HC Deb 27 June 1905 vol 148 cc325-37


Order for Third Reading read.

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

MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.)

said the Bill, if it passed, would throw an onerous burden on a body of ratepayers who had no idea in giving their sanction to it of the liability with which they were saddling themselves. The full weight of the Government majority had been exerted to carry the Second Reading, and on that occasion he had heard the greatest collection of inaccurate and misleading statements that could have been made. He not only still held the objections he had expressed in the first instance on the question of extension, but the additions which had been made in Committee gave rise to further objections. Every single allegation which had been made by the Attorney-General with regard to the Bill and with regard to the District Council of Terenure being taken in by the Rathmines Council had been proved absolutely inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, amongst other things, that the district had no water of its own, no lighting, and no outlet for is sewage. It was proved before the Committee that the district had an advantageous contract with the water authority, the Dublin Corporation, by which it was able to supply Terenure with water at a cheaper price than it could get it under the new Bill. It was also proved that the lighting was quite sufficient for the wants of the district. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that the district was not able to carry off its sewage and were infringing the rights of the Rathmines authority but he forgot to state that Rathmines opposed the using of their sewers on the extraordinary ground that they were not able to carry off all their own sewage, let alone that of the Terenure district.

The Bill had been promoted by Rathmines and Pembroke against the will of the majority of the people, and Pembroke had since discovered that under a clause to which they had never agreed, and on which they had not been consulted, they were to be saddled at the end of five years with a capital expenditure of £110,000, at the lowest estimate, for the establishment of a main-drainage board and drainage stations. Further, he had this objection: in 1900, when the Dublin Corporation brought their Bill before the House, the matter was considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which reported unanimously that it would be to the public advantage if there were one administration to control the drainage, and they recommended a joint drainage board for the city, and for Rathmines and Pembroke. Notwithstanding this Report, however, the Bill proposed to set aside that recommendation altogether and it allowed Rathmines for five years to destroy all the work and all the money that had been expended by the citizens of Dublin in purifying the Liffey, by allowing them to discharge sewage into Dublin Bay. He submitted that the Bill was obtained by misrepresentation, and the Second Reading was allowed through the misleading statements of the Attorney-General; and, that being so, and for the reasons he had given, he moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

said he seconded the Motion of his hon. friend the Member for South Dublin. The Attorney-General, who was acquainted with the whole of the phases of the Local Government Act, must be aware of the fact that at the present moment there was a great difficulty existing with regard to the disposal of sewage, about which some legislation would have to be passed. On broad principles he was opposed to this Bill. The corporation of Dublin, of which he was a member, opposed it, and the Dublin County Council strongly opposed it. When it was before the Committee the witnesses of the Dublin County Council were not heard, but were dismissed in the most summary manner. The Port and Docks Board, of which he was a member, also opposed it. He was quite aware that an agreement had now been come to which would satisfy the Port and Docks Board, bat it was exceedingly doubtful whether that agreement could ever be carried out, involving as it did considerable expense and technical difficulties which it was almost impossible to overcome. The majority of the inhabitants of the districts interested were entirelv opposed to it.

He was strongly of opinion that the Second Reading of this Bill had been obtained by an infraction of the rules which were supposed to govern the passing of Bills of this description, which were not of a political nature. He had always understood that the Government did not interfere in any way in the passage of such Bills, but the Attorney-General had made this a Party question pure and simple, because he said in his speech it was best to ask the House to decide between the parties, and that the only intervention he made on behalf of the Government was to siy that in the present stage of the controversy this was a matter which should go to a tribunal which would investigate the matter and hear the opinion of all the local bodies. In consequence of that statement by the Attorney-General the normal majority of the Conservatives in the House was represented in the division that took place. He was informed also that a. special whip was sent out in order to carry the Second Reading of the Bill and the position now, so far as he could see, was that this House presumed to dictate to the majority of the inhabitants of these districts the course that should be taken. On behalf of the Dublin County Council he protested in the strongest possible manner against the way in which this Bill had been engineered, and submitted that it was not expedient for this House to pass this Bill against the expressed wish of the rural district council, which opposed the Bill when it was in Committee, and which also opposed its Third Reading. If this Bill passed it would take away a very large and important area from the jurisdiction of the county council.

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. Mooney.)

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

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

said the district proposed to be incorporated, had time after time appealed to the rural district council and the board of guardians to provide a sewage system, water and light, and look after their streets, but had appealed in vain. They did at length get some supply of water from the Corporation of Dublin and Rathmines, but, as to sewage, the state of affairs was such that the peopla had to take the law into their own hands and join their sewers with those of the Rathmines and Pembroke Board without its consent. The board obtained an injunction, but they never put it into force. The people failed to get any relief from the rural district council, and ultimately came to the Rathmines District Council, who, realising the danger to them selves, undertook to construct a drainage system and supply them with water and electric light, and promoted a Bill for the purpose. It was said the people did not want the Bill, but before the Committee five of the inhabitants were examined in favour of it and one against it. The Dublin Corporation were providing a drainage system, but nobody knew whether it would prove effective or not, and it was idle to talk of delay for five years. At the end of the five years the corporation might find that they had expended the money of the ratepayers without getting any real relief. It was decided that after five years the sewage of Rathmines and Pembroke should be treated in a certain way, so as not to send sewage into the mouth of the River Liffey. There was a special section of the Act enabling the Rathmines and Pembroke Board to agree with the Corporation of Dublin as to any other mode of treating the sewage which came from Rathmines and Pembroke.

The Second Reading of this Bill had been carried by a majority of about sixty. Before the Select Committee all interested parties were heard by counsel, and witnesses were called and the inquiry lasted eight days. All matters of detail were threshed out, and the Committee arrived at certain conclusions. Was the House of Commons, upon a Motion of this kind, going to refuse to pass the Third Reading of this Bill and thus stultify the action of their own Committee? By so doing the House would be declaring that the Select Committee had failed to discharge its duty and had been unfaithful to its trust. This was a Bill to improve a small district which asked for it, and at whose request the Bill was mainly promoted. It would have been open to those who were now opposing the Bill to have placed their case before the Select Committee, but they did not do so, and why should these objections be brought forward now? The objections which had been raised did not at all justify the rejection of this measure. If the Bill was sent to the other House those objections might be dealt with there. Pembroke had called a meeting which was to be held for the purpose of approving what had been done by the Select Committee. The hon. Member for South Dublin either did not know that or he did not state it to the House. Had the hon. Member any authority from the Urban District Council of Pembroke for the course he had taken? He might be able to support his case with a few dissatisfied individuals, for there would always be found a few cranks, and it was their views that the hon. Member was putting forward. The body that represented Pembroke and who knew all about its requirements had not instructed anyone to say a word against this measure, and a special meeting had been called for the purpose of passing a resolution approving of everything that had been done. With regard to Rathmines, they had their political convictions and they were Unionists, but they never allowed politics to interfere with their local affairs, and that was the reason why Rathmines was a well-managed place. The people of the districts concerned were anxious that this Bill should pass. The Corporation of Dublin and a few cranks were opposed to the measure, but beyond that there was no opposition to the Bill. If those who were opposing the measure had any case they could state their objections before the Committee of the House of Lords.

MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin Harbour)

said the hon. Member who had just sat down had neither been just to himself nor respectful to the House, because he had made no effort to obtain any knowledge of the subject upon which he had been speaking. There was not a single material statement made by the hon. Member that was not absolutely inaccurate. He was present at the inquiry and heard the evidence and had since read it over, and if the hon. Member for Londonderry would only read that evidence he would find that there was scarcely a page of the evidence which would not make him ashamed of the statement which he had just made. The hon. Member said that this district had applied to the district council for lighting, and had applied in vain. That was not so. He also said that they applied for a water supply a long time before they could get it. As a matter of fact the district had possessed a water supply for the last thirty years, and it had been well lighted for a long period. With regard to the opposition of the Corporation of Dublin, he wished to point out that Dublin had spent over half a millon of money on its main drainage in order to keep the sewage out of the River Liffey, and their only anxiety was to see that this vast expenditure of money should not be thrown away by these two townships being allowed to run their sewage into the Liffey. The singular thing was that while protection was given to the Port and Docks Board no power or initiative whatever was given to the Corporation of Dublin in regard to this matter. The two urban districts of Rathmines and Pembroke had a joint main-drainage board, and they paid £200 a year to the Port and Docks Board for allowing their system of sewage to enter the river. This was simply paid as compensation for the additional dredging that might be necessary, and there was no question of sanitation or the health of the district taken into account at that time. There was a clause in the Bill which still left it in the power of the Port and Docks Board to make arrangements with the Main Drainage Board of Rathmines and Pembroke by which they could get an additional rent and thus be permitted for all time to allow this pollution of the River Liffey to continue. The Corporation of Dublin were the sanitary authority for the Liffey, and they desired to be able to put a stop to this pollution of the river.

There were two proposals placed before the Committee. One was that they should drain into the Rathmines system, and the penalty was that they should be annexed to Rathmines. The other was that they should drain into the system of the Corporation of Dublin, and for £100 a year the corporation were willing to treat all their sewage. The Committee rejected that and accepted the proposal that involved annexation, against the consent of the majority of the people who were taken over. Before the Committee the clerk of the district council was examined, and he stated that circulars had been issued, and the result was that the replies he received showed a majority of five or six to one against annexation. He had never known a Committee of the House give effect to its opinions in a more ineffective manner One of the clauses of the Bill introduced an absolutely new and vicious principle by putting upon a body of ratepayers a heavy charge with respect to which they had never been consulted. He complained that though the Corporation of Dublin, before the promotion of the Bill, had bound themselves to supply water to this district, which was to be added to Rathmines, at the same rate at which water was supplied in the city, the Bill had emanated from the Committee without a word of protection for the corporation as water sellers. This Bill gave power to charge 1s. 1d. for water. Now was it at all likely that the people who were getting water from the Dublin Corporation at 3d. would continue taking the Dublin supply when they would be obliged to pay four times as much even if they had no supply at all from the new authority? He thought proper compensation ought to have been made to the Corporation of Dublin for the loss of these privileges.

MR. CHARLES ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

speaking as a member of the Committee, said the main proposal, and really the only one before the Committee, was that for the annexation of the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council. This was opposed on general grounds by the county council, the South Dublin District Council, and the corporation, and by the Port and Harbour Board on drainage grounds. Personally, he thought it a very arguable point whether the added, district ought not to be a portion of the City of Dublin, but that point was not before the Committee. He believed, also that the majority of the people in the added district were not in favour of annexation. But on questions of local annexation Parliament had never admitted that the wishes of the people off the district proposed to be annexed should be absolutely final. The Committee were advised that the principle of outgrowth and community of interest had often been allowed to override the present wishes of inhabitants. That being so, the Committee felt themselves free to look to the future needs of the added district. They found that it was rapidly changing to an urban character similar to that of Rathmines, that it had no drainage system, that its scavenging was bad, and they were not favourably impressed with the evidence they had of its local government, and they came to the conclusion that it should not be left as it was. They thought good government was certain if the district was added to Rathmines, whereas it was only a possibility if left alone. As to the drainage, much of the sewage went into a pipe belonging to the Rathmines district, and thence through the Rathmines sewer into the Liffey in an absolutely crude and untreated condition. The Committee, therefore, decided that the annexation should take place only on the condition that the sewage of Rathmines and the added district was properly treated, and consequently they had to go beyond the four corners of the Bill. They felt, however, that the good they were doing by preventing this crude sewage going into the Liffey warranted them in asking the House of Commons to support their action. If Pembroke felt itself aggrieved it had a perfect right to go before the House of Lords Committee. The Committee were unanimous in their conclusion; it was a common-sense decision, which he hoped the House would approve.


said that when the Bill came up for Second Reading he made no representations as to the facts of the case; he simply pointed out the contentions of the respective parties, submitted that the House of Commons was not the proper tribunal to decide the questions of difference, and asked that the Bill should be allowed to go before the constitutional body for dealing with such matters, viz., a Committee of this House. The Bill had been before that tribunal and an unanimous decision given. He failed to understand the contention of hon. Members, or why they should attempt to upset the decision of a properly qualified and impartial tribunal, arrived at after hearing evidence from all parties concerned, simply because that decision did not happen to be that which hon. Members desired. No attempt had been made to impeach the honesty, capacity, or fairness of the Committee. Did hon. Members suggest that the corporation had any power to prevent Rathmines from discharging crude sewage into the Liffey, or that they would have it under their main drainage scheme?


said the whole of their contention was that there was no power to prevent it, and that the corporation, after spending half a million of money on their main drainage, would still be without that power.


said the price the Rathmines township had to pay for the addition of this district was that within five years they must adopt a scheme under which they would no longer discharge their crude sewage into the Liffey.


But it is not mandatory.


said that if the clauses of the Bill were inadequate the proper course of the opponents of the Bill was to raise the issue before the tribunal which for the first time he had heard hon. Members refer to with such absolute confidence—the House of Lords. The principle which guided this House in regard to private Bills on which a right of appeal to the House of Lords had been reserved was not to allow the decision of the Committee to be over-ruled unless it could be alleged that the Committee had acted improperly and in bad faith, or that new matter had arisen. No such allegation had been made in this case, and the only interest he had, as representing the Government, was to see that the general rule and practice of Parliament was followed with regard to the Bill before the House.

MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)

said he had heard with astonishment that the Attorney-General was speaking on behalf of the Government in asking the House to pass the Third Reading of this Bill. What they, as representing the City of Dublin, protested against was the omission of the Committee to insert a mandatory clause protecting the rights of the corporation as regarded water and main drainage. The corporation were carrying out works called for by the Government themselves, involving an expenditure of half a million of money, and yet it would remain possible under this Bill for the Liffey to be made the receptacle of all the sewage that could be turned into it from Rathmines and the new district.

They simply asked for common justice which required the insertion of a mandatory clause under which Rathmines should be compelled so to treat their sewage that it would not cause injury either to the people or to the river.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 215.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Doughty, Sir George Lawson John Grant(Yorks. N. R
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Allen, Charles P. Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Layland-Barratt, Francis
Arkwright, John Stanhope Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Duncan, J. Hastings Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Arrol, Sir William Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Leigh, Sir Joseph
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Edwards, Frank Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Elilank, Master of Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Bailey, James (Walworth) Ellice. CaptEC(S. Andrw'sB'ghs Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S
Bain, Colonel James Robert. Emmott, Alfred Lowe, Francis William
Baird, John George Alexander Fellowes, RtHn. Ailwyn Edward Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Balcarres, Lord Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Balfour. RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Macdona, John Cumming
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Forster, Henry William MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fuller, J. M. F. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Galloway, William Johnson M'Calmont, Colonel James
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gardner, Ernest M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W
Bignold, Sir Arthur Garfit, William M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Bigwood, James Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Malcolm, Ian
Bill, Charles Goddard, Daniel Ford Manners, Lord Cecil
Black, Alexander William Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Markham, Arthur Basil
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn) Marks, Harry Hananel
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bond, Edward Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Maxwell. RtHnSir H. E. (Wigt'n
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriesshire
Brymer, William Ernest Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton
Bull, William James Guthrie, Walter Murray Milvain, Thomas
Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)
Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv. Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hardy Laurenee(Kent, Ashford Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)
Cautley, Henry Strother Hare, Thomas Leigh Morgan, David J (Walthamstow
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Hay, Hon. Claude George Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)
Cawley, Frederick Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Morpeth, Viscount
Chamberlain. RtHn. J. A(Worc. Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW Morrell, George Herbert
Channing, Francis Allston Helder, Augustus Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Chapman, Edward Helme, Norval Watson Mount, William Arthur
Cheetham, John Frederick Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hickman, Sir Alfred Nicholson, William Graham
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hope, J. F. (Sheffield. Brightside Nussey, Thomas Willans
Coates, Edward Feetham Howard John(Kent Faversham O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hudson, George Bickersteth Partington, Oswald
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hunt, Rowland Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Pemberton, John S. G.
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Issacs, Rufus Daniel Percy, Earl
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Perks, Robert William
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Crombie, John William Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Pretyman, Ernest George
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Keswick, William Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Davenport, William Bromley Kimber, Sir Henry Purvis, Robert
Denny, Colonel Laurie, Lieut-General Rankin, Sir James
Dickson, Charles Scott Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne
Reid, James (Greenock) Smith HC. (North'mb. Tyneside Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Remnant, James Farquharson Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Welby Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Soares, Ernest J. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Renwick, George Spear, John Ward White, George (Norfolk)
Rickett, J. Compton Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ridley, S. Forde Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Stock, James Henry Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Robson, William Snowdon Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Tennant, Harold John Wodehouse. Rt. Hn. E. R(Bath)
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Thorburn, Sir Walter Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Royds, Clement Molyneux Thornton, Percy M. Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Runciman, Walter Tollemache, Henry James Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Russell, T. W. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Wylie, Alexander
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Tritton, Charles Ernest Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Tuff, Charles Younger, William
Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles Ure, Alexander
Sharpe, William Edward T. Valentia, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. John Gordon and Mr. Sloan
Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Vincent. Col. Sir C. EH(Sheffield
Slack, John Bamford Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Hammond, John O'Dowd, John
Ainsworth, John Stirling Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harrington, Timothy O'Kelly. James (Roscommon, N
Asquith. Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Hayden, John Patrick O'Malley, William
Barlow, John Emmott Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Philipps, John Wynford
Benn, John Williams Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Power, Patrick Joseph
Boland, John Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Priestley, Arthur
Brigg, John Jores, Leif (Appleby) Reckitt, Harold James
Bright, Allan Heywood Jordan, Jeremiah Reddy, M.
Broadhurst, Henry Joyce, Michael Redmond, ohn E. (Waterford
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N. Richards, Thomas
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Kilbride, Deais Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Burns, John Langley, Batty Roche, John
Burt, Thomas Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Caldwell, James Levy, Maurice, Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Lewis, John Herbert Sheehy, David
Churchill, Winston Spencer Lough, Thomas Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cogan, Denis J. Lundon, W. Spencer Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Condon, Thomas Joseph MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sullivan, Donal
Crean, Eugene MacVeagh, Jeremiah Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cremer, William Randal M'Crae, George Thomas David Alfrea(Merthyr)
Cullinan, J. M'Kean, John Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Dalziel, James Henry M'Kenna, Reginald Tomkinson, James
Delany. William M'Killop, W. (Slio, North) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway) Mansfield, Horace Rendall Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Murplvy, John Weir, James Galloway
Dobbie, Joseph Nannetti, Joseph P. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Donelan, Captain A. Nolan. Col. John P. (Galway. N.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Doogan, P. C. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Farrell, James Patrick O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fenwick, Charles O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wood, J mes
Ffrench, Peter O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Young, Samuel
Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE O'Connor. James (Wicklow, W.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Mooney and Mr. Field.
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Gilhooly, James O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Bill read the third time, and passed.