HC Deb 02 July 1906 vol 159 cc1523-39

Order for Second Reading read.

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

MR. C. E. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)

said that he wished to move as an Amendment that this Bill be read a second time three months hence. He, and those who agreed with him, felt it their duty to oppose this particular Bill because they believed that that course was in the interest of the Corporation of Manchester and would be also for the advantage of the ship canal. He admitted that the Manchester Corporation at one time was in favour of this Bill, but the Finance Committee of the Corporation had since reported against it. He was glad that a change had taken place in the position of the Corporation of the City of Manchester in consequence of its having been felt that enough consideration had not been given for the damage which might be done to the Manchester Ship Canal by the Bill. Some people might ask what had the Manchester Ship Canal to do with this Bill, but he might point out that when that canal was first projected it was calculated that it would cost about £8,000,000 sterling, but when the work had got on to a considerable extent it was found that another £5,000,000 would be required. That money was not to be found in the open market and the Corporation of Manchester found it by the permission of this House. Another £1,000,000 was by the permission of the House similarly invested, so that altogether the Corporation of Manchester had invested £6,000,000 in the Manchester Ship Canal. The Manchester Corporation considered that the carrying of this Bill would seriously damage their interests, because, as the House was well aware, the whole question of shipping was a very delicate one, and if any port suffered from more inspection than other ports it was sufficient to cause shippers and shipowners to send ships to other ports. The powers given to the port sanitary authority would put Manchester in a different position from that which existed at present in other ports. The corporation, had a power of inspection throughout the city, and if a greater power of inspection was granted than prevailed in other ports, it would do great damage to the ship canal. [Cries of "Why?"] If special powers of inspection were given to the port sanitary authority on the quays, it would do great damage to the ship canal. The same powers would not be given in regard to other ports, and the present powers of inspection at Manchester were ample. He did not see why an exceptional course should be taken in Regard to Manchester and Liverpool with reference to inspection when their present system was sufficiently rigid to exclude the importation of bad meat from Chicago or anywhere else. Glasgow was not to be subjected to the conditions which were proposed with regard to Liverpool and Manchester, in which places the best possible course was taken to preserve good hygienic conditions. He maintained that Manchester did its duty in the matter of meat inspection, and he thought it would be impracticable to inspect cargoes in the ports and on the docks. It would lead to delay and large claims for demurrage. If any change t was to be made it ought to be made in all the ports of the kingdom. It might be said that this was a question of the rich against the poor and that the owners of the ship canal, as long as they got their dividends, did not wish to have inspection in their docks. All he could say, if that was the line of argument, was that it was no great catch to hold canal shares at present, although he was glad to say the prospects of the ordinary shares paying a dividend were improving. Only 10 per cent. of the food stuffs used in Lancashire was introduced by way of the Manchester Ship Canal. Eighty per cent. or 90 per cent. was landed at Liverpool, and if any restriction was to be put in force it should commence at any rate at Liverpool. Therefore if there was to be any reform in this matter they would insist upon a general measure being passed by the Government, in which case they would endeavour to improve it when it came before them. In the meanwhile he hoped all who took an interest in the Manchester Ship Canal and who thought that the canal should obtain a fair share of these shipments from other countries would join with him and support him in the division that would take place almost immediately.

MR. KELLEY (Manchester, S.W.),

in seconding the Motion, said that the Bill would inflict a great injustice upon Manchester. He did not think he would be out of order in moving the rejection of this measure when they had regard to the struggle they had to make the canal, to obtain the money to make it, and the struggles they had had since to encourage its use by shippers. He did not think there was any man who had had more to do with the working classes in connection with this canal and who had induced more men to take up shares in the ship canal thin himself. He had a small holding of shares in it, but though a shareholder he was not influenced by that fact to-night. They had had a good many struggles to make the canal asuccess, and now that they were just beginning to make some headway somebody got the Chicago meat scare fever and no doubt unwittingly were trying to injure them. In confirming this provisional order they would inflict a great injustice on Manchester. They simply asked that the same treatment should be given to Manchester as to other ports of the United Kingdom. They did not quarrel with the idea of a closer inspection, they quite approved it, but they said that if closer inspection were needed it should be applied to the whole of the ports of the Kingdom and not to Manchester alone. He therefore seconded the rejection of the Bill.

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. C. E. Schwann.)

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

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,) Battersea

said he felt some degree of confidence that the House of Commons would pass the Second Reading of this Bill and would send it upstairs to the proper tribunal, where the questions raised by the two previous speakers would be adequately discussed. Let him give briefly the history of this provisional order, which did not emanate from the Local Government Board, but was conceived in Manchester. It was mothered by Manchester and fifteen other local authorities. It was deposited on the steps of the Local Government Board, and he now asked the House of Commons to send it upstairs, where the infant could be properly examined. The bare facts were these. The Manchester Port Sanitary Authority, of the which Manchester City Corporation was the predominant partner, came for a provisional order, asking that there should be vested in them certain powers and duties of a sanitary authority under the Public Health Acts relating to the inspection of food. The Local Government Board received the letter from the Manchester Port Sanitary Authority on September 27th, 1905, stating that they had had before them the question of unsound food being conveyed within their district by means of ships coming to the Port of Manchester, and that they asked in consequence that the Local Government Board should give them this provisional order. The Local Government Board sent an official down to the district to hold a public inquiry. There was practically no opposition. The Manchester Corporation concurred as would be seen, by the following letter written in October— The Corporation of Manchester understand that an application has been made to the Local Government Board by the Manchester port sanitary authority for powers to seize unsound articles intended for the food of man either on board ship or before they are removed from the docks. The sanitary authority of the Manchester Corporation have had the matter under consideration, and as they are convinced that the proposal is in the public interest they heartily support the application of the Man Chester port sanitary authority, and trust that it will receive favourable consideration on the part of the Local Government Board. The public inquiry was held by an officer from the Local Government Board, and no objection was raised by the City of Manchester. The First Reading of the Bill took place on May 25th, and between then and now nothing had transpired except, perhaps, the Chicago meat scandals; but he ventured to say that nothing that could be deduced therefrom was a reason why additional powers of inspection should not be given. Recently Manchester had put forward the following reason for varying its original request. Since the inquiry the directors of the Manchester Ship Canal said they had overlooked the notice of the public inquiry, and as Liverpool Port Sanitary Authority did not possess powers, ships coming to Manchester would be liable to interference not prevailing at Liverpool. Hence Manchester would be placed at a disadvantage compared with Liverpool in competing for the importation of food products. This opinion, however, was not practically sustained by the facts. Liverpool Town Council, who were the port sanitary authority of Liverpool, did exercise these powers, but not so much in the port as in the city. Last year Liverpool rejected 400 tons of rotten canned meat from the United States. Every day Liverpool was doing its duty under precisely the same powers, duties, and obligations to the public health as Manchester was content to ask for from the Local Government Board, and which he sincerely trusted the House of Commons would see that Manchester had in the passing of this particular Bill. The sixteen authorities that made up the Manchester port sanitary authority said, truly that one port sanitary authority on the Manchester Ship Canal could more cheaply, more efficiently, and. more impartially inspect the meat at a given place on the Manchester Ship Canal than could fifteen or sixteen, sanitary authorities attempting to do the same work here, there, and everywhere. Now this particular power was exercised by the London Port Sanitary Authority, and they were only asking the Louse of Commons to give to the Manchester Port Sanitary Authority the powers possessed by each of the sixteen constituent authorities that made up the Port Sanitary Authority of Manchester—Manchester with these other bodies took the initiative in demanding these powers, and he saw no reason why the matter should not go forward as originally intended. He did not ask the House to judge as between Manchester Members and himself,, but that the proposal should go upstairs to a Committee before which Manchester would have a fairer opportunity of stating its case than it could at that time of the night in a House-imperfectly equipped for coming to a proper decision. Might he put it to the-Manchester Members that it would seriously damage Manchester as a port and as a sanitary authority if it were assumed, as it might be if this Provisional Order Bill were not carried to-night, that Manchester wanted to be lenient toward foreign tinned meat coming into its port, whilst a general law was enforced by the London, Liverpool, Hull, Grimsby, and other English ports? In this matter he asked for equal rights for all white men, whether they came from Chicago or Great Britain, and he did not see why Chicago or American tinned meat coming via Manchester Ship Canal should be treated any more leniently than live pork from Limerick, or Scottish beef from Scotland, or mutton and beef from Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and elsewhere. It was absolutely necessary to give the Manchester Port Sanitary Authority the power to reject unsound meat. Manchester's original request was a wise one, for it found a difficulty in preventing unsound meat from coming into the Manchester Ship Canal. If Manchester had a rivalry with Liverpool, the best way to meet it was for Liverpool and Manchester to be on equal terms, as this Provisional Order would put them. He asked the House to send the Bill upstairs and enable the people of this country to be protected from the foreign importer of bad meat, and not give him privileges which were not accorded to the home producer.

MR. SCOTT (Ashton-under-Lyne)

said that after the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, the House might think that a representative of Manchester would hardly have the audacity to rise at that time of night, but Manchester Members were not responsible for detaining the House at that hour. The responsibility rested with the President of the Local Government Board for bringing on the measure after eleven o'clock at night when he knew that every representative of Manchester was opposed to the Order. He was a member of the Manchester City Council, which was a corporation, (as all interested in municipal administration well knew), with the interests of the people of Manchester at heart, and in this respect one of the most forward corporations in the country. They had presented to this House an unanimous petition signed by the Lord Mayor, and bearing the seal of the Manchester Corporation. The right, hon. Gentleman asked why should they make any difference between Manchester and Liverpool. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he would make the conditions the same in Manchester and Liverpool, every Manchester Member would at once withdraw his opposition. Was that a fair offer? The right hon. Gentleman knew well enough that the conditions would not be the same under this Order. If he had brought in a Bill to prevent canned meat from landing at any British port, he would have found no more loyal supporters than the men who had been returned from Manchester and those associated with that town. It had been said that Manchester had changed its mind. Manchester had a right to change its mind, and no one recognised that better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. Manchester had changed its mind for the selfsame reason that the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind on the unemployed question, namely, that it had got facts and information which it had not when it lent its name to the first application. This was a Government measure, and he wanted to know why it should be hurried through the House. A circular sent out by the port sanitary authority was signed by William Huddart, who was recognised as the greatest opponent of amalgamation between Manchester and Salford. Salford had taken Manchester Corporation into court to get an increased rate, and yet the ship canal had been the making of Salford. It was true that the ship canal traffic did not yield a dividend, but it should be remembered that when the trade of Manchester was declining it wanted no protection remedies. It wanted access to the world, and, having built the ship canal at great sacrifice, freights into Manchester had been lowered to the extent of £1,000,000 a year. Manchester only asked for freedom. It did not ask for special treatment, or for freedom to import bad food. [Cries of "Agreed."] Oh, no; they were not agreed. Here were the conditions of sale which existed in Liverpool at the present time. There was a classification of food as "sound" "slack" and "slightly wet." There was also "wastage." What did that classification mean? Everything containing less than two per cent, of waste was "sound"; less than 5 per cent. "seconds"; less than 10 per cent. "thirds." Less than 20 per cent, was "X"; and 50 per cent. "double X." After that they were "wastage." But still "wastage" had a value, and could be bought on the Liverpool market. they in Manchester did not desire that these meats should be unloaded from boats in Manchester; and therefore they were being brought into Manchester by rail. The unfairness of the Provisional Order was to place the port of Manchester in an unfair position as compared with Liverpool. All he asked was that Manchester should compete fairly with other ports.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

said he did not propose to inflict a speech on the House, but it appeared to him, in the words of the last speaker, that the House was slightly wet. [Cries of "Oh, oh" and "withdraw."] His hon. friends had taken an extraordinary way of reasoning with the House in their appeal for the rejection of this Bill. If he understood the position correctly, the Manchester Corporation practically introduced this Bill themselves but they had suddenly changed their minds. The hon. Member who spoke last had said with truth that they had a perfect right to change their minds, but he wanted to know what occult influence had been at work to induce them to change their mind. Did it come from Chicago? He wished to lay down the general proposition that if the system of inspection was to be imposed on other ports, then it was time that they began with Manchester. He would like to point out to the House—because he was in the native meat trade himself—that there was a more rigid inspection of all native meat than of importations of meat, live or dead, or frozen or chilled, or in tins. He thought that this House should give the same equality of opportunity and protection to the native producers of these isles who paid rent, rates, and taxes, as they did to the foreigner. He therefore supported the Bill, and he hoped the House by an overwhelming majority would defeat the Motion for rejection. There was no reason why this Bill should not go to a Committee upstairs.

MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)

said that he thought that Salford as well as Manchester was entitled to have something to say in this matter. The terminus of the Manchester Ship Canal, and its docks were in Salford, and what they wanted there was cleanly and wholesome food. For that reason the borough which he represented desired that this Bill should be supported by its representatives. The Vice-Chairman of the Health Committee of the Salford Corporation had succeeded in bringing the death-rate down considerably, and one of the means by which he hoped to get it still lower was to get meat coming into the borough inspected.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

said that although that evening it seemed to he regarded as an unfortunate thing to say anything in favour of Manchester he proposed to take that course. Before the date of provisional orders private promoters always had a right to withdraw a Bill at any moment, and he did not think that right was affected by the fact that the Local Government Board now promoted provisional orders on behalf of public bodies. Supposing a Corporation were minded to buy the local gas works and then afterwards found they did not want to do so, was their original Bill to be crammed down their throats in the manner in which it was sought to thrust this Bill down the throats of the Manchester Corporation. The Chicago meat scandals had been referred to, but there was a great deal of humbug about them. Men's fingers were dearer than beef, and he believed the alleged scandals were part of a Presidential campaign. But for this Chicago meat scandal the Local Government Board would have yielded to that plea of Manchester. Manchester had always been a supporter of Ireland, and for that if for no other reason he supported the action of the hon. Members from that city.

MR. HAWORTH (Manchester, S.)

said it was unsatisfactory to a loyal supporter of the Government even to appear to be opposed to them. He thought it was hardly worthy of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to bring in the question of Chicago tinned meats, because this matter was in hand before the revelations with regard to Chicago. As to the fact that Manchester changed her mind, that City wanted as good an inspection of food as any other place, but when she found that if this Bill were passed Manchester would be placed in an invidious position in regard to various other ports, she changed her position. If these powers were given to the port sanitary authority the House would be simply duplicating them. If they were duplicated for one city they ought to be duplicated for others. They wanted to confirm and not to oppose this Order, but they also wanted to make it effective. It had been already pointed out that only 10 per cent. of the foodstuffs consumed in the district entered through the port of Manchester and that 90 per cent. came in from the ports of Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol. They had no objection to this measure going through on an equality and then it would be an effective Order; whereas if it went through in its present shape the whole thing would be uneffective.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. EMMOTT,) Oldham

said he had listened very carefully to this debate in order to see whether the arguments on both sides would lead him to a conclusion as to whether it was a matter of principle that ought to be settled on a Second Reading or whether this was a Bill that ought to go to a Committee upstairs. His conviction was very strong that it should be sent upstairs. The point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth that the President of the Local Government Board had done something unusual in his action with regard to this measure, did not, he thought, apply. He did not think the House was in a position to judge of the merits of this case. In the first place, they had heard of the change of opinion on the part of Manchester. He did not know the reason of that change but that was a matter that could be better investigated in Committee, and was a matter the House was not in a position to discuss. Then they were told that there were sixteen sanitary authorities affected, but that statement was denied by an hon. Member who said there were only three. They also heard of the conditions of Liverpool being equally strict, yet other Members said that Liverpool had an advantage. All these were surely matters which could be dealt with and settled much better upstairs, and therefore he hoped the House would send this Bill upstairs. The matters in dispute were of a character which could be better settled in Committee than in the House.

MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said he opposed this Provisional Order. One hon. Member said he supported the Order for the sake of the poor of Salford, and if he had thought that was more important than anything else he should have supported the hon. Member. But the hon. Gentleman forgot that only one-tenth of the foodstuffs consumed in Lancashire came through the Manchester Ship Canal, and that if this Order were passed it would not prevent foodstuffs coming in via Liverpool. He quite admitted that the Manchester and Salford authorities had made a mistake in making this appeal. But this was a Lancashire question. The Manchester Ship Canal was a Lancashire canal and Lancashire had suffered for it, though he admitted they had also received benefits from it. They desired to see it prosper and they were not going to stand idly by and see restrictions put upon the canal which were not put upon other ports. There was no contesting the fact that the same thing was going on in Stretford, Salford, and Manchester as was going in Bristol, Birkenhead and Liverpool, and it was not fair to press a proposal against the wishes of those who instigated it in the first instance, but who had changed their minds as soon as they ascertained the facts. If this had been an ordinary Bill nothing more would have been heard of it. It would have been dropped. But because it was in the power of the Government they pressed it. Nothing would have been heard of it but for this scare. He objected to its going upstairs. Let the House settle it now. What would be the position if it went upstairs? They would be prejudiced when it came down because they would be told they must support the decision of the Committee. He wanted to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that he quite agreed with him and would do all he could to assist him to protect this country from the importation of bad meat. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman in this case had taken a wrong course and had not gone the right way to effect that purpose. Therefore he hoped he would drop this Provisional Order and bring in a general Bill to deal with all ports alike.

MR. HORRIDGE (Manchester, E.)

said the provisions of the Bill ought to be in a general Bill applying to all ports. This Order suggested that Section 116 of the Public Health Act should be applied by the port sanitary authority That section gave to the Corporation power to inspect food which was prepared or exposed for sale. It had nothing to do with cargoes of ships but was intended to deal with food in markets or shops, and by this Provisional Order it was sought to apply the section to cargoes of ships. The section said that anyone exposing unsound food for sale should be liable to a penalty of £20 or to imprisonment for twelve months. Was it seriously intended that the Manchester Ship Canal directors were to be liable to that punishment if any piece of unsound food were landed at the quay? He did not believe the President of the Local Government Board had appreciated that at all. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to do was to bring in a Bill to deal with the power of inspection at all ports instead of applying a section of an Act, intended to be applied to shops and markets, to the great Manchester Ship Canal. Manchester at the present moment was in exactly the same position as Liverpool as a port sanitary authority, and the right hon. Gentleman must know that this Order would not put Manchester in the same

position as Liverpool. It was hard enought now to get shipowners to bring their cargoes up to Manchester. If the right hon. Gentleman put this handicap upon the trade of Manchester by saying there should be this double inspection and 'this worrying of the shipowners when the Corporation had already its meat inspectors, it would drive shipowners away from Manchester altogether. It was not only an unfair proposal but it was stupid and unworkable. It was not a question to send to a Committee upstairs, but for this House to deal with in a general measure. He did not want it to be said that the Members for Manchester or the Corporation shrank from any inspection of food; but this was an improper inspection and put an unfair handicap upon Manchester. The Government ought to deal in a Bill with an important question such as that raised about canned meat.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 202; Noes, 116. (Division List No. 179.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke Byles, William Pollard Everett, R. Lacey
Ainsworth, John Stirling Carlile, E. Hildred Fenwick, Charles
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch) Carr-Gomm, H. W. Ferens, T. R.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Castlereagh, Viscount Field, William
Armitage, R. Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Findlay, Alexander
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Clarke, C. Goddard Flavin, Michael Joseph
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Clough, W. Fletcher, J. S.
Banner, John S. (Harmood- Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Fuller, John Michael F.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Collins. Sir Wm. J. (S Pancras, W. Gibb, James (Harrow)
Barker, John Cooper, G. J. Gibbs. G. A. (Bristol, West)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Ginnell, L.
Beale, W. P. Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Beauchamp, E. Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Glendinning, R. G.
Beaumont, Hubert(East bourne Courthope, G. Loyd Goddard, Daniel Ford.
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Cowan, W. H. Gooch, George Peabody
Beck, A. Cecil Crean, Eugene Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Bellairs, Carlyon Dalrymple, Viscount Hatpin, J.
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hart-Davies, T.
Bennett, E. N. Delany, William Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)
Berridge, T. H. D. Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N. Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds
Billson, Alfred Dillon, John Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) Dobson, Thomas W. Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff sh.)
Brace, William Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Hobart, Sir Robert
Brigg, John Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall Horniman, Emslie John
Brodie, H. C. Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Hyde, Clarendon
Brooke, Stopford Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Illingworth, Percy H.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen) Emmott, Alfred Jardine, Sir J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Essex, R. W. Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Burnyeat, J. D. W. Evans, Samuel T. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Eve, Harry Trelawney Joyce, Michael
Kitson, Sir James Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Lamont, Norman Pollard, Dr. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham Radford, G. H. Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich) Rainy, A. Rolland Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Levy, Maurice Raphael, Herbert H. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Lewis, John Herbert Reddy, M. Vivian, Henry
Lough, Thomas Redmond, John E. (Waterford Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)
Lundon, W. Rees, J. D. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Lupton, Arnold Renton, Major Leslie Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th Wedgwood, Josiah C.
M'Callum, John M. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Weir, James Galloway
M'Calmont, Colonel James Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
M'Crae, George Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Mallet, Charles E. Robinson, S. Whitehead, Rowland
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Rose, Charles Day Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston) Runciman, Walter Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wiles, Thomas
Menzies, Walter Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Middlemore, John Throgmorton Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Mond, A. Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Williamson, A.
Montagu, E. S. Seaverns, J. H. Wilson, A. Stanley (York., E.R.
Morrell, Philip Seely, Major J. B. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Morse, L. L Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Newnes, K. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Winfrey, R.
Nicholls, George Shipman, Dr. John G. Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Silcock, Thomas Ball Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Nussey, Thomas Willans Simon, John Allsebrook Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sloan, Thomas Henry Wortley, Rt, Hn. C. B. Stuart-
O'Brien, William (Cork) Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton Younger, George
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Spicer, Albert
O'Doherty, Philip Starkey, John R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
O'Donnel'l, T. (Kerry, W.) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Paul, Herbert Stuart, James (Sunderland) Pease.
Paulton, James Mellor Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Gill, A. H. M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Glover, Thomas M'Killop, W.
Astbury, John Meir Gulland, John W. M'Micking, Major G.
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset Hammond, John Maddison, Frederick
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Barnard, E. B. Harwood, George Meagher, Michael
Bignold, Sir Arthur Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Montgomery, H. H.
Boland, John Haworth, Arthur A. Mooney, J. J.
Brocklehurst, W. D. Hay, Hon. Claude George Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Hayden, John Patrick Murphy, John
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Hazel, Dr. A. E. Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster
Burke, E. Haviland- Hazelton, Richard Nolan, Joseph
Cairns, Thomas Healy, Timothy Michael O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Helme, Norval Watson O'Dowd, John
Cawley, Frederick Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Grady, J.
Cheetham, John Frederick Higham, John Sharp O'Hare, Patrick
Clynes, J. R. Hogan, Michael O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Holden, E. Hopkinson O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.
Corbett, C. H.(Sussex E. Grinst'd Holland, Sir William Henry O'Malley, William
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hooper, A. G. Parker, James (Halifax)
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Horridge, Thomas Gardner Pirie, Duncan V.
Crosfield, A. H. Jenkins, J. Power, Patrick Joseph
Crossley, William J. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central
Cullinan, J. Jones, Leif (Appleby) Redmond, William (Clare)
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Jowett, F. W. Remnant, James Farquharson
Dolan, Charles Joseph Kennedy, Vincent Paul Richards, TAF(Wolverhampt'n
Duckworth, James Kilbride, Denis Ridsdale E. A.
Duffy, William J. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Roche, John (Galway, East)
Farrell, James Patrick Lonsdale, John Brownlee Russell, T. W.
Ffrench, Peter Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Macpherson, J. T. Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
Fullerton, Hugh MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Seddon, J.
Shackleton, David James Sutherland, J. E. White, George (Norfolk)
Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East Taylor, John W. (Durham) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wilkie, Alexander
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Thomasson, Franklin
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Walsh, Stephen TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Sullivan, Donal Wardle, George J. Charles Schwann and Mr.
Summerbell, T. Watt, H. Anderson Kelley.

Bill read a second time, and committed.