HC Deb 14 June 1901 vol 95 cc388-401

Order for Second Reading read.

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

MR. NOLAN (Louth, S.)

said that when he saw the title of this Bill and ascertained the objects with which it was being promoted he had some doubt as to what the effects of the measure would be, having regard to the fact that in several well known towns in England, and notably in Liverpool, where a very large district of working class buildings had been swept away, years had been allowed to elapse before suitable houses were provided for the persons thus displaced. He had provided himself with a copy of the Bill, and he found that even the promoters of the Bill themselves granted a large part of the case he stated against it, inasmuch as they proposed a statute to provide for a certain number of those they dispossessed. Of the 10,000 people whose dwellings they were going to pull down 3,000 would be left without provision being made for them, and would have to go outside the district in which they were employed to find accommodation. It was only fair that the House should ask the promoters of the Bill to take it back and amend the section so as to remove that grievance. He had great sympathy with the Bill, and would like to see the dwellings of the working classes improved, and more comfort provided in all large towns. There was not the slightest objection to the avowed intention of the Bill being carried out, but the Corporation of Leeds should not be allowed to carry out the work until they had provided ample accommodation for the persons whom they proposed to dispossess. It would, no doubt, be urged that the commissioner who held the local inquiry had reported in favour of the scheme, but he suggested that that gentleman, who, it might be taken for granted, was highly respectable and intelligent, of a necessity would only be brought into contact with those who favoured the scheme. Such gentlemen had seldom or never had an opportunity of meeting the people whose interests were affected, and whose homes were to be destroyed. If, for instance, the working classes of the Scotland Division of Liverpool, who had been affected by the clearance now being effected, had known what the result would be, that they were going to be driven out and no provision was to be made for them, and that they would have had to go out of the district altogether to find a home as best they could, it would have taken more than the united force of the Liverpool police to have evicted them. The working classes really did not know the meaning of these Bills or the effect of them until it was too late, and consequently they did not enter their protest at the right time. The Bill before the House was one which should be opposed by all the representatives of labour in the House, and he ventured to raise a humble protest against it, because if the scheme was carried out in its present form it would involve a very serious loss and damage upon a large section of the community. The area was declared to be unsanitary, and for all he knew it might, or it might not, be unsanitary, but against that statement he would urge upon the House the fact that the average school attendance in that district was higher than in any other part of Leeds, and everyone knew very well that in unsanitary districts epidemics broke out and raged with great virulence, causing all the schools to be closed, which must of a necessity reduce the average school attendance. He, however, did not profess to be able to deal with that aspect of the case. He rested his case upon the fact, which was clearly stated in the Bill by the promoters themselves, that they did not intend to provide accommodation for thousands of the people whom it was proposed under the Bill to deprive of their homes. He begged that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.

MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)

, in seconding the Amendment, complained that for some time past schemes for the clearance of unsanitary areas had been put forward by local authorities and various corporations in which insufficient provision was made for the rehousing of the persons dispossessed. The result was that people were removed from the dangers of overcrowding in one place only to create veritable plague spots in another. The House of Commons ought to be very chary indeed of giving its sanction to any scheme unless adequate provision was made for the accommodation of the people to be dispossessed before they were dispossessed.

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

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

MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)

said the objections which had been raised by the mover and seconder of the Amendment were very natural objections in the minds of anybody who had had experience of clearing unsanitary areas, but they referred rather to defects in the various Acts for the housing of the working classes than to any action of the particular corporation concerned in the scheme under consideration. His object in rising, however, was to ask the President of the Local Government Board to consider a hardship which had arisen in this case. Rightly or wrongly, a large number of the property owners concerned, when the Local Government Board inquiry was held, were under the impression that it was the preliminary inquiry, and, indeed, when they applied to the inspector to be heard their application was refused. As a result of this decision there were scheduled for the purposes of this improvement scheme certain properties which it was contended could be proved to be in themselves perfectly sanitary, and the owners felt that it was rather hard that such properties should be taken from them by the Leeds Corporation at an "unsanitary" price, and that they should be penalised because of unsanitary property over which they had no control. He had placed on the Paper an Instruction, the effect of which would be to give these property owners a right to be heard before the Committee as to whether this scheme was a scheme within the meaning of the Act. By giving his favourable consideration to the matter when it came before him, the President of the Local Government Board would be doing an act of justice to these property owners, who, after all, were not responsible for the scheme of the Leeds Corporation. The scheme itself was a good one, and the corporation deserved the highest credit for taking in hand so large an undertaking. That, however, was no reason why injustice should be inflicted upon anyone, and therefore he hoped the property owners would be heard in their own defence before the Committee.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said that five years ago the Leeds Corporation obtained power to set aside the almost universal law in this country against the erection of back to back houses.


ruled that the byelaws of the city of Leeds could not now be debated.


said that in that case he would move an Instruction at a later stage to the Committee that they should amend the Act so as to forbid the building of back to back houses in, the future.

*MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydfil)

said that the real objection to this Bill was that it proposed to dishouse 9,000 and to rehouse only 6,000 people. He did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should insist upon an equal number of people being housed on the site being cleared, as that would at once do away with the benefits to be derived from the scheme. He suggested to the President of the Local Government Board that he should insist upon a sufficient number of houses being erected within the boundary of the city of Leeds equal to the number of those who had been displaced. It was a very serious matter to turn 3,000 people adrift without making provision for their requirements, and it simply meant an increase of rent and the transforming of some other district into a slum area.

MR. CAUTLEY (Leeds, E.)

contended that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee for consideration. One of the main objections was that this was not a scheme within the meaning of the Act, but the property owners would have an opportunity of appearing before the Committee in opposition to the scheme. The Local Government Board were of opinion that all the necessary requirements had been complied with, and they were of opinion that it was a scheme worthy of the consideration of the House of Commons. He thought that the House would no more think of going behind the decision of this Local Government Board inquiry than it would think of going behind the Standing Orders. He hoped the House would consent to a Select Committee, before which any property owner could appear and oppose the scheme on its merits if he thought he could satisfy the Committee that the Bill ought to be rejected. Any private Bill could be opposed before the Committee in the regular form. He sincerely sympathised with the property owners, and he did not agree that their property should be taken for the good of the community without adequate compensation, any more than the property of other classes of the community. This was a great scheme which had been undertaken by the Leeds Corporation, and it was the largest scheme of this sort that had ever come before Parliament. The justification for it was to be found in the very heavy death rate.


The hon. Member for South Louth, who moved the rejection of this Bill, did so on the ground that the Corporation of Leeds, in taking power to clear an insanitary area in that city, did not make sufficient provision for housing the working classes displaced by the scheme. I do not think that that contention will be found to be correct when the statistics are examined. In this case the number of persons of the working classes who will be displaced under the scheme is 9,234. The order now under consideration provides for rehousing on the sites of existing buildings 6,000 persons, leaving a balance to be provided for in other ways of 3,234. There is suitable house room vacant within half a mile of the area to accommodate 1,070, and beyond the half mile but within a mile sufficient for a further 1,500, leaving 664 unaccounted for. Of this total 616 are provided for in model lodging houses, and therefore the actual number which can be said to be unprovided for is only 48. I do not think that the House can possibly regard that as unsatisfactory provision for the working classes. The hon. Gentleman also stated that the Local Government Board inspector during his inquiry came only into contact with the officials of the Corporation and not with the working classes. I doubt whether that could ever be an accurate description of an inquiry held by an inspector of the Local Government Board, but it is most certainly an inaccurate description in this case. A long inquiry was held by the inspector at Leeds, and witnesses of every sort and condition were heard. The inspector himself spent considerable time personally inspecting every portion of the land and every court, alley, and street within the area affected, and the recommendation he makes to me is based not alone upon the evidence received from the medical officer of health and other experts, but also upon his own personal experience after close investigation conducted by himself and after a careful examination of all the property. Therefore, I do not think it can fairly be alleged that the inspector only came into contact with the Corporation officials. My hon. friend the Member for South West Manchester alleges that some property owners in Leeds have not been heard, and that they will suffer an injustice through the operation of the penal clauses of the Act of 1890. When my hon. friend states that some of the property owners were not heard at the inquiry, I do not think he has been correctly informed. The point was raised before the inspector whether or not this was a scheme within the meaning of the Act. The inspector decided that that was a question for the Local Government Board or Parliament to decide, and with that point he declined to deal, but he did not decline to hear the owners in regard to the scheme as it affected their property. I think the point raised was one for the Local Government Board to decide, and Parliament could reverse their decision if hon. Members disagreed with it. I do, however, hope that this House will pause before it consents to check in any way the work of large corporations in their efforts to deal with insanitary areas. There is an additional danger in rejecting such schemes as this, and it is that if Parliament in ail cases insists upon the full number of those displaced being provided for before the areas are allowed to be dealt with, I venture to say that you will make the work of clearing insanitary areas practically impossible. There is, fortunately, accommodation within easy reach of the affected area, and nobody could suggest that it would be a hardship for working men to go half a mile or so further. I admit that the scheme is important as a precedent; as my hon. friend has said, it is the largest scheme which has ever been brought forward under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, but I know of no word or line in that Act which limits the size of a scheme. It has been said that the scheme does not comply with the Act: because it does not definitely lay down what the Corporation propose to do, but the Corporation have made a full and complete plan as to what they propose to do with this insanitary area when it is cleared. I do not hesitate to say that from the point of view of getting rid of many insanitary houses the scheme is a right and sensible one, and I hope the House will see its way to adopt it.


said the Bill had been attacked from different points of view. But he could assure his hon. friend the Member for Northwich that it was not intended to erect, back to back, houses on the area in question. He quite agreed that the clearing of such a large area was a matter of very serious consideration; but it was obvious that the House could not at that stage give a ripe judgment on all the details of the Bill. The scheme was promoted by the city council of Leeds, the members of which were practically unanimous in favour of it, and was supported by the Trades Council. A full local inquiry, lasting eight days, had been made into the scheme, and the Local Government Board had been satisfied on the technical points that the provisions of the various Housing Acts had been fulfilled. The Bill had the support of the Government. There was nothing in the Acts requiring full details of the scheme to be embodied in the Provisional Order, for that would be impossible. In these circumstances, he hoped the House, having regard to the great necessity that existed for this Bill, and to the fact that the mortality in the area was 40 per cent. higher than in the remainder of the city, would read the measure a second time and send it upstairs for the consideration of the Committee.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

said that in his own constituency he had had some experience of the corporation pulling down houses of poor people and neglecting to provide accommodation for those dispossessed. The result had been that, instead of reducing the insanitary condition of the poor people in Dublin, they had removed these poor people from comparatively good houses to worse houses in other parts of the city. A colleague of his had received a letter from a working man who lived in Leeds, who said that before any corporation was allowed to pull down an enormous number of low-rented houses they ought to undertake to build other houses, and have them completed before commencing demolishing the old houses. A deputation of working men had laid these views before the Sanitary Committee of the Leeds Corporation, but he had not yet heard whether that Committee had reported on the matter. He did not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but, having an interest in the working classes everywhere, he thought they were entitled to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the representatives of the working classes had been consulted in this matter as well as the proprietors of property. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the proposal of the Corporation of Leeds was to erect immense flats, and that the rent to be charged for houses in these flats for working men would be 4s. to 6s. per week. That was a good deal higher rent than they were paying at present—namely, from 1s. 10d. to 3s. He thought the corporation ought to provide accommodation for poor people at the same rate they paid at present. He did not wish to occupy the time of the House much longer, because he knew that these private Bill discussions were always looked upon as a waste of time. He did not take that view, but thousands of poor people were affected by these schemes, and very frequently the time of the House was devoted to much less important subjects. He merely wanted the right hon. the President of the Local Government Board to assure the House that these poor room-holders would be heard before the Committee, those who, when evicted, would have no place to go to. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in Paris and other continental cities, before houses inhabited by working people were pulled down in order to make grand boulevards, houses were erected for the accommodation of the people dispossessed.

MR. CREAN (Cork, S.E.)

said he had had some experience on this subject, and therefore he intervened in the discussion to oppose the Bill. One of the great defects of the scheme was that the houses were to be pulled down without other houses being provided; and he had known the hardships to which poor people were exposed by that process. Two questions ought to be answered before the Bill was read a second time. First, where were they going to put the unfortunate people dispossessed by the demolition of the existing houses; and second, what class of houses were to be provided for them? As a general rule, corporations did away with what they considered houses which were an injury to public health, but they took no consideration of the unfortunate people whom they displaced. They only built

houses which attracted a better class of people into the district, and drove the people dispossessed into other districts. They should see that the rents of the better class of houses to be erected would be such that they could be paid by the poor people dispossessed. His experience was that the rents were generally doubled. In fixing the rents of these houses the corporation generally took into consideration both the sinking fund and the interest on the first outlay, and so they made the incoming tenant pay for both, although when the cost was paid off by the sinking fund they retained the property. That was not justice; it was iniquitous, and should be stopped. He hoped the scheme would be inquired into in its entirety, including the question of the rent of the outgoing tenant and the rent of the incoming tenant.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 307; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 253.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Denny, Colonel
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Dickson, Charles Scott
Aird, Sir John Brymer, William Ernest Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Bull, William James Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Bullard, Sir Harry Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield
Anson, Sir William Reynell Burns, John Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Anstruther, H. T. Butcher, John George Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Caine, William Sproston Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Arkwright, John Stanhope Caldwell, James Duke, Henry Edward
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Cameron, Robert Dunn, Sir William
Arrol, Sir William Carlile, William Walter Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart
Ashton, Thomas Gair Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Edwards, Frank
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Atherley-Jones, L. Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Elibank, Master of
Austin, Sir John Cawley, Frederick Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Baird, John George Alexander Cayzer, Sir Charles William Emmott, Alfred
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Fardell, Sir T. George
Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christchurch Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worcr' Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Banbury, Frederick George Channing, Francis Allston Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Mane'r
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Chapman, Edward Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Coddington, Sir William Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Coghill, Douglas Harry Fisher, William Hayes
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Cohen, Benjamin Louis FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Bill, Charles Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Fletcher, Sir Henry
Black, Alexander William Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Flower, Ernest
Blundell, Colonel Henry Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Forster, Henry William
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Craig, Robert Hunter Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Cripps, Charles Alfred Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Crombie, John Williams Galloway, William Johnson
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Garfit, William.
Brassey, Albert Crossley, Sir Saville Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.
Brigg, John Dalkeith, Earl of Goddard, Daniel Ford
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Dalrymple, Sir Charles Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn) Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent) Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Gore, Hon. GRCOrmsby-(Salop Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (Cum. Penr. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Russell, T. W.
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E. Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Maconochie, A. W. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Graham, Henry Robert M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm' nds M'Crae, George Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Gretton, John M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Greville, Hon. Ronald M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Majendie, James A. H. Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Hamilton, Rt. Hon Lord G (Midd'x Malcolm, Ian Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Manners, Lord Cecil Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Mansfield, Horace Rendall Spear, John Ward
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stanley, Lord (Lord)
Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Stevenson, Francis S.
Heaton, John Henniker Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart
Helder, Augustus Morrell, George Herbert Strachey, Edward
Helme, Norval Watson Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. Stroyan, John
Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Tennant, Harold John
Holland, William Henry Moss, Samuel Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Mount, William Arthur Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower
Hornby, Sir William Henry Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.),
Horner, Frederick William Myers, William Henry Thorburn, Sir Walter
Horniman, Frederick John Nicol, Donald Ninian Thornton, Percy M.
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Norman, Henry Tollemache, Henry James
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Norton, Capt. Cecil William Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Tritton, Charles Ernest
Jacoby, James Alfred Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Tuke, Sir John Batty
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham Valentia, Viscount
Johnston, William (Belfast) Palmer, George Wm. (Reading Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield)
Joicey, Sir James Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Wallace, Robert
Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a Partington, Oswald Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Paulton, James Mellor Walton, John (Barnsley)
Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt. Hn Sir U. Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Kearley, Hudson E. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Percy, Earl Weir, James Galloway
Kitson, Sir James Pierpoint, Robert Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Knowles, Lees Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Labouchere, Henry Pirie, Duncan V. Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Lambert, George Plummer, Walter R. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Laurie, Lieut.-General Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Law, Andrew Bonar Pretyman, Ernest George Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Lawson, John Grant Purvis, Robert Willox, Sir John Archibald
Layland-Barratt, Francis Pym, C. Guy Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Rankin, Sir James Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Ratcliffe, R. F. Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Leigh, Sir Joseph Rea, Russell Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Leng, Sir John Reid, James (Greenock) Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R. (Bath)
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Renshaw, Charles Bine Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Levy, Maurice Rentoul, James Alexander Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Lewis, John Herbert Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green) Wylie, Alexander
Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Roe, Sir Thomas TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Cautley.
Lough, Thomas Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Lowe, Francis William Ropner, Colonel Robert
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Cullinan, J.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Carew, James Laurence Delany, William
Blake, Edward Clancy, John Joseph Donelan, Captain A.
Boland, John Cogan, Denis J. Doogan, P. C.
Boyle, James Condon, Thomas Joseph Duffy, William J.
Burke, E. Haviland Crean, Eugene Field, William
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Power, Patrick Joseph
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid Reddy, M.
Hammond, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperarp, N.) Redmond. William (Clare)
Kennedy, Patrick James O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Leamy, Edmund O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Sullivan, Donal
Lundon, W. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. O'Dowd, John Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
M'Govern, T. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Minch, Matthew O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Nolan and Mr. Nannetti.
Mooney, John J. O'Malley, William
Murnaghan, George O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) O'Shee, James John

Bill read a second time, and committed.