§ [SECOND READING.]
§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.),
in rising to move the rejection of this Bill, said he had no wish to detain the House for any length of time, but merely to explain shortly the position of himself and the other Members who had similar Motions on the Paper. Rathmines and Rathgar was an urban district situated in that portion of the county of Dublin which he had the honour to represent. Six Members representing the city and the county of Dublin were returned to this House, and so representative was this Bill that the only persons who could be found to introduce it were the hon. Member for South Londonderry and the hon. Member for North Antrim. That curious state of things did not arise from the fact that those who represented Dublin had failed in their duties to their constituents, but from the fact that they would not be parties to a Bill which proposed to confer on one set of people powers and privileges to the detriment of another set of persons who already enjoyed certain of those, powers and privi eges. His main reason or asking for the rejection of this Bill was that it transgressed certain rules which had been laid down by the House for its own guidance. The object of the Bill which was proposed by the Urban District Council of Rathmines was to grab a portion of the existing county of Dublin. The portion it proposed to take had a district council of its own and formed the residential portion of the county of Dublin. It was over one-third the size of the existing area of the district which proposed to annex it, and had a local authority of its own. He submitted that it was against the settled principle of the House to allow the annexation of one district, by an adjoining district when there was in the district proposed to be annexed a council of its own which was hostile to that 1010 annexation, unless there was an over whelming case made out in favour of it. The Urban District Council of Rathmines was the last body which should have come to this House and ask them to vary their own rule. The Rathmines District Council had been before the House many times, it had given evidence before Committees which was found to be absolutely misleading, and produced figures which, had it been a limited company whose figures were scrutinised every year by an auditor, no auditor would have granted a certificate for. The town clerk of Rathmines before one of the Committees of the House deliberately stated that the rates in existence in the township of Rathmines were only 4s. in the £. He stated the same thing before a Committee of the Upper House. His statement at the time was strictly true, but he omitted to mention that the rates had been deliberately kept down for the purposes of that evidence, and a less rate had been struck than should have been; that in 1898 the rate was struck at 6s. in the £, and that in 1900 it was actually struck at 10s., in order to make up the deficiency which had resulted in 1899 owing to too low a rate having been struck. The indebtedness of the Rathmines Council per head of the population was greater than that of the City of London. They had indulged in the most extravagant and costly schemes which had not the real sanction of the people in the district, and the real fact of the matter was that the Urban District Council of Rathmines had by mismanagement in the past got themselves into such a state of confusion and debt that they had been obliged to look round for some means of extricating themselves, and the only means which they had been enabled to discover was this attempt to annex this adjoining district, thus robbing the county council of the rates of that portion of the county in order that they themselves might take them for the purpose of paying off their own debts. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
§ *MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)
said the hon. Member who had moved the rejection of the Bill had given so clear an explanation of his reason for so doing that it was not necessary 1011 to further labour that point. He himself opposed this Bill on the ground that it would inflict a grave injury upon the Corporation of Dublin, of which he was a member, and the Port and Docks Board of Dublin, of which he was also a member. Both those bodies had entered a protest against this Bill. The unfortunate thing about this Bill was that it came before the House of Commons, very few Members of which understood the matter, and that when the division was taken its fate would be decided by a number of gentlemen who would come in and vote either for or against it, but who had not troubled to come and listen to the arguments. He was perfectly satisfied that if this Bill went before a committee of the citizens of Dublin, no matter whether they were a Unionist or a Nationalist committee, it would be scouted. No case had been made out for the annexation of the district which it was proposed to take over by this Bill. On the other hand, the Corporation of Dublin believed that this Bill would seriously interfere with their scheme of water supply and their great drainage scheme, which had now almost come to completion. The Corporation of Dublin was already supplying the population of the district with water, and, if this Bill was allowed to go through the Rathmines District Council would immediately come into active competition with the Corporation in regard to that. He thought a more preposterous proposal than this could hardly be brought before the House. At the present time the Dublin Port and Docks Board were in negotiation with these people to deal with their sewage. The Port and Docks Board now received £200 a year for allowing them to discharge their sewage into the River Dodder, which was a tributary to the Liffey, and they were now to receive a further £40 a year from the Rathmines people for dealing more effectively with it, as the Rathmines people could not deal with it themselves. The Port and Docks Board of Dublin, therefore, strongly opposed this Bill. Having regard to the great drainage scheme of the city, of Dublin and the purification of the Liffey, in which they were now engaged, was it fair, he asked, to the Corporation of Dublin, who had made ample provision to take 1012 over the drainage of these surrounding areas, that this council should be set up against them, and that the work they were now doing in regard to the purification of the river should be prevented by another authority coming in and discharging their sewage into the River Dodder through which it passed into the Liffey, and flowed through Dublin, while they themselves were not allowed to discharge into the Liffey, but to carry it out to sea. No case had been made out for this measure. It was an omnibus Bill which went into various other matters, and it would do a serious injury to the Corporation of Dublin. The promoters of this Bill had sent out a dishonest circular in which, on the one hand, they asked for power to carry out the principle of municipalisation, while at the same time they were sending out a circular on behalf of the manufacturers. This Bill would injure the City of Dublin in regard to their main drainage scheme, which it would hamper unfairly; it would increase the City of Dublin's obligation to the county council, increase taxation in the county at large, and impose a heavier burden of taxation upon the districts to be taken in. For these reasons he asked the House to reject the Bill. When the corporation asked for a locus standi in regard to this measure they were refused unless they consented to withdraw their opposition. Of course, the Corporation of Dublin could not do such a thing, and so they were, refused locus standi.
To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Mooney.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)
said he knew something about the facts of this case. In regard to this measure hon. Members opposite had dealt with everything but the merits of the Bill. Those who had backed this measure with their names were residents and ratepayers in Dublin, and they were deeply interested in the welfare of the city, and each of them could throw a stone from where they lived into the township of Rathmines. Although they 1013 represented other constituencies in the House they were far more interested in the districts affected by this Bill than some of the hon. Members opposite who were opposing it. It had been argued that it was contrary to the settled practice and principle of that House for a large municipal community to annex another without the full consent of that community. Now what had happened in the case of the City of Dublin itself? Three times Dublin had brought Rathmines before the House of Commons to annex them against the wishes of nine-tenths of the people of Rathmines and Pembroke, but they had managed to escape the net of that political caucus which ruled Dublin. Clontarf and Kilmainham fought, but both of them were absorbed. For several sessions Dublin had attempted to bring in Rathmines. which was well managed and well regulated, and in every way well-governed in its non-political affairs. ["Oh, oh!"] Rathmines was Unionist to the backbone. [NATIONALIST laughter.] That was a fact, and it was quite capable of managing its own municipal affairs. It was solely because Rathmines excluded politics from its local affairs, and would not be governed by the Dublin Corporation, that this measure was being opposed by hon. Members opposite.
It had been said that this was a question of the rates. He did not believe that the rates affected the question much, but he would deal with that argument. The rates in Rathmines were 8s. 9d. in the pound, and 3s. 6d. of that went to the county council, and 1s. to pay the costs which the township of Rathmines was forced to incur in defeating the efforts of the Dublin Corporation to annex them. That was the sort of neighbour Rathmines had got. Now the rates in the City of Dublin were 10s. 4d. in the pound, but Rathmines had to pay 7d. or 8d. in the pound as an equalisation rate, and hand it over to the City of Dublin. Rathmines had been called upon to pay an extra rate of 1s. in the pound for five years by an indefensible procedure on the part of the Corporation of Dublin to annex them, the rates in Dublin being 10s. 4d. in the pound.
§ MR. GORDON,
proceeding, said that Rathmines had a good water supply and the City of Dublin at one time had to go to them when they ran short. The hon. Member for Dublin Harbour had said that the difficulties Dublin was likely to be in for water would probably be mitigated by this Bill if passed.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin Harbour)
The hon. Member is grossly misrepresenting me. What I said was that Dublin Corporation were making calculations for a new reservoir, and I told them that in my judgment the supply was insufficient, and that if this Bill passed there would be a less demand.
§ MR. GORDON
That is practically what I said. Proceeding, he said that in the first place Dublin would not give them a supply unless they came with their hats in their hands, which they refused to do; but they now had a supply capable of supplying a town three times its size. Rathmines, which lay to the south of Dublin, had been in existence since 1847, and it consisted of some 7,000 or 8,000 inhabitants, who found themselves excluded from everything a populous community required. They got themselves formed into a township, and since then adjoining communities had grown up and got themselves added, till now the township numbered about 35,000, with a valuation, he was told, of over £160,000. Pembroke, a large district beside it, was formed into a township, and in 1877 the two joined, and, under Act of Parliament, carried out a joint drainage scheme, whilst Dublin was still polluting the river and making it a perfect scandal. This particular district, which did not join the city, but was in the county of Dublin, grew up till now it had about 5,000 inhabitants and 1,000 1015 occupied houses, with not one single attempt at drainage and without anything in the nature of any system which should serve a populous community. They applied first to the guardians, who prior to the Act of 1898 were the sanitary authority, and then to the district council to do something for them, but not one single step had been taken to do anything, and ultimately, in self-defence,—and he could not blame them—somebody made an opening in the Eathmines and Rathgar main drainage which was absolutely independent of the Corporation of Dublin, and was constructed at a cost of £100,000. The Rathgar Main Drainage Board then applied for and obtained an injunction, but so convinced were they of the necessity of some drainage for the district that from that day, some five years ago, to this they had never put their injunction in force. Everybody knew that it would inflict such a gross injustice and hardship upon the people of the district that they did not attempt to stop it. It would be a source of danger for them to be left in their undrained state; and therefore what they asked was that the injunction should be dissolved, or that, notwithstanding it, the Bill should be allowed to pass, and the little field, consisting of about 500 acres, should be annexed to Rathmines.
They got some supply of water from Dublin, and there was an arrangement that they should pay for the pipes, but the corporation found out afterwards that this would not work, and they allowed it to be worked out by giving a reduction in the price for a considerable time. There ought, however, to be some regularity as to streets, for at present anyone could put up buildings at their own will and pleasure, and there were a great many matters both as to frontage lines, material, and mode of construction requiring attention. Then there was no means of lighting the place. The hon. Member submitted that inhabitants representing five-sixths of the valuation of the place were in favour of its being taken over. Rathmines wanted to protect itself, to protect the people who lived in this little district, to take them over and form them into part of a good, well-managed, and well cared-for township. The drainage of the Liffey had already 1016 cost about £350,000, and would probably cost in the end over £500,000. If the House was satisfied that there was matter here which did not affect the principle, which hon. Members were not now in a position to determine, and which could be examined into by a Committee, with the view to justice being done to all parties, he would respectfully ask that the Bill should be read a second time and sent to a Committee. If the Corporation of Dublin had all the grievances which were suggested, they would be able to bring them before the Committee if they could prove a locus. All that the promoters asked, and this showed the strength of their position, was that the Bill should go to a Committee, and that it should not be stopped now.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry. N.)
said this was a matter of certain importance, and he thought it right that he should, on behalf of the Government, express their view on the position. He did not at all express any opinion one way or the other on the merits or the demerits of the scheme put, forward by the promoters of the Bill. The question was what was right and proper to be done in the circumstances. There was no assertion that had been made on the opposite side of the House which had not been traversed on his side, and there was no assertion made on his side which had not been traversed on the opposite side, and the result was that the House was absolutely incapable of coming to a conclusion in the matter. In that state of matters what would be the natural course to take? [NATIONALIST cries of "Home Rule."] If Home Rule were in operation, there would not lie two disagreeing parties, but there would probably be five. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You have five in the Tory Party already.] Was it not common-sense and reason that, inasmuch as the House was absolutely unable to decide between the conflicting claims and objections on different sides, the Bill should go to the recognised tribunal where things could be investigated. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill praised the local body in whose administrative jurisdiction this unfortunate district was placed. He said that the District Council 1017 of Terenure was one of the best governing bodies if they left out the question of lighting, sewers, and water.
§ MR. ATKINSON
said he understood the hon. Gentleman to say so, but if he did not say it he might have said it. The local body had not supplied this district with light, sewers, or water. In order to get rid of its sewage it had to poach on its neighbour and deliver sewage against the law into the drains in another county. It was absurd to ask the House to decide between the parties, and, therefore, the only intervention he made on behalf of the Government was to say that in the present state of controversy this was a matter which should go to a tribunal which would be able to investigate the circumstances as they affected the Corporation of Dublin and the local body.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTON
said if the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered was a specimen of the rigid impartiality of mind which the Government had on this question he and his friends looked with considerable anxiety to the time when he should speak as a partisan. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken on this question as if the Government had really no responsibility. A Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords considered the question of the relations between Rathmines, Pembroke, and the City of Dublin some years ago, and the right hon. Gentleman, who occupied the same position then as now, had forgotten that that Joint Committee made a recommendation throwing on the Government the responsibility of establishing a joint board so as to prevent the Liffey from being polluted by the discharge of crude sewage into it. The hon. Member for South Londonderry had assured the House that he had no interest in the district in question or in Rathmines.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTON
said the hon. and learned Member did not explain to 1018 the House his reason for his warm advocacy of the Bill. The county council was opposing the Bill, and the district council which had charge of this particular district was also opposing it. Every local authority which had anything to do with the drainage of the district was opposing the Bill, except Rathmines, which proposed to take it in. How were they taking it in? Instead of coming to the House with a Bill for that special purpose, they came with an omnibus Bill, in which this was one of the proposals, and this was done deliberately so as to enable them to make out a case for having the Bill sent to a Committee. If it were simply an attempt to extend boundaries the House could consider the question whether or not there should be an extension. This, he maintained, was a dishonest way of bringing a Bill before the House of Commons. It was not a straight way of facing the question of the acquisition of this district.
The opposition of the Corporation of Dublin to the Bill was two-fold. First of all they said they were the water authority for the district proposed to be added. Since 1872 the corporation had had a contract with the district for the supply of water, and the contract was so favourable to the district that the corporation was bound to supply water at the price at which it was supplied to the city itself. He was not sure but that the corporation could bring an action for an injunction against the Rathmines Commissioners for employing the borough funds in the promotion of a water scheme where a water scheme already existed, for the Commissioners were prohibited from employing the borough funds in competing with the water authority of the district. These Commissioners were using the borough funds in this matter, although they were as favourably situated as regards water as they possibly could be. The water pipes in the district were the property of Dublin Corporation, and the corporation paid rates to the district council in respect of the pipes. As to the question of sewage, the hon. and learned Member opposite pointed out to the House that an injunction was obtained against the people of the district to prevent them from draining into the Rathmines sewers, but he forgot to tell the House what was 1019 the case made in favour of the injunction, namely, that the Rathmines drains were not sufficient to take any more sewage. That was the ground on which the injunction was obtained, and now because they were prepared to annex the district the Commissioners were willing to put themselves to inconvenience in order to collar the rates of the district. Now they were going to turn the storm water in one direction and the sewage in another, and take in the district. Up to the present time the River Liffey had been an open sewer, but the Corporation were now expending £500,000 in preventing the pollution of the river, but at the time when this was being done the Rathmines and Rathgar authority and the Pembroke district had a system of drainage which was delivering into the river crude sewage. In 1900 a Committee of the House of Lords reported that they did not see their way to add the two districts of Pembroke and Rathmines to the City of Dublin, but they came to the unanimous conclusion that it would be a public advantage to have one administrative control of the drainage and the treatment of sewage for Dublin and the two townships. The Committee recommended that legislative steps should be taken to constitute a joint district board for the City and Rathmines and Pembroke. When the Bill was reported to the House, Lord Shuttle worth expressed the hope that the Government would consider that recommendation. The Government had not dealt with the question, and the corporation had only delayed until their system of main drainage should be completed in order that they might promote a Bill. That system would not be completed until next June, when they hoped that the whole scheme of the City of Dublin would be in order. Then it was the intention of the corporation to promote a Bill for the establishment of the joint board suggested by the Committee. He hoped the House would give the corporation fair play by rejecting this Bill.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE (Antrim, N.)
said that it was perfectly plain that the real opposition to the Bill came from the Corporation of Dublin; and that 1020 there was very considerable doubt as to whether that corporation had a locus. An offer was made to be Dublin Corporation that if they withdrew their opposition to the Second Reading the opposition to their having a locus would be withdrawn.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTON
said that that statement was calculated to deceive the House. There were five or six other parties opposing the Second Reading.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE
said he apologised if he had been led into a mistake. He believed that it was the wish of the House that if this Bill or any other Bill had merits it should be allowed to pass. Hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to prevent the House from ever getting to a discussion on the merits, but no real reason had been shown why the Second Reading should not be passed and the Bill sent upstairs for consideration and adjustment on its merits in Committee. The opposition, he contended, had been determined mainly by political motives, and he hoped that the House would defeat this attempt to deprive the people of Rathmines and Rathgar of the opportunity of presenting the merits of the case before the Committee upstairs.
§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
said he had been asked by the Rathmines Town Commissioners to support the Bill, and by the Dublin Corporation to oppose it. He had declined to put his name on the back of the Bill, or to say what he would do before he had heard the debate. Nobody would be able to say that he had been retained either by the Dublin Corporation or by Rathmines. Two years ago he had given his strongest support to the annexation of Rathmines by Dublin, and it would have been done but for political feeling on both sides. After listening to the debate that evening, and with no prejudice in favour of Rathmines, but rather the contrary, he would not undertake the responsibility of doing anything to prevent the Bill going upstairs to a Committee.
§ Question put.1022
§ The House divided—Ayes, 207; Noes, 147, (Division List No. 37.)1023
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||Muntz, Sir Plillip A.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Gardner, Ernest||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Allen, Charles P.||Garfit, William||Myers, William Henry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Gordon,Hn J.E.(Elgin & Nairn)||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn.HughO.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Arrol, Sir William||Green, Walford D (Wednesbury||Pease Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds||Peel, Hn. Wm.RobertWellesley|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHon. SirH.||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Percy, Earl|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Grenfell, William Henry||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gretton, John||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Balfour, Rt Hon.A.J. (Manch'r||Hain, Edward||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Balfour, RtHnGerald W(Leeds||Hambro, Charles Eric||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Hamilton,Marq.of( L'nd'nderry||Purvis, Robert|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford||Randles, John S.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)||Ratclitf, R. F.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Bigwood, James||Heath, SirJames(Staffords, NW||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bill, Charles||Helder, Augustus||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Bingham, Lord||Henderson, Sir A (Stafford. W.)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Robinson, Brooke|
|Brassey, Albert||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hoult, Joseph||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Bull, William James||Hozier, Hon JamesHenry Cecil||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Butcher, John George||Hunt, Rowland||Russell, T. W.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Cavendish. V.C.W (Derbyshire||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon Arthur Fred||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohn H.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kenyon-Slaney.Rt.Hon.Col.W||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A(Worc.||Kerr, John||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Knowles, Sir Lees||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Chapman, Edward||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Lawson, Hn. H.L.W. (Mile End)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.||Lawson, J. Grant, (Yorks, N.R||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Colomb, Rt Hon. Sir John C. R||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Spear, John Ward|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.Fareham||Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stock, James Henry|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Stroyan, John|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Long, Col. Charles W(Evesham||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol S)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Tennant, Harold John|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lowther, Rt HnJW(Cum.Penr.||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Lucas, ReginaldJ(Portsmouth)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lyell, Charles Henry||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Dorington. Rt Hon. Sir John E.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Doughty, Sir George||Macdona, John Cumming||Tuff, Charles|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Maconochie, A. W.||Tnrnour, Viscount|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon.SirWilliam Hart||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool||Valentia, Viscount|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.||M'Calmont. Colonel James||Walrond, Rt. HnSir William H.|
|Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward||Majendie, James A. H.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r||Marks, Harry Hananel||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Massey-Mainwaring. Hn. W.F.||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Finlay, Sir R. B(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)||Maxwell,W.J H(Dumfriesshire||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Fisher, Williams Hayes||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Montagu, Hon.J.Scott (Hants.)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamstow||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Morrell, George Herbert||Wilson, A. Stanley,(York E.R.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Foster, Philip S.(WarwickS.W.||Mount, William Arthur||Wilson-Todd, SirW.H. (Yorks.)|
|Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath||Wrightson, Sir Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm||Wylie, Alexander||Mr. John Gordon and Mr.|
|Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong||Moore.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Harrington, Timothy||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda||Hayden, John Patrick||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Ambrose, Robert||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Reddy, M.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Asquith,Rt.Hn Herbert Henry||Higham, John Sharpe||Richards,Thomas (W Monm'th|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Horniman, Frederick John||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Bell, Richard||Hutchinson, Dr.Charles Fredk.||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Benn, John Williams||Johnson, John||Roche, John|
|Black, Alexander William||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Blake, Edward||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Boland, John||Joyce, Michael||Rose, Charles Day|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W||Runciman, Walter|
|Brigg, John||Kilbride, Denis||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Labouchere, Henry||Seely, Maj. J. B. E (Isle of Wight|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Lamont, Norman||Shackleton, David James|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Langley, Batty||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Sheehy, David|
|Caldwell, James||Levy, Maurice||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Lewis, John Herbert||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Lundon, W.||Sinclair, Louis (Bomford)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Slack, John Bamford|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||M'Crae, George||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Crean, Eugene||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Kean, John||Sullivan, Donal|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan,Gower|
|Delany, William||Moss, Samuel||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Devlin, CharlesRamsay (Galway||Moulton, John Fletcher||Tomkinson, James|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Murphy, John||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Douglas Charles M. (Lanark)||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary,Mid||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Edwards, Frank||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Emmott, Alfred||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Fen wick, Charles||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset|
|Field, William||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Young, Samuel|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Malley, William|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Mara, James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn HerbertJohn||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Mr. Mooney and Mr. Nannetti|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Parrott, William|
|Hammond, John||Partington, Oswald|
|Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)||Pease, J A. (Saffron Walden)|
Question puts and agreed to.