§ Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)moved its rejection, his object, he said, being to defeat the Bill. He admitted that it was an extreme course to take, but his excuse and justification in taking it was that it was an audacious Bill, although it had passed through both the Commons and the Lords. The promoters of the Bill had adopted a very significant course in trying to get the Bill through Parliament. If he were to attribute to them political motives no doubt they would be repudiated by those in charge of the Bill in the most emphatic language, but it was extraordinary that when the Bill was passing through the House circulars were issued to the Unionist Members to support it. For his own part, he could only draw the inference that in addition to the false pretences upon which the Bill was founded, political motives were at the bottom of it, and, as representing the County Council of Dublin and the county of Dublin, he felt bound to oppose the measure at every stage and in every way known to the Constitution and rules of the House.
He described the Bill as an audacious Bill, because seven times in recent years the corporation of Dublin had attempted, by Bills promoted in that House, to add 710 to the city of Dublin the urban districts of Rathmines and Pembroke. Those two districts were practically and physically part of the city of Dublin; only an artificial boundary separated them, and if anyone were to consider the matter impartially they would come to the conclusion that it would be as ridiculous to say that Shoreditch was not a part of London as that Rathmines and Pembroke were not parts of Dublin. Nevertheless on each occasion upon which a Bill for extending the area of Dublin and taking in Rathmines and Pembroke had been before the House, the local authorities in Rathmines had opposed on the ground that their taxes would be increased, and on other grounds. On each occasion Parliament had refused to add Rathmines to the city of Dublin, and now, after Rathmines had refused to be annexed to Dublin, it actually had the audacity to propose to Parliament the annexation of the rural district of Terenure. The House of Lords had not rejected this proposal, and in pissing it had shown that it was determined not to give a proper hearing to the opposing representatives of the county of Dublin. The House of Commons' Committee was scarcely better, but for them there was the excuse that it was generally under stood that all the minor details would be discussed in the House of Lords. Several Amendments which the opposers had intended to propose in the Commons were not even considered in the Lords, and for that reason he moved to reject the Bill at this stage.
One clause had reference to the supply of water to the new district. The corporation obtained the right to supply this district with water so far back as 1872, and went to considerable expense in laying down mains and in other ways. The inhabitants were, under statutory contract, bound to pay the water rate 711 levied by the corporation of Dublin. One would imagine that the new authority which desired to annex this district would have no hesitation in accepting a clause which provided that the inhabitants should not be charged twice over for their water, but the authorities in this audacious Bill refused to accept the clause. That was the case for the corporation of Dublin, but it was not the matter that appealed most to him, because although he represented the corporation he also represented a great portion of the county. He represented here the rural district of Terenure which this urban district sought to annex. The particular false pretence upon which this Bill was recommended to Parliament was that this particular district was not sufficiently sewered and drained. It was a very curious thing that the Rathmines Council never sought to annex this district until the sanitary authority of Terenure at their own risk and at their own expense, commenced to sewer and drain the place. Then it was that the Rathmines District Council, who had had their eye on this district for a long time, thought that no time should be lost in seizing on the district.
In its present condition Rathmines was a moral district governed by highly respectable persons, who had come to Parliament and opposed the Dublin Corporation when it sought to annex their district and made statements as to their financial condition which deceived and deluded both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. They had their envious eye on this district and had determined to annex it in order to lessen their rates. Their excuse was that the sewering of the district was not perfect. It had been without it for thirty years and no inquiry had been lodged, and the only reason why Rathmines desired to annex this district now was to obtain possession of the rates. That was their real object. When Dublin proposed to annex Rathmines the higher rates of the city of Dublin were urged as an insuperable obstacle, but when Terenure resisted annexation on the same ground it was set at naught, despite the wishes of the inhabitants. The House of Lords' Committee paid no more attention to the 712 petition against the Bill than if it had come from somewhere in East Africa. The House of Commons were now asked to correct the error of the House of Lords and to refuse to sanction a scheme of annexation which traversed all ideas of justice and would inflict enormous hardship upon a district which at present was comparatively immune from such high taxation as existed in Rathmines. Although he had a strong suspicion as to the ultimate object of the Bill, he did not now allege any political motive. The reason he put forward for the rejection of the Bill was, he thought, ample, viz., that sufficient consideration had not been given by the Committees either of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords to all the circumstances of the case against the Bill. He begged to move that the Lords Amendments be considered that day three months.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.),in seconding the Amendment, said he thought that this Bill would mark an historic date in the annals of the House of Commons as a legal tribunal, and it raised as grave and as important considerations as had ever come before the House on Lords Amendments. They were at that moment acting as a sort of wayward Court, of which Members passed in and out, and without the assistance of counsel, without hearing the bodies interested, and without knowing anything of the merits of the case, they were asked by a Conservative House of Lords to take upon themselves the duty of passing judgment upon clauses which had never been before the House of Commons' Committee, and of which notice had never been given to the municipality or to anybody concerned.
The time had come when Parliament must refuse to be strangled by the legal profession practising before it. Gentlemen practising in the Committee rooms had established the rule of deliberately overriding a Standing Order of Parliament by refusing to go into clauses on the ground that if they did so they would be refused a hearing against the preamble in another place. But the rules of Parliament declared that a petitioner against a Bill originating in the House of Lords who had discussed clauses in that House should not on that account be precluded 713 from opposing the preamble in this House, and a similar rule existed with regard to Bills originating in the House of Commons. That being so, by what right did counsel take up such a position? It was now the 8th August, and had it not been for the fact that the riots at Manchester compelled the Prime Minister to put down the Unemployed Bill and to devote two days of Parliamentary time to that measure, the session would probably have concluded that day. Therefore, but for a Parliamentary accident, the Parliamentary agents would have been too late. What right had the Parliamentary agents to ask them at this late date to consider for the first time contentious clauses of which they had never heard and which had never been submitted either to the electorate or to the opposing parties?
Parliament had arrogated to itself the position that in the Private Bill Committees of the two Houses they had two tribunals absolutely divorced from politics, which would deal with gas and water questions with fair and open minds. It had been proclaimed that whatever grievance the Irish people had with regard to public questions, they possessed in the Private Bill Committees an absolute sanctuary from oppression. How could that be said any more after what had happened with regard to this Bill? By what right had a Committee of the House of Commons, without any instruction or authority from the House, inserted a clause involving expenditure of nearly a quarter of a million? The proposal for the purification of the Liffey was no doubt excellent if brought forward in a proper way after due consultation with the districts affected, but under the circumstances the Committee had just as much right to insert a clause separating Rathmines and Pembroke from the United Kingdom and annexing them to the United States. If this had been done by a Tory Committee with a Tory Chairman, every Liberal in the House would have been up in arms against it; but it was done by a Radical Chairman, by a Home Rule Chairman, and he objected to being bludgeoned with the Baronetcy of the hon. Member for Northwich. Although it was a Home Ruler who stuck in the pin, he smarted nevertheless; he might almost say he was wounded in the house of a friend. 714 He thought he could therefore appeal with confidence to the Unionist Party to override and set aside this deplorable injustice.
There was a Standing Order of the House of Lords, which was in all other cases stringently enforced, to the effect that clauses which had not been before the constituency should not be allowed to get even a First Reading. Upon this question Rathmines seemed to possess the key of the House of Lords, for they had no difficulty whatever in getting them to suspend their Standing Orders. How did the House of Lords proceed to remedy this grave injustice? One of the areas included was not a party to the Bill and it had never been submitted to them at all, and they saw an entirely new system of main drainage being created. In these matters the only protection which the common people had was that Parliament should stand upon trodden ways and upon precedents, and come to its decisions by reason of what had been done before. If there was one thing which Englishmen valued it was vested rights, and they had always insisted that a man who had a vested right by statute should not have that right taken away from him without compensation. The same principle was applied to areas, and when any area had got a statutory created interest neither that House nor the Upper House had ever deprived such area of its right to the protection of that interest without compensation. That was especially the case in regard to the supply of water. They knew what happened in London in regard to the water supply of the Metropolis. He saw the hon. and gallant Member opposite who was once connected with the water companies of London, and he hoped that he was now much better off.
The corporation of Dublin had a vested interest in supplying water in one of these areas at 3d. per 1,000 gallons, but under this Bill that same area would have to pay 1s. 1d. per 1,000 gallons. London would have been revolutionised if such a proposal had been made in this House, but because this occurred in a little Irish place it did not matter. The Government had even refused to take any notice of a defeat 715 because it was only upon an Irish question. This was only an Irish area and, forsooth, Parliament was making those who had hitherto been paying 3d. per 1,000 gallons of water pay 1s. 1d. under this Bill without their having done anything to deserve such treatment. It was not even alleged that there had been a shortage of water or any failure in the supply of the Dublin Corporation. He had been told that there were a good many more microbes in the thirteen-penny water than in the threepenny water.
What was the case of the Dublin Corporation? Forty years ago, after enormous difficulties and obstruction in that House, the Dublin Corporation succeeded in obtaining the right to supply water to the citizens of Dublin and the surrounding areas. This House was convulsed by discussion and the question was threshed out in Committee and in the Upper House, and after enormous labour the city of Dublin acquired the right to supply water to its own area and surrounding districts, and it consequently provided a much larger reservoir and staff, and laid down larger pipes than would otherwise have been necessary if it had imagined that Parliament would afterwards have interfered and taken away from it certain areas. By this Bill they were robbing the corporation of Dublin of a right conferred upon them by Parliament to supply water to this district at 3d. per 1,000 gallons, and they were at the same time compelling the unfortunate ratepayers in that particular district to pay four times as much for their water supply. If such a proposal was made for the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands, or for South Africa or Johannesburg, there was not a single Member of the House of Commons who would support it. And yet hon. Members opposite were ready to vote for a Bill which would rob the corporation of Dublin of this right. He hoped on some future occasion they would make England ring with this unjust proposal. This was the action of the House of Lords, and not of the House of Commons. The Dublin Corporation was to be given as compensation the price of the old pipes. This simply meant that after they had established what had become a going concern, supplying water at a cheap rate, 716 they were to allow strangers to step in to supplant them, and the only compensation they would get for the business was the price of the old pipes.
He had never come down to the House with more curiosity that he had done on this occasion, to hear the manner in which this proposal would be defended by the Front Bench opposite. He understood that the Attorney-General had been instructed to state the case of Rathmines as against the case of the Dublin-Corporation. He urged hon. Members to remember that there was a good time coming when there would be a Liberal Government in office. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider from the point of view of high Conservatism the arguments which he had ventured to address to the House. He appealed to the House upon those lines. No doubt the hon Member for South Derry and the Attorney-General for Ireland would attempt to prejudice the Court by-dragging into this question some political considerations which he had endeavoured to avoid in his remarks. He had endeavoured to confine himself to the absolute merits of the case, and to questions of bare technique. He had confined himself to technicalities as regarded procedure and to the merits as regarded the question of vested interest. If an appeal was made to Party prejudice he asked hon. Members opposite to remember that they were acting upon as sacred a matter as if they were members of a Committee upstairs before which these clauses came for the first time. If they were appealed to by reference to the fact that the Dublin Corporation consisted of Nationalists and Rathmities consisted of Conservatives, he asked the House to reject as unworthy any such ignominious and paltry considerations. To him such considerations were absolute matters of indifference, for he had confined himself solely to the question of right and wrong and the irregularity of the procedure adopted, and he had not gone closely into the merits of the case, which would be dealt with more fully when they came to discuss the clauses. Hon. Gentlemen opposite always stood up in defence of vested interests, yet every one of them, in the teeth of justice, would go into the lobby and vote in favour of robbing the Dublin Corporation simply because it was 717 a Nationalist body. He hoped the House would not make this an occasion for Party recrimination or division, because much higher principles were involved that questions of Party. They had to consider in this matter the question of the regularity of their proceedings, and that was a matter which must have a far-reaching effect upon the action of the Committees of the House of Commons.
§
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. Clancy.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)said the hon. and learned Member opposite had endeavoured to secure the support of those interested in the government of London by reminding them of the dire consequences which might ensue if this Bill passed. He wished to remind the Committee of the exact position in which the matter stood. Rathmines was a township which managed its own affairs. The city of Dublin had endeavoured to annex it and this House and the House of Lords had refused to allow it, and a Joint Committee of both Houses had also refused to allow Rathmines to be, annexed by Dublin.
The particular matter with which this Bill dealt was the extension of the boundaries of Rathmines so as to include another district which had developed into a thickly-populated area which had no sewerage scheme of its own. It was true that this district had a water supply from the corporation of Dublin, but there was no care taken of their buildings, no regulations as to how they should be erected, and they were, as a matter of fact, a danger to themselves and to their neighbours, and so this Bill had been promoted to remedy these difficulties. All these questions came before the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Bill, were debated at considerable length, and the Bill was carried by a majority of sixty. The hon. and learned Member opposite had told them who the Chairman of the Committee was, and what his political views were. That Committee heard counsel and witnesses for eight days, and after hearing everything that could be urged on all sides 718 came to the conclusion that the Bill should pass, and they were unanimous in arriving at that conclusion. He would point out that the Committee had inserted a clause which would be very onerous upon the promoters. The Rathmines people undertook that the sewage should be properly purified before being turned into the estuary. The promoters of the Bill acquiesced in that, and now the hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was putting an onus on the Pembroke people without their knowledge or consent. He knew, or ought to know, that they got notice of this before the Bill came before the House of Lords, and that they were perfectly satisfied with the new clause. An effort was made on the Third Reading to reject the Bill in that House, but it was carried by a majority of 115. The Bill as it then stood contained the clause in reference to Pembroke township drainage, and it also provided that water should be supplied by the Rathmines people to this area. It was an absolutely necessary Bill. He did not know whom the hon. and learned Member for Louth represented.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI represent myself
§ MR. GORDONsaid the hon. and learned Member represented himself, and dealt with imaginary grievances on the part of those people.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI am a ratepayer in both areas.
§ MR. GORDONI do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will pay for water in this area or not.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI shall not.
§ MR. GORDONsaid that the corporation of Dublin supplied water to 165,000 of the population in the area, while Rathmines supplied 376,000. When all the facts were brought before he House of Lords it was suggested that a clause should be brought up to provide for the interests of the corporation. The promoters of the Bill brought up a clause providing that they should pay for the pipes which the corporation of Dublin had laid in that area. The pipes had been laid for thirty years. The corporation of Dublin brought up a clause providing that nothing should affect their 719 right of supplying water to the particular people who were getting water from them, and that there should be different bodies in the same area supplying water. When the question came before the House of Lords' Committee the Chairman said the sensible thing would be for the water supply of the new district to rest with Rathmines. Afterwards the clause was brought up which was now in the Bill. It provided that the corporation of Dublin would get what the pipes cost them thirty years ago, and that Rathmines should supply the water to the new area. The House of Lords had an absolute right to take that course, and was this House going to disagree? There had been a clause inserted in the Bill with reference to the disposal of sewage, on the suggestion of the Committee of this House. It did not specifically refer to the rights of the corporation, but, at the instance of the corporation, the House of Lords gave the corporation specifically some rights with reference to the enforcing of the purification of sewage by the Rathmines people. The object of the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin was clearly to defeat this Bill. So far as he could see that was the only ground that could be put forward. He ventured to say that the corporation of Dublin was satisfied.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin Harbour)said that, whatever might be the fate of this Bill, the manner in which it had been treated in that House was not such as to give the people of Ireland confidence in the way matters were administered there. Every principle on which private Bills were dealt with in that House had been violated in this instance. There was intervention from the Government Bench at every stage. From first to last it was made a political Bill, and that was because the majority of the corporation of Dublin and of the county council differed in politics from the Rathmines Commissioners and the Pembroke Commissioners. He must confess that in his opinion the parties who were opposing this Bill were treated somewhat better before the House of Lords' Committee than before the House of Commons' Committee. There seemed to be a disposition on the part of the members of the latter Committee not to 720 believe anything that was stated from the other side. They had the extraordinary spectacle in the Commons' Committee that while counsel representing every interest were present in the room the Committee was constantly sending to the law officers of the Crown and the Chief Secretary to obtain some private information. Did not that fact give a complexion of officialism to the proceedings on the Bill? And that was why Rathmines got their big majority at previous stages of the Bill. [MINISTERIALIST indications of dissent.] He repeated that he saw the Government Whips at the door—secret Whips, though they did not "tell"—and for all practical purposes it was a purely Party division.
§ THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON.) Londonderry, N.said he interposed to disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for Dublin Harbour of the notion that the Government were in any way responsible for the opposition to the Bill, or for the course that either of the Committees took upon it. The hon. Member for Dublin Harbour was entirely in error in supposing that the Chief Secretary was asked to influence anybody or appear before the Committee.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTONDo I understand that neither you nor the Solicitor-General nor the Chief Secretary were sent for by the Chairman of the Committee? because the Chairman stated in the room that that had been done. I will not say there was any interference.
§ MR. ATKINSONMy hon. friend was never sent for. I was sent for.
§ MR. CLANCYYou were the man who spoke in the House.
MR- ATKINSONI gave the very curt reply that I would neither go nor interfere in any way in the matter, and my hon. and learned friend did not go and did not interfere.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTONI did not say interfere. I spoke of the action of the Committee in regarding all the people on one side as liars.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,) Bristol, S.They did not send for me at all.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe only person sent for was myself, and in the strongest terms I refused.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe Chairman then sent for the Solicitor-General when you refused.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid he was not aware of that. The hon. Member for North Dublin had asserted that politics were involved in this matter. If they were involved, he had a strong suspicion that they were not involved on one side alone. He contended that to accept the Amendment would be to reverse the whole procedure on private Bills. If the whole thing were to be ripped up again, there would be no finality to these proceedings. As to the question of drainage, he understood that the corporation of Dublin objected to sewage being discharged into the River Liffey in a crude state, but the House of Lords had put in a clause to meet the conditions of the corporation and to provide that within a period of five years a proper system of drainage should be executed in that district. He submitted that if the decision of the Committee upstairs and of the Committee of the House of Lords was to be overruled because some hon. Members did not agree with it, there would be no finality in these matters.
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)said that the right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, had declared that this was not a political question, but the right hon. Gentleman had never lost an opportunity of making a strong and vigorous speech in that House in support of the Bill, nor had the Chief Secretary, who had probably never seen Rathmines, even in a motor-car. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to say that the House of Lords Committee had absolutely refused to receive the evidence of the inhabitants of Terenure. The Attorney-General for Ireland had said that it would be a monstrous proceeding to override the decision of the House of Lords' Committee, but the other day a decision of a Committee of the House of Commons and of a Committee of the House of Lords, in regard to the London Tramways Bill, had been overridden by the House of Lords, and all the labours of the 722 two Committees had been thrown away. He asked the House to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend on the broad ground that it was contrary to the practice of Parliament to annex the territory of one district to another against the wishes of the people of the district concerned. The people of the district in this case believed that the Bill would enormously increase their rates, that they would be subject to disabilities from which they did not now suffer, and that they would be liable for loans for works with which they had no concern.
§ MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.)said that it had been stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this was a question entirely apart from politics; that it was merely a matter of gas and water supply. But it was recognised as a fact that those hon. Gentlemen imported politics into every matter in that House or in Ireland. Was it conceivable that that House would pass a Bill relating to gas and water for any district connected with London against the opinion of the whole of the people affected by the Bill? This was only one more example to Irish Members of the necessity of having their own affairs discussed and decided upon by those who knew them best. The right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, had tried to influence the House to come to a decision in favour of his political friends, and that showed the Irish people how impossible it was to get legislation in their own favour. No Member for the county of Dublin or the city of Dublin had spoken other than strongly against this Bill, and he trusted that the House would listen to reason instead of to the prejudices of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Benches. He had listened with amazement to the statement of the Attorney-General. On the broad principle that no public body in the district concerned had demanded this Bill, and in view of the fact that no hon. Member representing the city or county of Dublin had spoken in favour of it, he should register his vote against this measure.
§ MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)said he should oppose this Bill because it had never been asked for by the district immediately concerned. He had attended most of the meetings of 723 the Committee by which this Bill had been con idered, and more scandalous treatment than that which was meted out to the opponents of the Bill he had never heard of. It was only right that they should point out to English Members who were now called upon to deal with an Irish question that every representative of the district to be annexed repudiated the Bill. The hon. Member for South Deny had said that this district was being taken over because the people of it were not able to look after themselves. The speculators were all flocking into this district now, and they were well able to look after themselves. The area in question had already a double water supply, one from Dublin and another from Rathmines. With regard to the drainage, it was not until it became known that the district was entering into negotiations with the Dublin Corporation upon this subject that Rathmines brought forward the argument that the area proposed to be annexed was not able to arrange for its own drainage. With regard to the injunction which had been spoken of he never knew more scandalous means than those which were adopted in order to obtain it.
Who were the people in favour of this annexation? Mainly those who came from Belfast, Deny, North Armagh and other places, who were strong Conservatives. It was only the hon. Member for South Deny, the Attorney-General, and the hon. Member for North Down who asked the House to override the opinions and the appeals of the people in the district concerned who were most affected by this Bill. By this Bill they were allowing a district to be grabbed which did not wish to be grabbed. A plebiscite was taken of those residing in the district which was being taken over, and they decided by a large majority against the Bill. Pembroke had never been consulted in the matter at all. The promoters had rushed this measure through the House, and they had only been able to succeed by the assistance of the Attorney-General and the hon. Member for South Derry and his friends. The way the people interested had been treated in this matter was a wanton act of injustice. The Dublin Corporation had been supplying this area with water for forty years, and this right was to be 724 taken away from them and they were going to be given simply the price of the old pipes as compensation. There had always been consideration given to trading interests that might be affected; and he did not see why, when it was a case of the corporation of Dublin, unless it was because of political bias or because of animus against the Corporation, they were not to get justice. He appealed to the House to act straightly and fairly and to do justice to them. Such a thing would not be tolerated anywhere except in an Irish city like Dublin.
He appealed to the House to reject the Bill. The people did not want it, the representatives of Dublin did not want it, the Member for the division in which Rathmines was situated was opposed to it, and the Member for the district about to be annexed was against it. Under these circumstances, he asked the House, notwithstanding the circular sent out, to vote in a spirit of fairness and justice to the district about to be annexed, remembering that at present they were receiving water at 3d. per 1000 gallons, that they would have to pay 1s. 1d. per 1000 gallons for it, and that they would have to pay increased rates.
§ SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.)said it struck him as somewhat peculiar that the only excuse for the Bill came from Gentlemen from the North of Ireland whose interests were not, in that part of the country, affected by the Bill. He could not find in the speeches of other hon. Gentleman a single argument in favour of the project to which they were now asked to assent. For a number of years there had been a contest going on between the corporation of Dublin and the district of Rathmines. In the contest he had always sympathised with the corporation of Dublin. Rathmines and Rathgar had established a kind of municipal autonomy of their own, when by all the laws of geography and common-sense they should with Terenure form a portion of the city of Dublin. It was monstrous and reflected upon the system of administration of Irish affairs that those districts were kept outside the city of Dublin and that energetic assistance was invariably given to prevent the House assisting the people of Dublin as it ought in the administration of the affairs of Dublin. Although 725 Dublin was the capital of Ireland, it was always treated with hostility, and the surrounding districts always had the support of the House. This Bill was an attempt on the part of Rathmines to still further fortify itself against the corporation of Dublin. It proposed to establish sewage and water systems of its own. Dublin had lately constructed a very fine main-drainage system, and it seemed an extraordinary thing, when that bad been done at great cost, that it should not be utilised by Rathmines under the corporation of Dublin. Instead of annexing Terenure to Rathmines, Terenure ought to have been annexed to Dublin. The municipal boundaries of Dublin ought to have been extended. Then there would have been no possibility of Terenure using the Dublin main sewers for their sanitary purposes.
The first reason given in the circular sent round that day for voting for the Bill was one, to his mind, why they should vote against it. The main object of the Bill, it was said, was to extend the urban district of Rathmines and Rathgar; and he had endeavoured to show that they should extend the boundary of the city of Dublin. He would be prepared to vote for a Bill which would include Rathmines and Rathgar in the city of Dublin. They were told that Terenure, which was to be added to Rathmines, had a certain number of houses, and a very bad drainage system. His hon. friend informed him that the Dublin Corporation was prepared to promote a Bill to include Terenure in that city, and surely they might suspend the matter until that could be done. The Bill had always been strenuously opposed by the corporation of Dublin with the full consent of the people, and surely that was
§ some reason why the House should pause before assenting to it. They were told that if they rejected the Bill they would be creating anew precedent, but it was competent for the House to disagree with the Lords Amendments to a private Bill, as well as with such Amendments to a public Bill, and he thought it would be an extremely good thing if they showed that capability and that independence. He did not know whether it was too late for a compromise, but possibly his hon. friend, though he did not know, might be prepared to accept the Bill if that part which referred to Terenure were left out. These constant disputes between Dublin and Rathmines called for investigation. He considered that a Committee ought to be appointed to go into the whole matter, and see whether arrangements could not be made between Dublin and the surrounding districts. Bills were constantly being brought up to cut off portions of Dublin's legitimate territory, and to set up independent communities.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member is touching upon matters not at all relevant to the Bill.
§ SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he had not the least desire to tread upon forbidden ground, but he did think it was time the House took into consideration the possibility of effecting some improvement in the matter.
§ Mr. GORDON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 359.)
729| Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chatham, | Kimber, Sir Henry | Purvis, Robert |
| Dewar,SirT.R.(Tower Hamlets) | Knowles, Sir Lees | Pym, C. Guy |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Randies, John S. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Rankin, Sir James |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lawson,Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End) | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Renwiek George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Ridley, S. Forde |
| Doxford, Sir.William Theodore | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Long, Col. Charles W. ((Evesham | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Dyke,Rt.Hon.SirWilliam Hart | Long,Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S.) | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Fellowes,Rt.Hn.AilwynEdward | Lowe, Francis William | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r) | Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Macdona, John Cumming | Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex. |
| Finlay,Rt.Hn.SirR.B(Inv'rn'ss | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon | Maconochie, A. W. | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Flower, Sir Ernest | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Gardner, Ernest | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Stroyan, John |
| Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. | Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfrieshire | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Milvain, Thomas | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Green, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M. |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Tuff, Charles |
| Gretton, John | Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow | Tumour, Viscount |
| Groves, James Grimble | Morpeth, Viscount | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'nderr, | Morrell, George Herbert | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Heath,SirJames(Staffords.NW) | Mount, William Arthur | Walrond,Rt.Hon.SirWilliamH. |
| Helder, Sir Augustus | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Myers, William Henry | Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E(Taunton) |
| Hill, Henry Staveley | Nicholson, William Graham | Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne) |
| Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Hornby, Sir William Henry | Parkes, Ebenezer | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Horner, Frederick William | Peel.Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Howard, Jn.(Kent,Faversham) | Percy, Earl | Wylie, Alexander |
| Hozier,Hon.James Henry Cecil | Pierpoint, Robert | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | |
| Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton | Plummer, Sir Walter R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir John H. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | John Gordon and Mr. Lons- |
| Kenyon, Hon.Geo. T.(Denbigh) | Pretyman, Ernest George | dale. |
| Keswick, William | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| NOES. | ||
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Joicey, Sir James |
| Baker, Joseph Allen | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Ffrench, Peter | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Findlay,Alexander(Lanark,NE | Tones, William(Carnarvonshire) |
| Benn, John Williams | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Jordan, Jeremiah |
| Bright, Allan Heywood | Flynn, James Christopher | Kitson, Sir James |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Fuller, J. M. F. | Lambert, George |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John | Lamont, Norman |
| Burns, John | Grant, Corrie | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) |
| Caldwell, James | Griffith, Ellis J. | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Leese Sir JosephF.(Accrington) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Lloyd-George, David |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hammond, John | Lough, Thomas |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil) | Lundon, W. |
| Crean, Eugene | Harrington, Timothy | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Cremer, William Randal | Harwood, George | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Crooks, William | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Cullinan, J. | Hayden, John Patrick | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) |
| Delany, William | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | M'Crae, George |
| Dobbie, Joseph | Healy, Timothy Michael | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Doogan, P. C. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Murnaghan, George |
| Edwards, Frank | Higham, John Sharp | Murphy, John |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Evans,SirFrancisH.(Maidstone) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Nolan,Col.John P.(Galway, N.) |
| Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Robson, William Snowdon | Ure, Alexander |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Rose, Charles Day | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid | Runciman, Walter | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| O'Connor,James (Wicklow,VY.) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Weir, James Galloway |
| O'Kelly,James (RoscommonN. | Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight) | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Parrott, William | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Slack, John Bamford | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Rea, Russell | Sullivan, Donal | |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOBS—Sir |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr | Thomas Esmonde and Mr. |
| Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N. | Patrick O'Brien. |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Tully, Jasper |
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.
§ Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow.