§ Read a second time, and committed.
§ MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)
said that in moving the Instruction which stood in his name, it was necessary, for the information of those Members 1734 who are not acquainted with the circumstances, that he should state the reasons why he and his colleagues thought it should be adopted by the House. In the first instance he would deal with the objection which the promotors raised. The railway companies urged that it would be unfair on the part of the House to dictate to a limited liability company as to how it should appoint its clerical staff. The answer to that was obvious. Railway companies came to this House for powers, privileges, and monopolies, and this House had a perfect right when conferring such monopolies to attach any restrictions and conditions it might think fit. The powers conferred were not in the nature of a gift. They were a public trust; and it was not only the right but the duty of Parliament to see that the trust was exercised wisely and to the public interest. He should show that the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland had not used its trust, so far as its appointments were concerned, either wisely or in the public interest, and upon that ground they asked the House to restrain this Company from further abusing the trust reposed in it. The second line of defence was that there was no precedent for imposing this condition on railway companies. That was true. But if no such condition had been imposed on any English company it was because no English railway company would dare to act as the Great Northern of Ireland had acted, and he had not the slightest doubt that when the House heard the facts it would decide that if 1735 there was no precedent, it would at once create one. In any event, they were dealing not with England where, as he had said, such abuses would be impossible, but with Ireland, and in Ireland there were plenty of precedents, for every important Irish railway except this one had already voluntarily adopted the system of open competitive examinations. What was their complaint? This was a new Parliament, but it was already old enough to have learned, from the performances of the Ulster Unionist Members, that the real reason of the opposition to Home Rule was the fear that their political and religious ascendency in Ireland would pass away. He thought it was Byron who said of Irish landlords that their being, end, aim, existence, was rent, rent, rent; and, paraphrasing that, one might say of the Irish Unionists that their being, end, aim, existence, was jobs, jobs, jobs. Not content with holding nine out of ten patronage appointments under Government in Ireland they controlled the appointments to all the Irish railways and nearly all the banks, which thus became a close preserve of the little ascendency gang; but public opinion asserted itself and the other chief railways thought it wiser to end this bigoted system and to throw their clerkships open to competition. Only a few weeks ago the Nationalist Members had opposed the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill, although his hon. friend the M amber for North Wexford was one of the directors, until the hon. Member and his colleagues agreed to do what they asked the House to compel the Great Northern Company to do now They had no complaint against the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway, and their only reason for taking that step was that they desired to treat all railway companies, whether their directors were Nationalists or Unionists, with absolute impartiality The Great Northern was the only Irish Railway which feared the terrible consequences of competitive examinations. It stood shivering on the brink but was afraid to take the plunge, and he hoped the House would assist it in arriving at a right determination. He had in his possession full details of the salaries paid in all the departments of the company, but he should not weary the 1736 House with details. He might say, however, that in whole departments there was not one official who professed the political or religious faith of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people, of the population of the districts through which this railway ran and of its customers. Was not that an extraordinary coincidence? The salaries paid at the Dublin terminus—he did not include the weekly wages of workmen-amounted to £21,130 and only £720 went to officials sharing the predominant religious opinions of the country. At the Belfast terminus, it was the same story; the idolators got £895 out of £7,862; whilst in the manager's office, in the secretary's, in the cashier's, in the engineer's, there was not even one in-individual who did not subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles or their equivalent. There were sixty-eight officials drawing salaries of £150 or upwards, and with one solitary exception none of them could by any possibility be suspected of want of loyalty to the glorious, pious and immortal memory of William the Third. These figures were too remarkable to be accidental, and were strongly at variance with the results of every competitive examination in Ireland. He had read in an Orange paper published in Befast that if their demands were conceded the loyal minority would be driven out of Ireland. Well, if the loyal minority could not stand the test of competitive examinations, it was the only argument he ever heard for their extermination, and he regretted that such an argument should come from a Party that claimed to have two-thirds of the wealth, three-fourths of the patriotism, and an absolute monopoly of the intelligence of the country. He was told that it would be said on behalf of the promoters that they already had competitive examinations, but if that were so, why did they issue the other day a statement to Members of this House to the effect that competitive examinations would be undesirable? Why did they oppose and reject at the last half-yearly meeting of shareholders a resolution for competitive examinations? The Chairman and the General Manager attended a conference summoned a few weeks ago by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and made no such impudent 1737 assertion then. On the contrary, they entered into an agreement with the opponents of the measure to establish immediately such examinations, and within forty-eight hours, with scandalous breach of faith, they repudiated the proposals which they had put forward in their own handwriting. The examinations they held were merely qualifying examinations, subject to nomination; and these were in no sense of the term either open or competitive examinations. The promoters had aggravated that breach of faith by circulating a statement to members setting out that this was essentially a matter for the proprietors, and giving figure, by which they alleged that this demand was rejected by the shareholders. He denied that it was a matter only for the shareholders; it was a matter for the Irish people and for this House; and the figures of the alleged division amounted to a scandalous and wilful falsehood and a deliberate attempt to deceive this House. There was no vote whatever on that Motion, for the simple reason that the Chairman arbitrarily, and to his mind illegally, refused a poll, and the poll, as the promoters well knew, was on the question of bringing forward three Bills in Parliament. As for the claim that the directors should be allowed to disqualify any candidate for general unfitness, they resisted it because they knew how that power would be used. The Civil Service did not claim any such veto, and it was quite unnecessary. The competitive examination would test the youth's intellectual fitness, the medical examination would test his physical fitness, and if he was found generally unsuited he could be dismissed. The only other test that could be applied was that of personal beauty, and he objected to setting up the Great Northern directors as beauty specialists. If it were applied to the management of the line, the general manager might escape, but there would, he feared, be a few vacancies on the board; and, personally, although he could sit in that House, he would under a beauty test be ineligible for a Great Northern clerkship. The remedy they proposed was a very simple one. They asked for neither favour, nor preference, nor ascendancy, for they were net going to destroy one ascendancy in order to establish another; but what 1738 they did ask for was a fair field and no favour, and let the best man win. The whole Civil Service of the country was based on open competition, and despite all the dangers and terrors of that system, the Empire still survived, and was dragged like King Charles' head into every speech that an Ulster Unionist tried to make. Competitive examinations prevailed in all the other Irish railways, and in the Dublin Corporation; and last year, even under a Conservative Government, the Belfast Corporation, when it came to this House, had to accept the principle. Their proposal would remove many abuses, and would inflict no injustice on any human being. They asked the House not to sanction the continuance of a system that was part of a religious ascendancy—an ascendancy, let him remind hon. Members, which pressed upon Irish Nonconformists almost as severely as it did upon Irish Catholics. If an English railway company, with a board of directors who were all Churchmen, resolutely set themselves to exclude Nonconformists from their service, this House of Commons would give them short shrift; and as this was a Parliament that put in the forefront the doctrine of" no religious tests," he felt sure that it would not hesitate to say that it would no longer tolerate the application of religious tests to clerks of this Irish railway company. He begged to move.
§ MR. DODD (Tyrone, N.)
said he seconded the resolution of the hon. Gentleman with much pleasure. He should have thought that the Great Northern Railway would have been only too glad to have accepted such a resolution. If it was asked why this was pressed upon the Great Northern Railway Company he would say it was because it had got a monopoly from the State. Its lines extended over a very large part of Ireland, and it employed a very large number of men. Therefore they thought it was only right that the Nonconformists and Catholics of Ireland should have an equal chance of obtaining employment in that undertaking. He hoped the Instruction would not be opposed. He recognised gratefully the benefits which the railway had conferred on Ireland in opening UD the country, and he was 1739 very desirous that this Bill should be read a second time and passed. He considered the Instruction a reasonable one, although of course they recognised that there were some situations which were above competitive examination as well as others which were below it; but inside those two limits a great company like the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland should not object to such a reasonable suggestion as this. It was a legitimate claim to make that vacancies should be filled by the successful candidates in competitive examinations, and he should have thought it would be a great relief to the company itself not to have to exercise patronage of this kind. Perhaps some hon. Member on the other side would relieve the Committee from the obligation to discuss this matter by giving an undertaking that the railway company would accept the Instruction. Of course they must have a proper undertaking, and he would like the hon. Gentleman who gave it also to say that the proxies at the next general meeting of the company would not be used for the purpose of defeating the undertaking given in this House.
Motion made, and Question proposed." That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a clause providing that all future appointments to clerkships of the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) and of the Midland Railway in Ireland shall be made only after and as a result of open competitive examinations; that the examinations shall be conducted by two examiners, whose remuneration shall be fixed by the Committee, one of the examiners to be appointed by the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, or the head of any other educational institution, and the other by the Rector of University College, Stephen's Green, Dublin; that the vacancies shall be filled in the order of merit of the candidates, as reported by the examiners, subject to medical examination; and that due notice of such examinations shall be published in at least four Nationalist and four Unionist daily papers in Ireland. —[Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh.]
§ MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)
said the Instruction which had just been 1740 moved was an absolutely unprecedented proposition to place before the House.. When any public company came to Parliament for power to carry out a scheme the questions to be considered were those immediately connected with the scheme itself, and if the House of Commons were satisfied that the company applying for such powers had violated some great principle and had not kept within the powers which they already possessed, they had a perfect right to reject any Bill promoted by that particular ompany. But when a company asked for something which was reasonable, he thought they were entitled at any rate to have the opinion of a Select Committee upon their measure. The case was, however, different with regard to matters which were extraneous and outside the ambition of the Bill itself, and in reference to such matters this House had not been in the-habit of entertaining Instructions. They had now before them a Bill which had passed through the other House, and it was a measure which could not be objected to in regard to its principles or the objects and aims which it sought powers to carry out. The Bill was intended to do good service to the people of County Donegal. It would relieve some of the baronies in that county of their guarantees, and would also hand over a certain sum of money to the Treasury. What the company had to do in return was to take over two little lines in Donegal, both of them having baronial guarantees. These lines were making a little profit, and the Government had advanced money to build them, but in return for this the company undertook to pay to the Government a certain amount of money I in lieu of those profits. Outside this House it would be regarded as intolerable that the management of the private affairs of a company should be dictated by any outside body. This. I Instruction proposed to insert into the I Bill a clause in regard to matters connected with the railway which did not appertain to the public at all. He wished to point out that this company did not profess to provide all these facilities as philanthropists, but as a money making concern. The House was now being asked 1741 to put a restriction upon the control of the company over its own affairs j such as had never been asked for before in Parliament. ["No, no."] Well, he had only heard of one similar instance, and that was in the case of the Belfast Corporation when they were seeking powers to buy the tramways. But what a difference there was between the two cases. The Belfast Corporation were going to use the money of the ratepayers; who had no control whatever in the matter, and they were being compelled to submit to the Belfast Corporation borrowing money upon the credit of the! rates to work the tramways, and, naturally, they asked for a provision to be put in as to the appointment of clerks. In the present case no person was compelled to take shares in the company, and he did not think that the House ought to put upon the management of a distinctly commercial undertaking, such conditions as went beyond anything that had been done before. What was the avowed objection put forward? It was a question of religion. The next time such a measure was brought forward they might have an Instruction moved that the directorate must have upon it a certain number belonging to one Church, and a certain number belonging to another Church, or to some particular Party. When the House was asked to do this kind of thing in the interests of a particular political Party what would be the state of things when another political Party came into power and attempted to reverse the order of things? He, therefore, asked the House to pause before sanctioning the" beginning of a process which it was very difficult indeed to see the end of. In this House Parties changed, and it was not long ago that Parties had changed.
§ MR. GORDON
said they might change again before long and then the Nationalist Party would not get everything. If the House was going to allow itself to be carried away from the consideration of important matters by interruptions of that sort when measures necessary for the development of Ireland were brought forward it would be a very great misfor- 1742 tune. It had been stated that certain sums of money had been paid to Roman Catholics. He had inquired into this matter, and the directors informed him that they did not know anything about the matter. [Cries of "Oh" from the NATIONALIST Benches.] It was by interruptions of(that kind that hon. Members below the Gangway hoped to carry this measure through. The directors were men whom the people of Ireland knew very well, and they had assured him that they did not know anything about the accusation which had been made and they had no means of knowing. The appointments were made at the present time by examination, and why should they not be allowed to appoint the best men they could get? Did anyone think for a moment that a body of intelligent men working a large concern like this successfully would fail to get the best men they could because some of them belonged to the Roman Catholic Church and others were Protestants? As business men their first aim was to get the best men they could and obtain the best value they could for their money, and that was what was being done by this company. He was inclined to think that if the Chairman of Ways and Means had been present he would have disagreed with what had been stated by the hon. Member who had moved this Instruction. The hon. Member had stated that the representatives of the railway company entered into an agreement to grant this competitive examination; but what actually took place was that the matter was discussed with the only two representatives of the company who were present, and they stated that although they could not bind the company they I would bring forward a scheme for competitive examinations. [An IBISH MEM-BEE: Nothing of the kind.]
§ MR. GORDON
said he was instructed to that effect. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: What is the fee on your brief?] He had inquired, and he had been told, upon authority which he believed, that all that; happened was that these gentlemen made that offer but said they could not 1743 bind the company. There were only two of them present representing the company, one of them the chairman of the company and the other the manager, and how could those two gentlemen bind the whole board of directors or the shareholders? All they said was that they would put it before the shareholders. ["No, no."] That was at any rate what lie was informed actually took place. The directors of the company were perfectly willing and they had themselves put forward a scheme which they were willing to put before a meeting of the shareholders and recommend for their approval. Beyond that they could not go, and he did not think this House ought to ask them to go any further. They were quite willing to give that undertaking. The appointments were made by competitive examination at the present moment. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: They are not.] He thought the directors knew their own business and that was what they had told him. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Then they have instructed you wrongly.] This was a matter which was more within the knowledge of the board of directors. Was it reasonable to insert an Instruction that certain persons outside this House and outside the company should be the persons to appoint the examiners? The terms which the directors were willing to offer were that they had prepared a scheme dealing with the appointment of clerks which they had resolved to submit at the next half-yearly meeting, and they would use their best endeavours to have it confirmed. When the directors said that, he thought that even the hon. Member for South Tyrone would agree with him that they might be trusted to carry out anything which they undertook to do. Surely that statement was not capable of any double meaning.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE) Carnarvon Boroughs
Does that mean that the directors will use their proxies in favour of the scheme?
§ MR. GORDON
Yes. He was very glad of that interruption, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the 1744 directors intended it to be a real compromise. He would now leave the matter entirely in the hands of the House, and he hoped it would be dealt with as a matter of principle. He hoped the abuse which had been indulged in would not operate upon the House or influence them to do something which would be a great injustice to a great commercial undertaking.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
said the House would be under some difficulty in dealing with this matter unless they had some authoritative statement on behalf of the railway company. The hon. Member for South Londonderry had spoken with authority, because he had told them that he had spoken from instructions. When the hon. Member rose he entertained the hope that he would have approached this question in an entirely different spirit and that he would have been able to give, not only in the letter, but also in the spirit of his speech some undertaking that they could accept. But the whole spirit of the speech of the hon. and learned Member was a protest against any interference with this company at all. The House of Commons was dealing with a Bill introduced by the company asking for certain powers, and yet the hon. and learned Member spoke of this House as an outside body, and protested against an outside authority interfering in the management of the company. All that they were asking for in this matter was that this company should do what all the other railway companies had already done voluntarily. The hon. and learned Member seemed to be under the delusion that the action of the Nationalist Party in this matter was animated by a desire to have in the employment of this company a certain number of Catholics and a certain number of Protestants. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the object of the railway company was to have the best men possible in the employment. What was asked was that there should be a system of competitive examination which would provide for the engagement of the best men. With reference to the question of the religion of those employed, all he had to say was that it was monstrous for the hon. Gentleman to ask the House o£ 1745 Commons to assume that in the employment of this company there could not be found even one per cent, of men of the | religion of the majority of the country fit to carry out the work. [Cries of "No."] Yes; the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech amounted to that. The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was that the company employed the best men they could get. Not one per cent, of these men were Catholics.
§ MR. GORDON
My statement was that the directors did not know the religion of the men. They do not know whether these figures are correct or not. I entirely repudiate the idea of the hon. and learned Gentleman that I said that.
§ MR. J. REDMOND
said he could not see that the interruption of the hon. and learned Gentleman affected his argument. If on examination it turned out that not one per cent, of the men were Catholics, it followed, therefore, that in the opinion of the railway company Catholics were not competent for the carrying out of the work. That was a monstrous assumption to make. All that he and his friends were asking in this matter was that this railway company should do what the Great Southern and Western Company and the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Company had done voluntarily. What was the objection to this railway company undertaking to do what the other railway companies had done? He had hoped that the hon. and learned Gentlman would be able to give an assurance which would have satisfied his hon. friends, but as he had not done so he hoped the Instruction would be pressed to a division.
CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)
asked the hon. Member for South Down to withdraw the instruction in view of the assurance which had been given. In many parts of Ireland there was far too little railway communication, and it would be a great pity if this House were to-night to cripple railway communication by passing the Instruction on the Paper, which had really nothing to do with the Bill actually before the House. The Chairman of Ways and Means was absent, but if he had been here, he was 1746 quite sure the hon. Gentleman would have explained to the House that such an Instruction in connection with a Bill of this sort would not in the ordinary course be a proper one to send to the Committee. He thought the assurance given by his hon. and learned friend should suffice to assure the House that so far as this, railway company was concerned there was no desire to do anything which was not perfectly fair and above board. He sincerely hoped the House would treat the matter in a large spirit of tolerance and sympathy. He also hoped that someone on the Front Bench would stats the views of the Government on the matter.
MR. LLOYD-GEOEGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
said he had hoped that the representatives of the railway company would have met some of his Nationalist friends and that they would have seen their way to deal with what he considered to be the grievance made out in respect of the way in which the Great Northern Railway Company had acted. He confessed that after listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman he was completely disappointed. He had understood that the directors of the company were prepared to meet hon. Members in a conciliatory spirit, but, instead of doing so, the hon. and learned Gentleman had made and delivered a speech which made it absolutely impossible for his hon. friends from Ireland to accept the assurance given at the end. In an assurance of that character everything depended on the spirit in which it was made. If the hon. and learned Gentleman represented the directors— and he had good reason to think that he did, not merely inside the House, but outs'de—he must know what was inside their minds, and what were exactly their views on the matter. He had explained their policy in one of the most intolerant speeches he had ever heard in the House. He was not at all surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford was absolutely unable to accept an assurance couched in such language. The facts were perfectly notorious. They were summarised by the hon. Member for South Down in the figures he gave. Of 1747 the £21,130 paid in salaries at the Dublin terminus—exclusive of weekly wages to workmen—only £720 was paid to Catholics. Of the £7,862 paid in salaries at the Belfast terminus only £895 was paid to Catholics. The only answer given by the hon. and learned Gentleman to that very grave accusation as to the way in which the railway company dispensed its patronage was that the director did not know the religion of the men. The railway company knew for weeks that this case was to be investigated when they came to this House for additional powers, and the hon. Gentleman opposite knew perfectly that the charge that was made by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland was true in substance and in fact.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that at any rate the hon. Gentleman had been in full possession of the facts. It was said that this was a very novel proposition, but then they were dealing with very novel circumstances. All that was asked was that the practice which had been initiated by other railway companies should be followed by the Great Northern Company. Under the circumstances he had no option except to support in substance the instruction which the hon. Member for South Down had moved. He proposed, however, to amend the instruction by leaving out the words" after competitive examination" with the view of inserting" held in accordance with such conditions as the Committee may prescribe."
In line 5, to leave out the words from the first word 'examinations,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'held in accordance with such regulations as the Committee may prescribe.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George) —instead thereof.
§ Question proposed," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)
said that the right hon. Gentleman who, he supposed, appeared in his position as President of the Board of Trade, although it was difficult to imagine so, had said 1748 that the speech of the hon. Member for South Londonderry was one of the most intolerant he had ever listened to. The right hon. Gentleman was a good judge of intolerant speeches, and he thought he could call to mind many more intolerant speeches than that of his hon. friend which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. The Instruction which had been moved would compel the Great Northern Railway to change their whole method of appointment of their staff when their undertaking was taken over by the Midland Railway. From what he knew of the matter, many shareholders would think that it was not worth while to take over these two baronial railways at the price which the President of the Board of Trade put upon them.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said he did not suppose that the hon. Member who made that interruption, which he heard imperfectly, would suppose that any insolence or abuse would affect him.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said it was perfectly plain to anyone who had followed Private Bills dealing with Irish railways this session that those responsible for the undertakings could not expect to get anything like the fair and orderly treatment which railway companies in other parts of the United Kingdom obtained. He thought the promoters of thes Bills ought to remember that, as in the Rathmines case, the question of bigotry would be the sole question which would be considered. Promoters ought to know that whereas in other cases they would have the Chairman of Committtes expressing his views, in the case of an Irish Bill that hon. Gentleman would run away for fear of having to express any opinion at all. The presence of the hon. Gentleman would have been welcome in this particular case because the discussion had turned upon a conference which was said to have taken place in his presence, various accounts of which had been given by those 1749 interested in it. The railway company had, through the Members who had spoken, made a very fair proposal. They said they had drawn up a scheme for appointment by competition. They would submit it to their shareholders and do their best to get them to accept it. Anyone would suppose that that was a fair proposal, but the President of the Board of Trade had made a speech as if he were sitting below the Gangway instead of trying to bring about some arrangement which should give satisfaction and have regard to the feelings of the shareholders. The truth of the matter was that the President of the Board of Trade looked at this question in a purely partisan way. He cared nothing about the shareholders and directors, and in the great position to which he had attained—which many of them were glad he had attained to— he thought it consistent with his dignity to show that he was only anxious to gain the cheers of hon. Members below
§ the Gangway. He did not think such conduct was worthy of the right hon. Gentleman in a purely business matter. He believed that if any other railway company had come before the House and said they had formulated a scheme and they thought their shareholders should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it the House would not have hesitated to say that that was a perfectly fair proposal to make. Of course, however, if the House voted for the Instruction the Great Nothern Company would have the opportunity of considering whether they would proceed further with the Bill.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Words added.
§ Main Question, as Amended, put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 186.)1751
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lamont, Norman|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Evans, Samuel T.||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral|
|Astbury, John Meir||Everett, R. Lacey||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Ferens, T. R.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Field, William||Lough, Thomas|
|Barnard, E. B.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lundon, W.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Fullerton, Hugh||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Billson, Alfred||Gilhooly, James||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Boland, John||Gill, A. H.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)|
|Brace, William||Ginnell, L.||MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)|
|Brigg, John||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||M'Crae, George|
|Brodie, H. C.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||M'Kean, John|
|Brooke, Stopford||Gulland John W.||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Bryce, J.A (Inverness Burghs)||Halpin, J.||M'Killop, W.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hammond, John||M'Laren, H, D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Haworth, Arthur A.||Meagher, Michael|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hayden, John Patrick||Montgomery, H. H.|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Healy, Timothy Michael||Mooney, J.J.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Helme, Norval Watson||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Cooper, G. J.||Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)||Murphy, John|
|Corbett, C.H.(Sussex E Grinst'd)||Higham, John Sharp||Murray, James|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Crean, Eugene||Hogan, Michael||Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Horniman, Emslie John||Nichols, George|
|Crossley, William J.||Jenkins, J.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Cullinan, J.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Delany, William||Joyce, Michael||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)||Kearley, Hudson E.||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Dillon, John||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||O'Hare, Patrick|
|Dodd, W. H.||Kilbride, Denis||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Duffy, William J.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.]|
|Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||O'Malley, William|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Rose, Charles Day||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Russell, T. W.||Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E|
|Paul, Herbert||Samuel; Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Walsh. Stephen|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent]|
|Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Seddon, J.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Rainy, A. Holland||Seely, Major J. B.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Reddy, M.||Shackleton, David James||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)||Whiteley, George (York W. R.;|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Richards, Thos.(W. Monmouth)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Richardson, A.||Shipman, Dr, John G.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Sullivan, Donal||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Robinson, S.||Summerbell, T.||Captain Donelan and Mr.|
|Roche, John (Galway, East)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Patrick O'Brien.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Courthope, G. Loyd||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)||Montagu, E. S.|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Dalrymple, Viscount||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)|
|Bridgeman, VV. Clive||Forster, Henry William||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Wortley, Rt, Ha. C. B. Stuart-|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Younger, George|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)|
|Carson, Rt Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Hills, J. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||John Gordon and Mr.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron.(Glasgow)||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Lonsdale.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
§ Ordered, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a clause providing that all future appointments to clerkships of the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) and of the Midland Railway in Ireland shall be made only after and as a result of open competitive examinations, held in accordance with such regulations as the Committee may prescribe.1752
§ And, it being after half-past eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.