§ *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)said, in moving the Motion which stood in his name, he should have to go into the Bill at some length, for the reason that it was not only important from the point of view that it was promoted by the London County Council, but also from the fact that if the principles of the Bill were adopted by the House and a right given to the London County Council to slaughter cattle supposed to be suffering from tuberculosis of the udder upon insufficient grounds, that principle must eventually be extended to every borough council throughout the country. That being so it was desirable that this House should decide whether it was advisable to give the London County Council these powers. He approached this Bill in no hostile sense, seeing that, as the Parliamentary Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, he had approached the London County Council to discuss the subject matter of his instruction in a friendly spirit, as it was to the interest of all agriculturists that no milk infected with tuberculosis should be supplied to the public, and that the citizens of our great cities should be protected in every possible way. The London County Council, however, met him with a non possumus, attitude and compelled him to take his present action in bringing the matter before the House. He had done everything in his power to settle this question outside the House in an amicable way before adopting his present course. The hon. Member traced the history of Clause 31, and pointed out that its insertion into this Bill was due to the "model milk clauses" being taken out of the Act of 1892 by the House of Lords, who said that if the citizens of London wished to deal with this question it was the borough councils of London who should come to this House and take 815 powers to apply the model milk clauses. One objection the agriculturists had to the Bill was that it proposed that a cow should be condemned on the ipse dixit, of a veterinary surgeon after what was called a clinical examination, which was a superficial examination at best, such as taking a cow's temperature. What the agriculturists asked was that a suspected cow should be isolated as a suspected case, but that before it was destroyed there should be a bacteriological examination of the milk of the cow, and if after the cow had been slaughtered it was found that she had not tuberculosis of the udder, then he concluded it was only fair that full and adequate compensation should be paid to the owner. They wanted a definition of "full compensation." The full market value of the cow at the time she was slaughtered might, and in all probability would, not meet the case, because the cow might be a very good milker, a deep milker, and a very valuable cow to the owner, and it might be that at the time she was slaughtered cows had fallen in value for some reason. There was a great difference in the market value of cows at different times of the year according to whether there was a large or small supply of milk, and the London County Council only proposed to give the market value at the time. The cows taken might be the best of a particular herd, and very deep milkers, and for that, reason very valuable to the owner, and this matter had to be considered from that point of view: because there was not only the loss to the owner of the cows in question, but the House must remember that it was the desire of those interested in the breeding of good dairy stock to keep those cows which were deep milkers in order that they might breed from them not only for the replenishing of the dairy, but in older to get good bulls for use on their herd of cows and for sale, as bulls out of good milkers were always in demand. It was essential for breeding good dairy stock to have bulls bred from the best and deepest milking strain possible. For that reason he had suggested in the Instruction that it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill to provide that a cow suspected of suffering Sir 816 from tuberculosis of the udder may be removed, and that a sample of such cow's milk shall be submitted before slaughter to the medical officer of health for the county for bacteriological examination, and to provide, if this examination shows evidence that the cow is so diseased, that the animal shall be slaughtered in the presence of and examined by a veterinary surgeon appointed in the way proposed in Sub-section (2) of Clause 34; and to provide that if, on examination, the veterinary surgeon certifies that such cow was not: suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, the council shall pay, in addition to the compensation provided for in Subsection (3) of Clause 34, a sum not exceeding 50 per cent, of the full value of such cow immediately before slaughter, as special damages for the loss of such cow, as the market value did not compensate for the loss which would accrue for the reasons he had already stated. That part of the instruction had been completely misunderstood by the London County Council. It was only to provide that where a slaughtered cow was proved not to have tuberculosis some additional compensation should be given to the owner.
Then there was the case of the man who had to keep up a certain herd in order to carry out his contracts, and he might be called upon, at a moment's notice, to buy cows in place of those slaughtered, though quite healthy, at a high price, which might be of no use to him when he got them, and there was that loss also to lie taken into consideration. Under all these circumstances it was only reasonable when it was proved that a slaughtered cow was not suffering from tuberculosis that the farmer should have some further compensation, and all the Instruction asked was for a sum not exceeding 50 per cent, of the market value. The County Council stated that his Instruction asked for 50 per cent. in addition, but it was not so; that was the maximum. It was limited to that for the benefit of the County Council. He would be perfectly prepared to accept "20 or 25 per cent, or even less as a limit: all he wanted was the principle accepted: all that the agriculturists asked for was something more than the actual market value of the cows at the date they were I slaughtered if found to be healthy. The amount involved was, after all, very small. The total number of cons kept in the county of London was only 4,700, and 817 that amount was annually decreasing owing to the County Council refusing licences, and supposing 1 per cent, of those cows when slaughtered were found not to be suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, and the whole 50 per cent, additional compensation were paid, it would only amount to £407, and while it would mean nothing to the County Council it was of vast importance to the dairymen, and would be to the farmers in other districts in which this principle might be adopted. As regarded the appointment of a valuer he understood that the London County Council were quite prepared to adopt the view of the Central Chamber of Agriculture that the valuer should be appointed by the Board of Agriculture instead of by themselves, and he' would not now deal with that. He reminded the House that it was an uncertain question among the experts at the present time as to whether a cow suffering from tuberculosis of the udder could communicate tuberculosis to human beings. That was a question which had been referred to the Royal Commission appointed in 1901, which had not yet reported, but which was expected to report shortly, and under those circumstances it might not be unreasonable to ask the London County Council to wait until that question was decided. Cows had been accused of spreading disease from one place to another. As in the instance of the outbreak of scarlet fever at Hendon, it was attributed to a diseased cow, but that was proved to be false, and that scarlet-fever could not be originated by cows, but only transmitted through the milk being infected from contact with another human being having the fever. In the case of the outbreak of sore throat closely resembling diphtheria at Woking, which was alleged to be communicated by cows to human beings, it was conclusively proved that nothing of the kind occurred, but that what happened in that case was that the milk was contaminated by the farmer and his family who were suffering from the exact kind of sore throat which was epidemic at Woking. The proof that the outbreak of sore throat was not caused by the milk was the farmer and his family did not drink the milk which was supposed to have caused it, and it had been only transmitted through the milk from one human being to another.
The Central Chamber of Agriculture were most anxious to do everything in 818 their power to assist the County Council in this matter, but they thought there ought to be fair and adequate compensation. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench seemed to be very much amused at the way in which ho was trying to defend the agricultural interest in that matter, but was it not a strange commentary on the present neglect of the Government of the Agricultural interest that, although there was a Board of Agriculture, it had been left to a private Member to watch the agricultural interest? The hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, who represented the Board in that House, was merely the phonograph of the Board, the President of which unfortunately sat in the other House.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That is hardly relevant to the Instruction now under discussion.
§ *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he only introduced the topic by way of illustration and in order to show why a private Member was performing a duty which properly devolves on a member of the Government, owing to the President of the Board of Agriculture not being a Member of the House of Commons. This was a question of far-reaching importance, affecting every farmer and every agriculturist, and the representative of the Board of Agriculture should have taken it up and spoken with authority on it, instead of leaving it to a private Member, lie begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed. That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill to provide that a cow suspected of suffering from tuberculosis of the udder may be removed, and that a sample of such cow's milk shall be submitted before slaughter to the medical officer of health for the county for bacteriological examination, and to provide, if this examination shows evidence that the cow is so diseased, that the animal shall be slaughtered in the presence of and examined by a veterinary surgeon appointed in the way proposed in Subsection (2) of Clause 34; and to provide that if, on examination, the veterinary surgeon certifies that such cow was not suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, the council shall pay, in addition to the compensation provided for in sub Section (3) of Clause 34, a sum not exceeding 50 819 per cent, of the full value of such cow immediately before slaughter, as special damages for loss of such cow; to provide that, if the veterinary surgeon certifies that the cow was so diseased, the council shall pay compensation in the manner provided by Part (a), Subsection (3), of Section 14 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and that the council shall also bear half of the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out the purposes of Clause 34; and to provide that the value of a cow slaughtered by the council, whether diseased or not shall be assessed by a valuer appointed by the Board of Agriculture, and not by a veterinary surgeon."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
§ *SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (Wigtonshire)said he had listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Member, firstly, because he represented an agricultural constituency, secondly, because he was a London ratepayer, and thirdly, because he had the honour of being the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis of 1898. He sympathised with the objects of the hon. Baronet, but lie could not help thinking that the speech was made under a misapprehension. He had spoken of cows suspected of tuberculosis. It was a technical subject but he might say that there was a great difference between generalised tuberculosis and localised tuberculosis. The hon. Baronet did not seem to have realised that tuberculosis of the udder was one of the rarest forms of the disease in cows, ft was not until the disease had become generalised that it appeared in the udder, and it could then easily be recognised by anyone skilled in veterinary science. Therefore there was no question of suspecting a cow of having tuberculosis of the udder. The hon. Member had spoken of the hardship inflicted on a farmer by suddenly having three or four of his cows taken and slaughtered. Could he cite a single instance in which that had occurred?
§ *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYDoes the right hon. Baronet say it is impossible?
§ *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLwould not commit himself to that, but he declared that such a case was unheard of. The Commissioners made most careful inquiry and never heard the slightest 820 doubt thrown by anyone on the perfect certainty with which tuberculosis of the udder could be recognised.
§ *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid he was not a veterinary surgeon. He was only stating the impression left on his mind by the expert evidence before the Commission. He admitted that it would be a great hardship if a farmer had three or four cows taken from his dairy and slaughtered, but compulsory power to slaughter was only given when the disease of the udder existed, and a ease in which three or four cows were suffering from tuberculosis of the udder was unheard of. Therefore he could not understand why the hon. Baronet took such extreme objection to Clause 34.
§ *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he did so at the unanimous request of the Council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture.
§ *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid the interruption of the hon. Baronet showed he was not conversant with the subject he was talking about. It was rash to assume from Professor Koch's change of front that there was no danger of infection from the interchange of the tubercular disease between bovine animals and man. That question was sub judice,, and they should not anticipate the verdict by declaring that there was no risk of infection. A very small percentage of cows exhibited tubercular disease in the udder, and, as the disease was easily recognised when it appeared in that organ, there was small risk of the slaughter of a cow on mistaken grounds.
§ M R. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)saidthe speech of the hon. and learned Baronet——
§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELLI am not "learned."
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the learned speech of the hon. Baronet, which certainly entitled him to that distinction, had proved conclusively that this was not a subject which the House of Commons could adequately discuss, lie had risen mainly in order to deny that the London County Council had taken up a non possumus, attitude in this matter. Immediately that body 821 found it necessary in the discharge of its statutory and sanitary obligations to 5,000,000 of people who wished to have pure milk, which was beneficial alike to town and country, they introduced these clauses into their General Powers Bill. The hon. Baronet promptly gave notice of the Instruction, which at once received most careful consideration at the hands of the County Council Committee and officials. Instead of the County Council having been peremptory and discourteous, the contrary was the case. When the Dairymen's Association asked for a locus the authorities of the House declined to recognise it, but the County Council took no objection to the application. They contended, however, that the House of Commons was not the proper tribunal to go into these scientific details, but that they should be considered by a Committee. The County Council had inserted clauses providing that if after examination the veterinary surgeon certified that a cow was not infected, the County Council should pay to the owner the full value of the cow before it was removed for slaughter, as certified by such veterinary surgeon, as well as the reasonable cost of any independent veterinary surgeon employed for the purposes of the section; while if after examination the animal was certified to be suffering from tuberculosis, the Council should pay such damage the owner might have sustained from the removal or slaughter of the cow as the veterinary surgeon should certify, together with half the reasonable cost of an independent veterinary surgeon He contended that these clauses met every reasonable case, and if there was any suspicion that they did not, the Committee upstairs would exercise their discretion and make them reasonable and fair. They all knew how some years since in a hunting country it was found that farmers bought chickens at 1s. each and charged the hunt 2s. 6d. or 3s. for them. Well, they must protect London against tubercular dumping of a like character.
§ SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)said that in the past he had been opposed to the London County Council. On this occasion, however, he supported its action. The agricultural industry was not accustomed to be treated with the lavish generosity suggested by the hon. Baronet, a generosity which, in view of 822 the approaching general election, might be looked upon with some suspicion. This proposal, if accepted, would apply to Essex as well as to Loudon. No one would deny that a man who had a cow in full milk was entitled to compensation if the animal were slaughtered in the public interest. He could certainly not support compensation up to 50 per cent., as suggested by the hon. Baronet. If the farmers got it, it would only make them unpopular, and, after all, as the farmer paid the rates, it would be merely putting the money in his pocket with one hand and taking it out with the other. Compensation was a two-edged sword. It was well known that in the case of swine fever, the disease had in many instances been induced in order to obtain compensation. He would be perfectly ready to accept the suggestion with regard to 10 per cent., but to propose 50 per cent. would do more harm than good.
SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)said he would like to say a word from the public health point of view. He admired the consistency with which the lion. Member for Somersetshire continually advocated the interest of the agricultural persons affected by Bills like tho present one. The House had had on this occasion exceptional advantages in forming a conclusion. They had had valuable information from the chairman of the Commission on Tuberculosis, who probably more than any man in England outside the veterinary profession knew this subject thoroughly. The whole tendency of his speech was to indicate that this was a matter to be sent to a Committee, and there investigated with expert evidence before them. While tuberculosis in this country was being lessened in every other direction, Sir R. Thorne Thorne, late Principal Medical Officer of the Local Government Board, had shown that it had been increasing among young children, and in his opinion that was largely due to the fact that there was a considerable amount of contaminated milk sold. It was only when tuberculosis affected the udder of the cow that there was direct contamination of the milk. When such a thins; happened it was the duty of every public authority to try and stop the dissemination of such a serious disease, and 823 he urged upon the House the advisability of sending the question to a Committee, where the whole matter could be investigated. His belief was that tuberculosis could be transmitted from the cow to the human subject, and that Professor Koch's case was not proved. Having regard to the assurance of the lion. Member for Battersea that the County Council were anxious to deal generously with owners of cows affected, he hoped the course he had suggested would be adopted.
§ MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)said that when he saw the proposed Instruction on the Paper he determined to vote in its favour, because it embodied a principle for which he had always contended, viz., that private property should not be taken away to secure a public benefit without compensation being granted. He could not help realising, however, that the case of the hon. Baronet opposite had been completely demolished by the hon. Member for Wigton. Even if that were not the case, there was the further consideration urged by the hon. Member for Battersea that a matter of this kind should be dealt with by a general Bill applicable to the whole of the country, so that the same conditions would apply all round. Therefore, much as he would like to vote for the principle of compensation, he felt compelled to withhold his support from the proposed Instruction.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,) Cumberland, Penrithsaid there was a further reason why this Bill should follow the ordinary course and go before the Committee upstairs. The Police and Sanitary Committee, by whom the Bill would be considered, was specially qualified for dealing with these matters, having often had questions of the same character to deal with. If the example of the London County Council was followed by other municipalities, as it probably would be, it would be extremely desirable that a set of clauses should be drawn up in the first instance to stand as a precedent for those other municipalities. It was impossible for the House to consider the matter in all its aspects and draw up a clause satisfactory to all parties and one 824 which would remain for a considerable time suitable for insertion in all similar Bills. The Police and Sanitary Committee would be entitled to call before them representatives of the Board of Agriculture and of the Local Government Board, and thus would be able to give the subject much fuller and more mature consideration than could be given by the House at large.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)expressed his entire agreement with the views put forward by the hon. Member: for Wigton, and the hope that the proposed Instruction would be withdrawn. He had come down with the intention of supporting the proposal, but, after listening to the speeches of the hon. Baronet opposite and the hon. Member for Battersea, he, like an honest man, was prepared to change his opinion. He had long fought for the principle that when anything was confiscated for the public good, the public purse should pay for it, and that principle was recognised in the Bill. He did not agree with compensation up to 50 per cent. additional to the value of the animal being given. The County Council were prepared to act not only justly but generously, and he hoped, therefore, the Instruction would be withdrawn.
§ SIR MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbrightshire)was understood to ask whether the Committee would have power so to amend the Bill as to increase the value placed on the animal. If so, they would be able to grant an additional sum so that the owner would not be the loser.
MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)remarked that after a discussion on a kindred subject before the referee to-day they had found themselves unable to give a locus, to the Metropolitan Dairymen's Association upon clauses of this kind. He would like an assurance that the London County Council would not take any technical objection of that kind.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the County Council offered no objection to the locus, of the Dairymen's Association, or anybody else who was reasonably interested in this important matter.
*MR. BEAUNONT (Northumberland, Hexham)said that, as Chairman of Agriculture, he 825 desired strongly to support the proposed instruction. The Chamber of Agriculture were not animated by political motives in this matter as had been suggested by the lion. Member for Essex (in fact, any political views the Chamber might have would, he thought, be the same as the hon. Member's); their reason for objecting to the matter going upstairs was that they had not the money to brief counsel, as the County Council were able to do out of the rates. With regard to compensation, they would be prepared to accept 10 per cent.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)was entirely in favour of the principle of the Instruction, but was opposed to excessive compensation. The interest of the whole community was of much more importance than the interest of one individual. He thought the local authority ought not only to slaughter a diseased cow, but also to take action against a man who, know-
§ ing a cow to be diseased, distributed the milk he obtained from it.
§ *MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)desired, as a former Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, to dissociate himself from the Instruction. He regretted that he could not support his hon. friend in this matter; the proposals of the clause were even more moderate than the recommendations of the Commission. It was the interest of farmers to help to eliminate the disease, while those proposals would tend to increase the number of diseased animals. He thought agriculturists were very ill-advised to advance claims of this kind, which would imperil their legitimate grievances receiving proper consideration.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 49.)
827| AYES. | ||
| Allen, Charles P. | Helder, Augustus | Randles, John S. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Helme, Norval Watson | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bignold, Arthur | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hunt, Rowland | Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Keswick, William | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Lambert, George | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthvr) |
| Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | Leveson-Gower, Frederick X. S. | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G. | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets | Mooney, John J. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Morpeth, Viscount | Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.) |
| Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc) | Morrison, James Archibald | |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Mount, William Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Edward Strachey and Mr. Gardner. |
| Gretton, John | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | |
| Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Plummer, Walter R. | |
| Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Causton, Richard Knight |
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Bigwood, James | Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Black, Alexander William | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) |
| Ainsworth, John Sterling | Blundell, Colonel Henry | Channing, Francis Allston |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden | Boland, John | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bond, Edward | Clive, Captain Percy A. |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Brigg, John | Coghill, Douglas Harry |
| Asaton, Thomas Gair | Broadhurst, Henry | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Cremer, William Randal |
| Anbrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Burke, E. Haviland | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile |
| Balcarres, Lord | Butcher, John George | Cullinan, J. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Caldwell, James | Delany, William |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Campbell. J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. | Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Calway |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Kilbride, Denis | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Dobbie, Joseph | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Reddy, M. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Douglas, Charles 11. (Lanark) | Lloyd-George, David | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Lowther, Rt Hn JW(Cum, Penr. | Roche, John |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Rose, Charles Day |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Edwards, Frank | Lundon, W. | Samuel, S. M, (Whitechapel) |
| Emmott, Alfred | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Farrell, James Patrick | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Shackleton, David James |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Crae, George | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Field, William | M'Kean, John | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Sheehy, David |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Markham, Arthur Basil | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. |
| Forster, Henry William | Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. | Stock, James Henry |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Stroyan, John |
| Garfit, William | Moore, William | Sullivan, Donal |
| Cordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Morrell, George Herbert | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Groves, James Grimble | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmor | Tennant, Harold John |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Murphy, John | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Haldane, Kt. Hon. Richard B. | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Tomkinson, James |
| Hammond, John | Nicholson, William Graham | Toulmin, George |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) | Norman, Henry | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Haslett, Sir James Horner | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Ure, Alexander |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.) |
| Hobhonse, C. E. H. (Bristol,E.) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Hope, J. F. (Sheffield,Brightside | O'Dowd, John | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne) |
| Horniman, Frederick John | O'Malley, William | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax |
| Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhonse | O'Mara, James | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Partington, Oswald | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Joicey, Sir James | Paulton, James Mellor | Wodehous, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath |
| Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | Woodhouse, Sir J T.(Huddersf'd |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Young, Samuel |
| Joyce, Michael | Power, Patrick Joseph | |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Purvis, Robert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. John Burns and Mr. Lough. |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |