§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ *(3.15.) MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)
moved as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The powers sought under it, he said, were of so extraordinary a nature that he did not think the Board, as at present constituted, was a proper body to possess them. What were the exceptional powers asked for under this Bill? He would take first the power to borrow the enormous sum of £650,000. According to the Engineer's estimate that amount would not be sufficient to properly equip the port. The Engineer, in fact, estimated that £1,258,000 would be required for the work. What had brought about the state of affairs which rendered it necessary in the twentieth century to spend over a million of money in order to bring the port of Dublin into a proper condition? The Port and Docks Board had, from time to time, obtained power from Parliament to borrow money. What had become of this money? He had been member of the Board for the last three years, and his opinion was that the business of the Board had been mismanaged and the money squandered by those who, he was sorry to say, were still members. This mismanagement would go on unless steps were taken to alter the constitution of the Board, and he did not think that that would be done until the citizens 6 of Dublin had a voice in the selection of members. He held that Parliament had no right to give the Board power to borrow such an enormous sum as £650,000, which he honestly believed would be wasted, and then there would be another application to Parliament for further borrowing powers. The Bill also asked for power to levy rates on goods entering and leaving the port. Dublin had had the reputation in the past of being a free port, but he was sorry to say that, owing to the negligence of the Board, it was not a free port in the sense it should be because while all manufactured articles from England and the Continent came into the port free, balks of wood and pieces of marble in a raw state were taxed, and the consequence was that the artisans of Dublin were prevented having the opportunity of manufacturing articles. There had been no desire or effort on the part of the Board to remove that grievance. Last year a Bill for the purpose of repealing that pernicious clause was brought forward, but the measure was dropped. If the revenue of the port required that taxes should be placed on goods coming in he had no objection, but he did assert that it was neither right nor just to impose these taxes without giving the people who had to pay them a voice in the election of the authority which imposes them. Under this Bill it was also proposed to revise the register of electors every three years. That would be all very well if the members of the Board were to be elected every third year, but, under the present system of election, a certain number went out of office each year and consequently in some years the register would tail to contain the names of a large number who had a right to be upon it. He therefore thought that that provision ought to be amended. There was another provision with regard to the leasing and the charging of rates on those who used the Custom House Docks. That was a new idea, and it had been done in direct opposition to the promise given when the Bill was under the consideration of the Board. That promise was that the representations and protests should be taken into consideration when the matter came before the Parliamentary Committee, and in consequence of it a number of Members who would not otherwise have done so 7 voted for the Bill. It had not been done, and this he submitted amounted to a breach of faith. It might be urged that it was not right he should take exception to the constitution of the Board, but he thought he could give good reasons for his present action. His experience of the last three years as a member of the Board was that it did not take into consideration the interests of the general community of Dublin, but rather the private interests of members who managed to get themselves elected, and who occupied the greater part of the time of the Board with matters affecting their business interests. The object of the Bill of 1898 was to secure that persons interested in the commerce and trade of Dublin should have seats on the Board. Had that been attained? He would ask the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was a voter for the City of Dublin, if he had a voice in the election of the Board.
§ *MR. NANNETTI
said the hon. Gentleman was one of the lucky ones, for he had no hesitation in saying that the majority of the citizens of Dublin had no voice at all in the election of the Board. The representation of the Board consisted of 12 traders, i.e., men engaged in trade or manufacture, and for whom up to six votes could be cast; nine members specially elected to represent the shipping interest, and for whom up to ten votes could be cast; and six chosen by the Corporation. That was in accordance with the provisions of the Bill of 1898 which was brought forward in consequence of the state of public feeling at the time in regard to the scandalous manner in which the business of the Board was being managed. He would like to point out that although the Corporation had six representatives on the Board, they had no real power, because the traders and shippers formed the majority, and therefore the representatives of the people were not in a position to remedy any abuses that might exist. Under the present system of election the trader, who was in a small way of business in the City, and who was as deeply interested in the public welfare as the biggest merchant or manufacturer, had his vote nullified every time he went to the ballot-box, 8 and he would like to know how in the name of common sense it was possib'e to have a popular or properly elected body under present conditions. It was to his mind impossible. The same class of men got appointed year after year, thanks to the plurality system of voting. and they were enabled to keep off the Board persons who were equally interested in the welfare of the port of Dublin. Recently a gentleman sought election who knew more about the work of the Port of Dublin than many members of the Board, and yet, specially qualified as he was, he failed to secure election. Now, he himself had a seat on the Board, as he had already stated. He was a tax-payer of the City and he had to pay poor rates, yet, although he was entitled to sit on the Board, he had no vote and no share in electing it. The Lord Mayor of Dublin also, he believed, had no vote, and he knew for a fact that some of the wealthiest citizens were in a similar position.
He did suggest that the House ought not to confer on a Board constituted in this manner the power of raising and expending enormous sums of money, unless it was prepared at the same time to secure to the citizens of Dublin some voice in the management of its affairs. He had no hesitation in asserting that as a result of the present constitution of the Board, its funds would be absolutely squandered. He thought the best evidence of mismanagement was to be found in the fact that, although the Board obtained extensive borrowing powers four years ago, it had had again to come to Parliament for more money. Extensive works were contemplated under this Bill, but he would like to point out that although, in 1887, when powers were asked in another place to borrow money in order to provide a second graving dock and were granted, from that day until this the dock had not been constructed, the shipbuilding industry had been ruined, and hundreds of men had been deprived of employment which would otherwise have been open to them. Complaints had been made to him by Dublin merchants that they were compelled to send their ships out of Dublin for repairs, owing to the manner in which they were treated for graving 9 dock accommodation by this Board. He instanced a case where a large ship put into Dublin for repairs, which would have taken over three months to carry out, and which would have given large numbers of men work, but again the work was sent away because the dock was required by one of those who at that time was a member of the Board for the repair of his companies' vessels. The citizens of Dublin knew him too well to believe that he would be a part, to anything which would prevent money being spent to the advantage of the working-men of Dublin; but he objected to money being spent by a Board which had neglected to carry out their duties. Owing to the mismanagement of the Board this graving dock which could have been built for £50,000 when the money was borrowed would now cost £120,000, and he had little confidence in the Board, which had not the character of dealing generously with the workers. What would be the result if the Bill passed? The Board would obtain the money they required, which would enable them to perpetuate the present system for 20 or 30 years longer; and the citizens of Dublin would not be afforded any opportunity of reforming it. It might be said that he had no right to give the character to the Board which he had given. Personally he believed that the members were the most estimable gentlemen in the City of Dublin. He was not referring to them individually, but was referring to them in their representative capacity. On three different occasions, whole the Bill was under consideration, attempts had been made to alter the existing state of affairs, but without effect. Consequently, if the Bill were lost, the responsibility would be on the gentlemen who ruled the roost, and who wereactuated by narrow-minded ideas.
In his opposition to the Bill he was merely discharging his duty and endeavouring to carry out a principle. Charges had been brought against him because of his opposition, but he could afford to pass them by. He maintained that the method of election to the Board was obsolete and ought to be swept away. The voice of the people ought to prevail, but he did not even ask for that to its fullest extent as he had been willing 10 to accept a compromise. One of the arguments used by gentlemen who were canvassing in favour of the Bill was that if the multiple vote was abolished not a single Protestant would be elected to the Board. Such an idea never entered his mind. He would sooner cut his hand off than be a party to depriving his Protestant fellow countrymen of their right to representation. The history of Dublin showed that such a thing was impossible. The Board knew that if multiple voting were abolished the popular party in Dublin would get the management of the affairs of the Board meetings into their own hands, that was not wanted by the Board. It was stated that the object of the Bill was to provide employment for the working classes in Dublin, but he took issue on that statement. He was satisfied that the greater part of the money would not go into the pockets of the working men of Dublin. Many of the contracts would have to be given to Dutch and German firms, who would send over their own men. If he thought that the Bill would be the means of providing employment in Dublin it would modify his opposition, but he did not believe it would. He was satisfied that in order to bring the port of Dublin into a proper state of efficiency money was necessary, but he wanted the citizens to have a voice in the spending of it. If the Corporation members had put their backs to the wall and insisted on their rights, they would have got them; but when the Board found that the Corporation members were not united on one point, they refused every compromise. The Board in the past had driven trade away and that result would continue. What, for instance, was the history of the Customs House Docks. They were losing thousands of pounds every year, but when they were taken over by the Board from a private company, they were making money hand over hand. In that connection, the charge had actually been made at a meeting of the Board by a responsible member; that the reason why that loss continued was that there was a scheme among the members themselves to purchase the Docks in order to turn them into a limited liability company.
11 He gave that statement for what it was worth. What was the history of the Pilotage Board of Dublin. It was £11,000 in debt, and was likely to remain in debt because the merchants would not allow anything to be done. Therefore he thought the Bill should not be read a second time unless the Board were prepared to overhaul their constitution and were made subservient to public opinion, in order that the citizens of Dublin should have a voice in its management.
§ *(3.45.) MR. COGAN (Wicklow, E.)
seconded the Amendment. The Bill proposed to give new and very extensive powers to an authority in which he, as a citizen and merchant of Dublin, and he ventured to say the vast majority of the citizens of Dublin had no confidence. The hon. Member for the College Green Division had enumerated the main features and provisions of the extraordinary franchise by which this Board was elected, but he had omitted to mention one particular class of voters who, at the present time, possessed the power of plural voting up to a maximum of 10 votes. He referred to the owners of shipping trading with the port of Dublin but not registered in Dublin. This class of voters would have their voting power doubled if this Bill were passed into law in its present shape, because their franchise consisted in possessing a vote for every £100 of Port dues paid until a maximum of 10 votes was reached. The numerous steamers doing a limited trade with the port of Dublin at present would possess infinitely more voting power under the new order of things to be created by this Bill than the largest trader in the city of Dublin, and consequently more control over the policy of the Port and Docks Board. There was another grave objection to this Bill in its present shape, namely, that it proposed to impose dues, or, in other words, a tax, on all merchandise manufactured and raw materials and live stock exported or imported after the passing of this Bill into law. He submitted that this very important and drastic change in the law was being promoted, to a very large extent, without taking the citizens of Dublin into the confidence of the pro- 12 moters; for he believed that ninty-nine one-hundredths of the people who were most deeply interested in this change—namely, the citizens of Dublin and those trading with and through the city of Dublin—knew nothing and have no means of knowing up to now how far-reaching and serious the taxes which this Bill sought to impose. The right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bitterly opposed last year from that side of the House because of the imposition of an import duty on sugar and an export duty on coals; yet this Bill proposed to follow closely the example set by the right hon. Baronet last year, and, indeed, went much farther than he dared to go, for it imposed an import and export duty on all merchandise.
But as he had mentioned sugar he would point out what the Bill proposes to do in dealing with that article. It has just as many rates and sub-heads as were contained in the Finance Act of last year. It said that the rates on sugar of all sorts should be ls, per ton; on sugar-candy, 2s. 6d. per ton; on molasses, treacle, and syrup, 10d. per ton; on glucose, ls. 3d, per ton; and on confectionery, 2s. 6d. per ton. He was curious to know what the agricultural community in the Dublin district would think of this Bill, but, as he had already stated, they were, he believed, absolutely in the dark in regard to its proposals. The Bill proposed to levy a duty of per cwt. on all butter exported through the port of Dublin, and to tax all the agriculture produce, including all classes of live stock, in a similar manner, so that at least a tax of £15,000 per annum will be put upon all Irish agricultural produce exported through the port of Dublin in the future, and this without any real corresponding advantages to the trading community or the general public; for the advantages proposed to be gained would be entirely for the benefit of the shipping and railway companies.
In this connection, he could not understand the illogical attitude taken up by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division. He appeared to be in favour of the Bill with all its faults, and would not hesitate to place in the hands of the Port and Docks Board, unfettered by any 13 conditions, the immense powers and privileges which the Bill proposed to confer, while at the same time he knew that popular opinion, including that of the mercantile community of Dublin irrespective of politics, was entirely in favour of a sweeping radical change in the composition of the Board. The hon. Gentleman professed a platonic affection for a popular or at least an extended franchise, but as an old Parliamentary hand he must know that, if this Bill were allowed to pass, any alteration or modification of the present intolerable system must be postponed for another 25 years at least. He (Mr. Cogan) would not say anything of what the members of the live stock trade would think of the President of their Association for in a large measure helping to place a burden upon their already hard-pressed industry. But, forsooth, his argument and defence was that, because he held to the old-fashioned, out-of-date old Tory policy of protection, he would not hesitate to tax exports, in order that he might thereby be enabled to place an embargo on imports.
There was another aspect of the case to which he might direct attention. The Board's engineer reported that £1,258,000 would be required to carry out all the improvement schemes which he recommended, but that a selection of work to be undertaken might be made to the extent of £1,000,000. How was this enormous sum proposed to be raised? By borrowing £650,000, and employing £350,000 of revenue for new work. Who in of our time ever heard of such a proposition? Yet the Committee adopted this recommendation. Surely it was not the policy of public Boards nor of Parliament that capital expenditure should be made out of rates! All this showed the utterly careless abandonment of this fossilised Board, and such a thing ought not to be permitted. He submitted that this monstrosity of other days ought to be abolished out of existence; that this House, in dealing with this matter, should bear in mind what the policy of both sides of the House in this Question of the franchise had been; that the whole policy of Parliament had been and was in the direction of the widest and fullest franchise, the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, being the latest example. Surely if the people of Ireland were worthy of having such a full franchise 14 conferred upon them for county government, the citizens of the metropolis of Ireland ought to be—and they were—capable of bearing the responsibility through a similar franchise for the management and improvement of their port.
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Nannetti.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ (4.0.) Mr. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)
contended that the criticisms which had been brought against the Bill were such as might very well be considered in Committee, but they had nothing to do with the general principles of the Bill, or with the question of whether or not it should be read a second time. The hon. Member for the College Green and the St. Patrick Divisions could not claim to be the exclusive exponents of the public opinion in Dublin. From his long connection with the city, his official position, and the fact that he represented the Harbour Division, he claimed to have some right to speak on behalf both of the Port and of the City of Dublin. The system of voting, of which he was not in favour, had been described as practically obsolete or unheard of, but, as a matter of fact, it obtained in the ports of London, Swansea, Belfast, and other places. One of the grievances against the Board was that the only dues placed on goods were on raw material coming in. The remedy for that was contained in the Bill, and yet it was sought to reject the measure. But it was monstrously unfair for the hon. Member to accuse his own colleagues on the Board of being responsible for that state of things, seeing that it was the outcome of a provision made'by the old Irish Parliament, and had therefore been in existence for over a century. The Board itself tried to amend that provision last year, but the hon. Member blocked the Bill. As to the pilotage dues, the Board had applied to the Board of Trade in Dublin for an Amendment in regard to the manner in which pilotage certificates were issued; the Board of Trade had not given a satisfactory settlement. but they had 15 given the same as existed in any other port in the United Kingdom. The Bill actually provided to charge 12½ per cent. on the past revenue of these companies, but again the hon. Member proposed to reject the Bill. The present composition of the Board was the result of a compromise between the Corporation of Dublin, the Port and Docks Board, and the Chamber of Commerce, there being 28 members, of whom 12 were traders' representatives, nine were shipping members (all elected on the general franchise), six were nominated by the Corporation, with the Lord Mayor ex officio. Quite recently three members representing various sides in the present controversy vacated their seats, but not a single person opposed their re-election. If the franchise was so bad, how did the hon. Member account for the fact that the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division, who was second on the list at the General Election, was returned unopposed the other day? It could not be said that the hon. Member was a persona grata with all classes in Dublin, or that the people had more faith in him than in any other of the Irish representatives. The fact was that all parties in Dublin were anxious to make the Board a working body, not for politics, or for any particular section of the community, but to bring it up to the level of other ports for the benefit of the city at large. What was the reason for the promotion of the Bill? Dublin had been a free port. The seconder of the Amendment had spoken of the iniquity of imposing dues on goods. But how was it an outrage on public morality to do in Dublin what was done in Cork, London, Liverpool, and practically every port in the United Kingdom? Was it not trifling with the House of Commons and belieing the intelligence of the people of Dublin to say that what was necessary for the working equipment of the Port of Dublin, and to bring it up to the condition of other ports was a shameful outrage on popular feeling in Ireland? The result of the endeavour to maintain Dublin as a free port had been practically to ruin its revenues. Any port that attempted to derive its dues from shipping alone, and not as revenue from goods, had been seriously hit by the modern system of registration, as many 16 companies paid only one-twentieth of the amount they would have to pay if charged on the goods they brought in. Last year the surplus revenue of the Board was only £500. It was true they had unexhausted borrowing powers, but if they attempted to issue their stock they would be laughed at unless they could give some security that the revenue would be increased in order to pay the interest and sinking fund charges. He appealed to the House to save the hon. Memher from the consequences of his own action, and, as was usual in such cases, to send the Bill to a Committee where the various points which had been raised could be dealt with.
§ (4.15.) THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover)
The matters dealt with in this Bill are of such importance that I will ask the House to allow me to intervene at this stage. I do not rise to discuss the merits of this Bill, but to advance one argument which, I think, hon. Members ought to hear as to the present constitution of the authority which manages this port. The constitution of the authority received the sanction of this House less than four years ago. This House at that time affixed its sanction to a Bill which embodied a compromise, and in that compromise the body presiding over the port had its constitution altered. The franchise qualification was reduced, the representation of the city was increased from three to seven members, and other great concessions were made. As a set-off to these concessions, and as a portion of the same bargain, this plural voting was retained. I think that the House should not take such an exceptional course as to reject this Bill, because they are asked to reverse a decision so recently arrived at.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)
said that although he happened to be a member of the Port and Docks Board he was a supporter of this Bill. The reason they wanted this Bill was because they wished to be able to provide accommodation for shipping, which they had hitherto been unable to do, because their funds were very limited owing to the manner in which they were collected. The tendency nowadays was to build ships larger and larger, and they required greater and more expensive accommodation, In 17 Dublin the ancient port and old quays required improvement, and they wanted accommodation for the ocean trade and to extend the North Wall. This Bill represented mutual concessions on all sides. They had had great difficulty in arriving at the settlement contained in the Bill, which had been agreed upon after the interests of traders, merchants, shippers, Corporations, and the Chambers of Commerce had been duly considered. The result of this ventilation of views was that, after two years discussion, a mutual arrangement was arrived at to come to the House to ask for these increased powers. He would never have supported this Bill unless import dues were put upon goods. Dublin Port was called a free port, but it was no such thing, for it could not be expected that they could provide dock facilities without they were paid for. They might just as well talk about a free railway. It was absurd for an hon. Member to stand up in this House and state that the merchant paid the dues, because they were, as a matter of fact, paid by the consumer. He could not understand why the Port of Dublin should be supposed to be the property of traders and merchants, for it was the property of the City of Dublin. If he had his way lie would have the Parliamentary franchise for this Board. The hon. Member for East Wicklow animadverted upon the import dues, but in every port in the three kingdoms, or in the civilised world, there were export and import dues. Did the hon. Member for Wicklow wish Dublin to be the only exception? Why should it be an exception to all other ports in the world? He hoped the Port of Dublin would be exceptional in its progress in the future. Surely the hon. Member for College Green did not belong to the system of economists who maintained that the free import system was an advantage to any port. He was not a Protectionist by any means, but he did not see why everything should be dumped down free of duty with the result that labour was discouraged. That was an extraordinary argument.
§ MR. NANNETTI
said he had no objection to a tax on goods provided the franchise was extended to the consumer 18 so that he could elect those who imposed the tax.
§ Mr. FIELD
said that the Port and Docks Board had, during the past few years, done a great deal for the port. The reformed Board [was intent upon doing its duty to the public in the future. Referring to the rules of the Board of Trade with regard to the measurement of ships, the hon. Member said he could not understand why the present system was allowed to prevail. There were two vessels which came into the port at present minus tonnage dues, altogether on account of the system of measurement. He believed it would be in the interest of the City of Dublin that the Bill now before the House should be passed. If it was not passed undoubtedly a large number of men who were at present engaged by the Port and Docks Board would be cast out of employment. This was not a mere pious opinion. He consulted the engineer before he left Dublin, and he knew as a matter of fact that it would have this effect. Dublin had a scheme on hand for the revival of shipbuilding there, and it was important that the facilities of the port should be increased. He hoped the majority of the Members of the House would support the Bill in the interests of trade and labour.
§ MR. JOYCE (Limerick)
said he found himself in the very doubtful position of the gentleman who had two ladies in love with him—How happy could I be with either, Were t'other dear charmer away.He sympathised with the hon. Member for College Green until he heard the very able argument brought forward from the other side. He thought it would be wise on the part of the hon. Member for College Green to withdraw his opposition at present and allow the Bill to go through, leaving the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division to endeavour to get his Amendment with regard to plurality of votes inserted in the Bill.
§ (4.42.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 293; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 27.)21
|Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex.F.||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Keswick, William|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth|
|Allen,Chas. P. (Glouc.,Stroud)||Doxford, Sir Win. Theodore||Knowles, Lees|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lambert, George|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Edwards, Frank||Law, Andrew Bonar|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Egerton, Hon. A. de Talton||Lawson, John Grant|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Austin, Sir John||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edwd. H.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Fardell, Sir T. George||Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareh'm|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Balcarres, Lord||Field, William||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Finch, George H.||Leveson-Gower,Fred'rick N. S.|
|Balfour,Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Levy, Maurice|
|Balfour,Rt. Hn. Ger. W. (Leeds)||Fishier, William Hayes||Lloyd-George, David|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Fison, Frederick William||Lockwood, Lr.-Col. A. R.|
|Banbury, Frederick George||FitzGerald,Sir RohertPenrose-||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Flower, E. nest||Long,Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S|
|Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin||Forster, Henry William||Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)|
|Beach,Rt. Hon. SirMich. Hicks||Foster,Phil.S.(Warwick,S.W.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Gardner, Ernest||Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)|
|Bignold, Arthur||Garfit, William||Lundon, W.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gibbs,Hn. A. G. H(Cityof Lond.||Macartney,Rt. Hn. WG Ellison|
|Boland, John||Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St Albans)||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Bond, Edward||Gilhooly, James||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.|
|Boscawen Arthur Griffith-||Goddard, Daniel Ford||M'Cahnont,C1.H.L.B. (Cambs.|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Gordon,Hn.J.E. (Elgin &Nairn||M`Calmont, Col. J (Antrim, E.)|
|Bowles,Capt. H.F. (Middlesex||Gordon,MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts||M`Govern, T.|
|Bowles, T.Gibson (King's Lynn||Gore,Hn.GRC.Ormsby-(Salop||M`Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Brigg, John||Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)||M`Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Bull, William James||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Caine, William Sproston||Graham, Henry Robert||Mansfield, Horace Rendall|
|Caldwell, James||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Massey-Mainwaring,Hn. W F.|
|Campbell,Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow||Greene,SirE W(B'rySEdm'nds||Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.||Mellor, Rt. Hon.John William|
|Carew, James Laurence||Grenfell, William Henry||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Carlile, William Walter||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Mitchell, William|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edwd. H.||Groves, James Grimble||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hambro, Charles Eric||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Hamilton,Rt. Hn LordG(Mid' x||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire||Hamilton Marq. of(L'nd'nde'ry||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hammond, John||Morton,ArthurH.A.(Deptford|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Moss, Samuel|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Muntz, Philip A.|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hayden, John Patrick||Murray,Rt. Hn A. Gr'h'm(Bute|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hayne, Rt. Charles Seale-||Myers, William Henry|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Heath, James (Staffords,N. W.||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Helder, Augustus||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Nolan,Col. John P. (Galway,N.|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hobhouse,C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth,South)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hogg, Lindsay||Norton, Capt.Cecil William|
|Colomh, Sir John Chas. Ready||Holland, William, Henry||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Hope,J. F (Sheffield, Brightside||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Homer, Frederick William||O'Doherty, William|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Houston, Robert Paterson||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Crombie, John William||Howard,J no (Kent, Faversham||Peel,Hn.Wm. Robt. Wellesley|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Howard, J (Midd., Tottenham)||Percy, Earl|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Dalkeith Earl of||Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton||Purvis, Robert|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Randles, John S.|
|Denny, Colonel||Joyce, Michael||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Dewar,john A. (Inverness-sh.)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Kennedy, Patrick James||Reid,Sir R.Threshie(Dumfries|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Kenyon,Hn.Geo. T.(Denbigh)||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Dimsdale,Sir Joseph Cockfield||Kenyon-SlaneY,Col. W. (Salop)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Ridley,H n. M. W.(Stalybridge||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)||Welby,Sir Charles(E(Notts.)|
|Ritchie,Rt.Hn. Chas.Thomson||Soares, Ernest J.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Roliertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Spear, John Ward||White,Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||Spence,Rt. Hn.C.R (North'nts||Whiteley,George(York,W.R.)|
|Ropner, Colonel Robert||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Round, James||Stanley,Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Stewart,Si MarkJ.M'Taggart||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Russell, T. W.||Sullivan, Donal||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Rutherford, John||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Williams,R'Hn JP'well-(Birm|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Talbot,RtHn.J.G (Oxf'd Univ.||Wilson,Fred.W (N' rfolk,Mid.|
|Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)||Thomas, David Alfred (Mertle'r||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Sassoon,Sir Edward Albert||Thomas,F.Ereeman-(Hastings||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Saunderson.Rt. Hn. Cl.Edw.J.||Thompson,Dr.EC(M'nagh'n,N||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks)|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Thorburn, Sir Walter||Wodehouse,Rt Hn E. R. (Bath)|
|Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Thornton, Percy M.||Wood, James|
|Seely,Maj.J E. B. (Isleof Wight||Tontlinson,Wm Edwd. Murray||Worsley-Taylor,HenryWilson|
|Seton-Karr, Henry||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wylie, Alexander|
|Sharpe, William Edward T.||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew||Ure, Alexander||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Simeon, Sir Barrington||Valentia, Viscount||Young, Samuel|
|Sinclair, John (Fortarshire)||Vincent,C1. Sir C. E. H (Shef'eld|
|Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Wason, Eugene (Clack mannan||Mr. Archdale and Mr.|
|Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)||Wason,John Cathcart (Orkeny||Harrington.|
|Smith, H C (N'rth mb. Tyneside||Welby,Lt. Col. A C E(Taunton|
|Abraham,William (Cork,N.E.||Ffrench, Peter||O'Mara, James|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Flynn, James Christopher||O'Shee, James John|
|Barry, E.(Cork, S.)||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Harwood, George||Power Patrick Joseph|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Price, Robert John|
|Blake, Edward||Jacoby, James Alfred||Rasch Major Frederic Carne|
|Boyle, James||Lewis, John Herbert||Reddy,M.|
|Burns, John||Lough, Thomas||Roberts, John Bryn (Eiflon)|
|Cameron, Robert||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Roche, John|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||M`Fadtlen, Edward||Runciman, Walter|
|Crean, Eugene||M. Hugh, Patrick A.||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Kenna, Reginald||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cullinan,J.||Murphy, John||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Delany, William||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Tennant, Harold John|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Dillon, John||O'Brien,Kendal (Tip'rary Mid.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Donelan, Captain A.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Farrell, James Patrick||O'Dowd, John||Mr. Nannetti and Mr.|
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
A notice of Motion in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin is on the Paper. It relates to franchise, but as it is not within the scope of the Bill the Motion is not in order.