea that the company was to be converted into a sort of co-operative undertaking. But, as a matter of fact, this was not a co-operative undertaking, because, although there were some two hundred thousand consumers of the gas, the stock-holders only numbered about ten thousand. There was indeed no intention of converting the company into a true co-operative company. The effect of the proposal of the Committee would be that the large bulk of the capital of the company held by the public would be depreciated by the fact that the allotment of the capital had been made at a lower price to a favoured circle. He believed the Committee were induced to pass the clause by the most able gas-manager of the South Metropolitan Company, for whose ability he had the, highest respect. He told the Committee that sometimes the auction was not a success. As a matter of fact, of course, the market was sometimes "sick." There might be war rumours about, and consequently it was not always possible to get a good price for this stock. But he was quite willing to meet the company on that point. He would agree that they should be allowed to dispose of the stock in the way they proposed when the auction had taken place. The object which the Committee had in view might have been secured in a better way without the infringement of the Standing Orders of the House, and he therefore begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, West)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the question, in order to add the words 'the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clause 5 (Sale of unissued stock), and that the Committee have leave to-sit and proceed forthwith.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

said this was one of those matters which were extremely awkward, because the House could not possibly understand it unless they had before them the evidence which was laid before the Committee dealing with the Bill. But he hoped to be able to show the House in a very few moments that the argument of the hon. Member opposite was quite illusory. What was really the reason for introducing what the hon. Member called the Auction Clause? It was found in the old days that when the stock of a company was at £150, and new stock had to be issued, it was issued to the shareholders at £100, and the consequence was that they had to issue a larger amount of stock than was actually necessary in order to obtain the money that was required. That was a great disadvantage to those who were permanent shareholders in the company, because it compelled it to pay smaller dividends. It was, in fact, an advantage to no one except to those few people who, having some knowledge of what was being done, would buy up a certain amount of stock in order to obtain the premium which resulted from the allotment. Therefore the Auction Clause-was very excellent in its way. Its object really was that the stock when issued should be sold at the highest price obtainable, and he would like it to be borne in mind that, although it was called an auction, the practice was to issue advertisements for tenders for the stock. It was a very excellent arrangement as long as it secured the end of obtaining the highest possible price, and at a time-when there were great demands for this class of stock, and when, so to speak, the people were tumbling over one another in order to obtain it, it resulted satisfactorily. But that was not always the case, and he could mention instances where a parson, a widow, or a foolish person had paid as much as 5, 6, or 7 per cent. over the market value in order to get this class of stock. The London County Council now issued their stock at fixed prices and not by tender, and the only object of the proposal in this Bill was to give the alternative to the company to follow that example. It seemed to have been forgotten that under the Bill, before the company could issue its stock at fixed prices it would have to obtain the sanction of the Board of Trade. He thought that the £5 which had been fixed upon in the Bill was a rather larger margin than was actually necessary. An absolute margin was difficult to fix, but the issue at 5 per cent. below the market price when they wanted to get their money readily was not too much, while, on the other hand, when the Bank rate was 2 per cent., 5 per cent. was too much. But that was subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, which would take into consideration all the facts, and before they gave their consent would have regard to these facts. All that the clauses did was to give the company an alternative in issuing their stock to put it in such a way as would give them the largest price. The hon. Member said that he would be quite content if the company issued the stock at a fixed price after instead of before the auction sale, or before tenders were invited. But supposing tenders were advertised for and nobody tendered. So long as human nature was what it was people would say, "Oh, you offered your stock by public tender and nobody would take it. We do not want it now." That would be the very worst possible manner in which to issue stock. When they wanted to offer a thing to a person expecting to have it accepted they must not offer it to somebody else beforehand. For the reasons which he had given, and which had been well considered by the Committee upstairs, the proposal could not easily result in injury to any person, but would probably result in advantage to the public, inasmuch as it gave the company an alternative method of issuing their stock; and therefore he hoped the House would reject the Amendment.

*MR. TAYLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)

said the hon. Member for West Islington had declared that this most important variation on the Standing Order had been made for no reason whatever, and that the result would be that the stock would go at a lower price. But what interest had the company to take steps to lower the price of their own holding? The very direct contrary was the case. Their desire was to get the very best possible price for their stock, and they would take their own time to realise it. They had found out from recent experience that the best way to get a good price was to offer a chance of obtaining the stock to their customers, to shareholders, and to the servants of the company. The company had already been doing splendid work in the way of profit-sharing with its employees, with the result that they had an interest in the capital of the company to the extent of £100,000, derived from their share of the company's profits. That was a feature which was worthy of the attention of the House. He did not wonder that the Committee had encouraged the company to share profits with their employees, for the price of their gas was lower than that of other companies, and they paid their employees higher wages. Why? Through the business capacity of the manager, Mr. Livesey, and their adoption of the profit-sharing principle on his recommendation. The facts had amply justified the Committee upstairs in making the exception they had done as to the rules and the issue of stock. There was no doubt that in issuing the stock they would depress the value of the stock as little as possible. They all knew that the first effect of the issue of fresh stock was to depress the value of the rest of the shares, but they might safely leave such a company as this, under such able management, with such privileges as the Bill provided.

*SIR HENRY FLETCHER (Sussex, Lewes)

said that as Chairman of the Committee which had considered this Bill, he might be allowed a few words in reply to the hon. Member for West Islington. He had had the honour of sitting on Committees upstairs for over twenty years, and for many years past he had been a Chairman of Committees, and he was free to admit that the decision come to on this question was one which, perhaps, had never been adopted before in regard to the Standing Orders. But still, times varied, and matters varied in regard to company legislation in many respects. The evidence which was put before the Committee as to the very able manner in which this company has been managed by Mr. Livesey was overwhelming. Many hon. Members of the House knew how this energetic gentleman had done more for gas companies than any man living. On the evidence the Committee were perfectly justified in adopting the course they had done The hon. Member for West Islington had read a portion of the evidence given upstairs, but the effect of another part of the evidence was that the object of the auction sales was to ensure the issue of new capital at market price. It was put before the Committee in the most conclusive manner by Mr. Livesey that raising money by tender or through auction sales had not been in any way a success. In fact, during last winter and the winter before the South Metropolitan Company had very great difficulty in raising money by tender. It was necessary to fix a reserve price, and if this was done, a large proportion of the stock was not sold. The number of buyers attending the sales by auction was very limited, and it was found that investors preferred dealing at a fixed price. That had also been the experience of the Government and the London County Council. It was the desire of the South Metropolitan Company to place a large number of their shares in the hands of their consumers, who numbered 200,000, the shareholders, who numbered 9,000, and the employees, who numbered 2,000. The Committee were well aware that this was to a certain extent a novel clause which had been inserted in the Bill, but taking everything into consideration they were of opinion that they did right in allowing the clause; and he hoped the House would sustain the Committee in the decision they had come to, reject the Amendment, and read the Bill a third time.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said he was afraid that the speeches of the Chairman of the Committee and the hon. Member for Radcliffe had only convinced him that the Bill ought not to pass the Third Reading. These hon. Gentlemen placed their arguments solely on the ground of the particular merits of the chairman of the company. He did not deny the merits of Mr. Livesey, who had conducted the company to the great advantage of the shareholders and the consumers. He saw no great objection to the issue of capital at a fixed price if the public were allowed to participate in the issue; because there was no doubt the tender system had become very difficult in working. He was afraid that if the House allowed the proposal in the Bill it would be extended to other cases, and the object of the Standing Order, which was that the best price obtainable should be got, would disappear.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith)

said that the question debated had resolved itself into the consideration of whether the Standing Order had been set aside or evaded. He was sure the House would insist upon its Standing Orders being respected; and if he had thought that in this case the Standing Order referred to had been distinctly set aside by the Committee he would have taken upon himself the duty of bringing the matter before the attention of the House. But that was not his opinion on this occasion. The hon. Member for West Islington, who introduced the discussion, cited a recent case, but hon. Members would remember that in that case he took upon himself the duty of bringing before the House the fact that he thought that one of the Standing Orders had been evaded. What was the Standing Order in point? It said— In every Bill by which an existing gas or water company is authorised to raise additional capital, provision shall be made for the offer of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained. If the Standing Order had stopped there the case of the hon. Member would have been complete; but it went on— Unless the Committee of the Bill shall report that such provision ought not to be required, with the reasons on which their opinion is founded. It would be seen that a dispensing power was given by the Standing Order to the Committee; and the Committee, whether wisely or not he was not prepared at present to argue, for he had not heard all the evidence, had on this occasion exercised that dispensing power. They might have been convinced by the admirable way in which Mr. Livesey gave his evidence as to the past history of the gas market, or as to the present state of the market. There might be a number of other matters which might have induced the Committee to conceive that, in this instance, it was not necessary to insist upon the Auction and Tender Clause. That being so, and the Committee having exercised their discretion after hearing the evidence, he could not ask the House to set aside their decision. Seeing that the Standing Order of the House had not been violated, he ventured to suggest that the motion of the hon. Member for West Islington be rejected, and that the Bill be read a third time. With regard to the point which the hon. Member for West Islington made, that under the clause as it now stood the stock might be offered to certain gas consumers and other persons, Mr. Livesey yesterday informed him that he was perfectly prepared to insert the word "all," so that there was no possibility of the stock being offered to particular individuals or sets of individuals.

MR. STEACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)

said he would not have intervened were it not that he thought it right that the House should be made aware that the Committee was not unanimous in the matter. He himself, as a member of the Committee, divided it on practically the matter now before the House. The Committee went very carefully into the evidence, and he had not the slightest doubt that the majority of the Committee were influenced by the able and clever evidence of Mr. Livesey, the chairman of the South Metropolitan Gas Company. He would venture to point out to the Committee that a Select Committee had been appointed by the House especially to consider this question, and he believed it unanimously reported against the proposal in the Bill. Then the question had come on previous occasions before various Committees of the House, and on every such occasion the Committee had refused to abrogate auction clauses. He thought also the House ought to consider the question of price. The hon. Member for Peckham, who was a great authority on financial questions, said that a £5 discount seemed to be too high, yet the company actually asked for £7 10s. discount, showing that their real object was to give the consumers stock under the market price, to give them an opportunity of buying stock and then selling it at a profit. In his evidence Mr. Livesey said that he made no secret of the fact that he had purposely evaded the auction clauses, and that the company managed to advertise the auction in such a way that as Mr. Livesey very fairly said, nobody would be aware that stock was being offered. He thought the present was neither the time nor the occasion to go back on previous decisions of Committees, and also the Report of the Select Committee, and to abrogate the, auction clause. In his opinion the South Metropolitan Gas Company were anxious to form themselves into a great society composed of shareholders who were also consumers. No doubt such societies might be very desirable and proper, but they should also consider the interests of the working man who was not able to invest money, and who perhaps was only a temporary consumer. The House should not make gas dearer for the poor consumer, even though it made it cheaper for the rich consumer who was also a shareholder. He therefore very strongly supported the motion of his hon. friend to recommit the Bill, and he thought the House ought to pause before departing from previous decisions, and also from the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the matter.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 252; Noes, 112. (Division List No. 242.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Denny, Colonel Joicey, Sir James
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.
Aird, Sir John Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Allsopp, Hon. George Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Dorington, Sir John Edward Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth
Anstruther, H. T. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. Lawson, John Grant
Arrol, Sir William Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Ellis, John Edward Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Austin, Sir John Farquharson, Dr. Robert Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Leng, Sir John
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fenwick, Charles Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Balcarres, Lord Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Baldwin, Alfred Finch, George H. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Balfour, Maj. K. R (Christchurch. Firbank, Joseph Thomas Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Fisher, William Hayes Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W. B. (Hants. FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Lowe, Francis William
Bigwood, James Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Bill, Charles Fletcher, Sir Henry Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)
Black, Alexander William Flower, Ernest Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum., Penr.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Forster, Henry William Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Bond, Edward Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Macdona, John Cumming
Boulnois, Edmund Galloway, William Johnson M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs.
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Garfit, William M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Majendie, James A. H.
Brassey, Albert Goddard, Daniel Ford Malcolm, Ian
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn Maple, Sir John Blundell
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Goulding, Edward Alfred Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William
Brymer, William Ernest Graham, Henry Robert Middlemore, John T.
Burt, Thomas Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds Milton, Viscount
Caldwell, James Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Gretton, John Morrell, George Herbert
Carlile, William Walter Groves, James Grimble Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hain, Edward Moss, Samuel
Cautley, Henry Strother Halsey, Thomas Frederick Mount, William Arthur
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)
Cawley, Frederick Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Mxrray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Myers, William Henry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Hay, Hon. Claude George Nicol, Donald Ninian
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Nussey, Thomas Willans
Chapman, Edward Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Churchill, Winston Spencer Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Coddington, Sir William Helder, Augustus Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H Peace, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Hogg, Lindsay Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)
Colston, Charles Edward H. A. Holland, William Henry Penn, John
Colville, John Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Horner, Frederick William Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Plummer, Walter R.
Craig, Robert Hunter Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Crombie, John William Hozier, Hon. James Herny C. Pretyman, Ernest George
Crossley, Sir Savile Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cust, Henry John C. Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Purvis, Robert
Dalkeith, Earl of Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Randles, John S. Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire Warr, Augustus Frederick
Rankin, Sir James Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Reid, James (Greenock) Spear, John Ward Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich) White, George (Norfolk)
Remnant, James Farquharson Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green) Stevenson, Francis S. Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Willox, Sir John Archibald
Robinson, Brooke Stone, Sir Benjamin Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Stroyan, John Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Ropner, Colonel Robert Taylor, Theodore Cooke Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Royds, Clement Molyneux Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Thorburn, Sir Walter Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Tollemache, Henry James Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Tritton, Charles Ernest Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Sharpe, William Edward T. Valentia, Viscount Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Walker, Col. William Hall TELLERS FOR THE Ayes.—Mr. Banbury and Mr. Renshaw.
Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Simeon, Sir Barrington Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) O'Mara, James
Allan, William (Gateshead) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud Jacoby, James Alfred Partington, Oswald
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Kennedy, Patrick James Power, Patrick Joseph
Blake, Edward Labouchere, Henry Rea, Russell
Boland, John Lambert, George Reckitt, Harold James
Brigg, John Langley, Batty Reddy, M.
Broadhurst, Henry Laurie, Lieut.-General Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Layland-Barratt, Francis Redmond, William (Clare)
Burns, John Leamy, Edmund Richards, Henry Charles
Buxton, Sydney Charles Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Lloyd-George, David Roe, Sir Thomas
Channing, Francis Allston Lundon, W. Russell, T. W.
Cogan, Denis J. MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Schwann, Charles E.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Crean, Eugene M'Crae, George Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cullinan, J. M'Dermott, Patrick Shipman, Dr. John G.
Delany, William M'Govern, T. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Kenna, Reginald Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants
Dillon, John Mansfield, Horace Rendall Strachey, Edward
Donelan, Captain A. Mooney, John J. Sullivan, Donal
Doogan, P. C. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Duffy, William J. Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Duncan, J. Hastings Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dunn, Sir William Murnaghan, George Wallace, Robert
Edwards, Frank Murphy, John Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Emmott, Alfred Nannetti, Joseph P. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Fardell, Sir T. George Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Weir, James Galloway
Field, William Norman, Henry White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Grant, Corrie O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Yoxall, James Henry
Haldane, Richard Burdon O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Hammond, John O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Captain Norton.
Harwood, George O'Dowd, John
Hayden, John Patrick O'Malley, William

Bill read the third time, and passed.