HC Deb 15 March 1906 vol 153 cc1493-507

Order for Second Reading read.

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

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

said he rose to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. It offered an excellent example of how to do a thing without appearing to do it, or professing to do it. He could quite understand hon. Members unacquainted with Irish affairs reading the statement of this Bill and coming to the conclusion that it was a Bill which, on the face of it, ought to be sent to a Committee upstairs. But anyone acquainted with Irish affairs would readily see, on looking into the Bill, that the apparent object of it was by no means the real object. This was what was called an Annexation Bill. Annexation was a very favourite subject of legislation in this country. The annexation of districts for the purpose of extending the borders of the large urban areas which they adjoined had been the rule in this country for twenty years past. It was the practice of large cities which had outgrown their limits to annex adjacent areas. He might mention several specific instances which had occurred, but what he said would not be seriously disputed. In Ireland itself, Belfast had had its limits extended, and at this moment, in consequence of an annexation Act passed a few years ago, the boundaries of Belfast had been extended to include a large district which was still rural. Dublin had been treated in a very extraordinary fashion in this regard. Dublin had made repeated efforts to extend the limits of its municipal area over the very district which now promoted this Bill for annexation on its own account. Many years ago Lord Spencer, then Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, appointed a Commission to inquire into the question of the extension of Dublin, and the Commission reported that the annexation of all the townships and rural districts round Dublin should be sanctioned by Parliament. That Report was never acted upon, and every Bill put forward by Dublin to extend its areas was opposed by Rathmines, which now promoted this Bill. The last Bill brought forward by Dublin was with regard to the supply of water to Rathmines. Rathmines opposed the Bill upon grounds which had never been truly stated and which would not bear examination. They opposed it on political grounds; they would not have anything to do with Nationalist water. In Rathmines were concentrated the pink of perfection of the Orange faction south of the Boyne, and they refused to have anything to do with Dublin except to live on it. The shoddy aristocracy of Rathmines were content to live in villas near Dublin, but would have nothing to do with Dublin itself because it was a Nationalist city. He spoke for the Nationalist minority of Rathmines when he said that these people were not to be tolerated, and he hoped the House would not tolerate their demand to act apart from the City of Dublin. They opposed all annexation efforts on the part of Dublin. All the efforts of Dublin to do what Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and all the great cities of England had been allowed to do by Parliament, had been opposed by Rathmines. It was a commentary on the way in which Irish affairs were dealt with in this House that while they had granted these facilities to all the municipalities of England which had asked for them, they would not grant them to the chief city of Ireland. Having done all this this urban authority came here last year with the audacious proposal now repeated in this Bill for the annexation of a rural district in the county of Dublin. The people of the county of Dublin protested against it and the overwhelming majority of the County Council of Dublin asked the Louse to reject this Bill. The object of this Bill was to raise, on the part of the Rathmines District Council, another barrier against annexation by Dublin, and to erect itself into a county borough and to free itself from the slight control at present exercised over it by the Nationalist County Council of Dublin, of which they had never made the slightest complaint, but which, nevertheless, they could not endure. The great argument in favour of these annexation proposals was that the district it was proposed to annex required drainage. In 1900 a joint Committee of both Houses discussed the question of the drainage of Dublin and the surrounding townships and rural areas of Dublin, and the Joint Committee arrived at the unanimous conclusion that it would be to the public advantage if there were one authority and one only to control the drainage and sewers of these townships, and they recommended that steps should be taken to construct a great drainage board. That was a proposal which Dublin was quite willing to carry out, but Rathmines and Pembroke refused to have anything to do with it and it was not carried out. It was not Dublin alone which sought to solve this difficulty. The district of Terenure, partly urban but mostly rural, had made more than one effort to procure an efficient drainage scheme for itself, and the persons who obstructed them in all their efforts were the Rathmines District Council. Terenure attempted to arrange with Rathmines to make use of their system, and for two years could not obtain a straight answer from them. Then they suggested that they should turn their sewage into the Dublin system. Here again they were opposed by the Rathmines District Council. What Rathmines wanted was not to drain Terenure but to obtain their money. The paper circulated among Members of the House said there was no alternative to the proposals of this Bill. That statement was false in the knowledge of those who made it. There was the city of Dublin scheme. Rathmines had a population of 30,000 and was only divided into two wards. The Dublin County Council had asked that those two wards should be again divided, so that there should be four wards, which would enable the voice of the Nationalist minority to be heard, but the Rathmines District Council refused, for the reason that if they accepted that the old practice of electing the board on two tickets would be defeated, and the Nationalist minority would be represented even on the present register. The Rathmines District Council had no moral authority to ask for this Bill. They were elected on a fraudulent franchise; upon the same franchise upon which the hon. Member for South Dublin was elected. The electoral list of South Dublin contained 1,500 lodgers, more than half the whole of the lodgers registered in all the counties of Ireland. There were 1,000 lodgers in Rathmines alone and 900 of those were bogus. Men one would never suspect, who wore respectable clothes and possessed large incomes, let out their houses for lodgings to their own sons and daughters. There were 1,000 bogus lodgers who were fraudulently on the register of South Dublin, and the voice of the hon. Member for that constituency ought not be to heard upon this matter. This Bill was supported by sixteen Orangemen and was opposed by eighty-three Nationalist Members, and it was for the House to say which they would support. He moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

said he rose to second the rejection of this Bill, and he did so as a member of the Dublin County Council. As a registration worker he had had thirty years experience of Rathmines, and he asserted that there were more lodgers in South Dublin than in any other Irish constituency. They had them at all ages, from the perambulator stage upwards, and in all kinds of houses, from the cabin to the palace. But leaving the lodgers out of consideration for a moment he desired to show what the object of this Bill was. It was an annexation Bill with a political motive, and he unhesitat. ingly asserted the last session when this Bill got its second reading that means were adopted by the Front Government Bench which were altogether unconstitutionally irregular and unprecedented in regard to the passage of a Private Bill. The matter was not denied. Undoubtedly this Measure which was brought forward in the guise of a private Bill was a Measure for the purpose of carving out a constituency in a portion of South Dublin so that a Conservative Member might be returned. Surely a Liberal and democratic House of Commons was not going to lend itself to that kind of shilly-shally. As a member of the county council he had to say that Dublin had an objection to being dismembered or annexed. The district proposed to be annexed was one of the most valuable portions of the Dublin County Council area. It was only since the valuation had increased that it had become the desire of the Rathmines County Council to grab the rates, and that desire had been brought to a practical issue by the presentation of this Bill. The Bill would not have been read a second time last session if the House of Commons had been allowed to exercise discretion on the matter, as was usually done in the case of ordinary private Bills. He protested against any Government, Liberal or Conservative, using a private Bill of this kind for political purposes. He knew there were several hon. Gentlemen belonging to the dominant minority in Ireland who were in favour of this Bill. Majorities in other countries ruled, but irresponsible minorities ruled in Ireland. He knew the gentlemen of Rathmines. The Nationalists were kept out of the town hall on the occasion of the recent election because these people were afraid to let them in. He denied that the town hall belonged to any dominant minority. It belonged to the ratepayers. The Rathmines gentlemen knew that when the Nationalists got in anywhere they generally managed to stay there. He hoped the Liberal and democratic Members of this House were not going to allow themselves to be engineered for the purpose of upholding the Conservative minority in Rathmines in the peculiar position in which they had placed themselves by the clever manipulation of the franchise, and by the exercise of their municipal powers.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

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

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)

said he did not propose to enter into controversy with the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. What he proposed to do was to let the House know what this Bill was, for, while up to the present moment they had heard a great deal of abuse of the loyal inhabitants of Rathmines, they had not received a particle of information as to the merits or demerits of the measure. He would undertake to satisfy the House that this was an ordinary sanitary measure brought up by the competent authority in such matters. The details of the Bill had already been approved by Committees of this House and of the upper House, and by this House itself by large majorities on two occasions. Before dealing with the merits of the Bill he desired to correct one or two statements made by the hon. and learned Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, and also by the hon. Member who seconded that Motion, with the view of endeavouring to create a prejudice in the minds of hon. Members opposite in regard to the measure. They were told by the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin that so bigoted was the urban district council of Rathmines that while they granted the use of the town hall in Rathmines to two supporters of the late Government they declined to give a similar indulgence to the Nationalist candidate and his friends. He thought his hon. and learned friend might have told the House that the use of that town hall was asked at a time when it was actually in the hands of carpenters and other people who were fitting it up as a polling booth for the election.


They had two days to fit it up as a polling booth.


repeated his statement and asked if the hon. Member did not think it would have been worth his while to mention that the Town Clerk of Rathmines published a letter saying he urged and requested the High Sheriff to grant the use of the hall, and he received a reply that he would have been delighted to comply, but the interval was too short.


I regret to say that no such statement was made by the High Sheriff.


The hon. Member had a very quiet and patient hearing and he might listen to the hon. Member for Dablin University.


I apologise for interfering so often. [An HON. MEMBER "Sit down."] I will sit down when ordered by the Speaker, but not by you.


said this only showed how unfortunate it was that the hon. and learned Member, instead of giving the House some information as to the details of the Bill should have thought it better to indulge in abuse of his political opponents and to drag into the controversy matters which had absolutely nothing to do with it. He would now direct the attention of the House to the fact that they were asked to do something for which no precedent could be found in the annals of Parliamentary procedure, and that was to reject on the Second Reading and refuse to allow to come before a Committee of this House in the ordinary way a Bill which in form and substance had already been ratified and adopted by the House. What were the facts? The township of Rathmines had practically since 1847 been growing up and daily increasing in strength and importance. It was now a township with its own water supply, its own drainage system, its own fire brigade, its public library, and all the equipments of a proper township. All that it had obtained and supplied without a shilling of aid or assistance from the adjoining city of Dublin, but on the outskirts of the township—there was this portion of the County of Dublin which it was sought by the Bill to annex. It contained about 660 acres of land, and there were upon it over 1,000 houses, containing a population of 5,000, and would the House believe—it was hardly credible, but it was an ascertained and undisputed fact—that the County of Dublin, who were responsible for the sanitary superintendence and supervision of this area, had never spent one shilling in the drainage or in providing any sanitary system for these 1,000 houses. In 1898 the inhabitants of these houses, driven to despair, proceeded to take the case into their own hands, and they diverted their sewage into the system of the adjoining Rathmines township. They had no right in law to do that, and the Rathmines Commissioners applied to the courts in Dublin and obtained an injunction against the occupiers of these houses continuing to drain their sewers to the Rathmines drainage system. They obtained their injunction, but they refused to enforce it, because if they had they would have left the inhabitants of these 1,000 houses without any drainage system whatever, and they would have been a constant menace and danger to the entire neighbourhood. Since 1898 these 1,000 houses had been drained in this way, but in addition to having been deprived of any sanitary system, there had not been a shilling of outlay incurred for the purpose of providing that area with any appliances in case of an outbreak of fire in these 1,000 houses, and if such an outbreak occurred, there was no provision for the protection of these inhabitants. Accordingly, last year a Bill was promoted and brought in by the Rathmines and Rathgar Commissioners. It had been suggested by the hon. Gentleman who seconded the rejection of the Bill that last session Lord Atkinson, who was then Attorney-General for Ireland, made a speech in support of the measure. There was not a particle of foundation for that statement. What the late Attorney-General did was to say that while the Government declined to express any opinion on the merits of the Bill, they thought the ordinary course should be followed of allowing it to be sent to a Committee of the House, where it could be discussed on its merits. The Bill was sent to a Committee, and they, by a unanimous vote, decided that it should be allowed to proceed. It then came down to the House for Third Reading. It was then stated, in opposition to the Bill, that it would be unjust to the Corporation of Dublin to pass it, because it did not provide for the purification of the sewage from the district before it went into the river Liffey. Another objection was that the Corporation of Dublin having laid down pipes and plant for the purpose of supplying the district with water were to be deprived of compensation for that. The promoters of the Bill suggested that it would be open to the Corporation of Dublin to bring these matters up when the Bill went to the House of Lords. The Bill passed the Third Reading by a large majority. Clauses were put in the Bill by the House of Lords to meet these two grievances. The Bill came back to this House in order that the Lords' Amendments night be considered, but the session came to a close before that could be done. He appealed to the House to allow the Bill to go before a Committee.

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

said there was a precedent for what the House was now asked to do in the course followed in 1886 in regard to the Dundalk Gas Bill. Every Member of the present Government supported them on the last occasion. The Member for Trinity College had said that Rathmines had got an injunction against Terenure which they were seeking to absorb to prevent the sewage draining into their sewage works. Under what circumstances did they get the injunction? On the oath of their engineer, who swore before the High Court in Dublin that if they were allowed to drain into the Rathmines draining system it would be flooded, and the same engineer swore before Sir J. Brunner's Committee that the same sewers would contain twice the sewage. Another piece of expert engineering. Having got an injunction in order to induce the unfortunate inhabitants to take the Rathmines sewage arrangements and the Dublin water supply, they said "We will allow you to empty your water-closets into our sewers if you take our water, nothwithstanding the injunction." The whole question really came to this. It was reducing politics in Ireland to its proper basis. The question for the House was whether Nationalist sewage of Dublin had been allowed to be purified in the penstock of the Protestants. The object of this Bill was to enable the Conservatives of Rathmines to have purification of their own. He respectfully asked the House that, as every individual Irishman except the Conservatives were in favour of the extension of Dublin and the absorption of this district on the ground of cheapness, cleanliness, and sanitation, no further letters of marque should be given to Rathmines to prey upon the body politic of Dublin.


said that perhaps the House would allow him as a ratepayer of Rathmines and a voter in that constituency to say a word in reply. No one had a greater admiration for the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the House. He was one of the heroes of Ireland. He told them that he had been waiting for twenty years, in hero-like fashion, to have this full day of revenge in a democratic House of Commons. He selected as the occasion the introduction of a Bill to drain and provide proper sewerage for 5,000 of the inhabitants of the County of Dublin. He did not believe that the Bill would have received such treatment in any country outside Ireland. There was nothing to be considered except whether 1,000 houses in a certain district ought to be properly drained by the Rathmines township—absolutely nothing else in the Bill, and the exceptional course was taken of asking the House to say that that was not a matter which need be inquired into before a Committee of the House. The hon. Member said why should the House accept the rinsings of Toryism? He included in that the hon. Members for Stroud arid Norwich who sat on the other side of the House. Was the House deliberately going to reject the Bill on Second Reading without referring it to Committee after the merits of the Bill had been approved by those two hon. Members? Was the House going to refuse to allow the matter even to be inquired into. He should hardly think that hon. Members believed there was any mandate from the constituencies to reject an ordinary sewage Bill because it had reference to a Unionist constituency in Ireland and was opposed by a Nationalist constituency. It might be for all he knew one of the matters which were supposed to lead up to the larger policy. Let it not be laid down in the very inception of this Parliament because a Unionist township asked for a sewage Bill to be inquired into by the House that therefore it was to be rejected. Let them understand the situation thoroughly in Ireland. He should have thought that on an occasion of this sort they might have had a word from the Chief Secretary or the Attorney-General who knew the district as well as any man. As they would give no information they were driven back to refer to the proceedings that took place before the previous Committee. He supposed that every Bill of this kind in the future would be regarded by the House as containing all the elements for a political squabble. If that was so all Bills which came from any district in Ireland ought to be treated in the same way, and they undoubtedly would be. Thus they would see what would be the progress of Ireland under a Liberal Government.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

asked the House to allow him to point the moral of this incident. Here was a great Imperial senate and they were engaged in discussing the question of the local sewerage of a township in Ireland. Let the House consider the situation. The Members of the new Parliament had come there full of enthusiasm to push forward measures of Imperial reform and their time was occupied with the discussion of a sewerage question relating to an Irish township. Pointing the moral as he did by showing the absurdity of the present system of Government in Ireland, he asked the House to support the case of the overwhelming majority of the Irish Members in this House.

MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)

wished to emphasise the protest made by the Leader of the Irish Party. He knew nothing about Rathmines or Terenure, but he was going to vote with the majority of the Irish Party because he thought it was high time that all questions in regard to the sewerage of Irish towns should be settled not by an English but by an Irish Parliament.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 73; Noes, 282. (Division List No. 15.)

Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F. Davies, David (Montgomery Co. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester) Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Ridsdale, E. A.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Forster, Henry William Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Arnold-Foster, Rt. Hn Hugh O. Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn Sir H. Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Haddock, George R. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Hamilton, Marquess of Soares, Ernest S.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Hedges, A. Paget Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Helmsley, Viscount Starkey, John R.
Beauchamp, E. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Houston, Robert Paterson Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Kennaway Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Thornton, Percy M.
Butcher, Samuel Henry Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn. Col. W. Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Keswick, William Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Carlile, E. Hildred Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Whitbread, Howard
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Cave, George Liddell, Henry Whitehead, Rowland
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Lupton, Arnold Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Chance, Frederick William Lynch, H. B. Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-
Channing, Francis Allston Magnus, Sir Philip Wyndham, Rt Hon. George
Clarke, Sir Edward (City London Meysey-Thompson, Major E.C.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. F. Montgomery, H. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Charles Craig.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncastr
Craig, Captain James (Down, E. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Dalrymple, Viscount Paulton, James Mellor
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Kearley, Hudson E.
Acland, Francis Dyke Dillon, John Kekewich, Sir George
Alden, Percy Dolan, Charles Joseph Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Ambrose, Robert Donelan, Captain A. Kilbride, Denis
Ashton, Thomas Gair Duckworth, James Kitson, Sir James
Astbury, John Meir Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Laidlaw, Robert
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lamb, Edmund Geo (Leominster
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) Lambert, George
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lamont, Norman
Barker, John Elibank, Master of Law, Hugh Alexander
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Barnard, E. B. Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.
Barnes, G. N. Essex, R. W. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Eve, Harry Trelawney Lehmann, R. C.
Beale, W. P. Everett, R. Lacey Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Bell, Richard Faber, G. H. (Boston) Levy, Maurice
Bellairs, Carlyon Fenwick, Charles Lewis, John Herbert
Benn, John Williams (Devonp'rt Ferens, T. R. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lough, Thomas
Berridge, T. H. D. Ffrench, Peter Lundon, W.
Bertram, Julius Field, William Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Mackarness, Frederick C.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Findlay, Alexander Maclean, Donald
Billson, Alfred Flynn, James Christopher Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Fuller, J. M. F. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire Fullerton, Hugh Macpherson, J. T.
Boland, John Furness, Sir Christopher MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E. Gilhooly, James M'Callum, John M.
Bottomley, Horatio Gill, A. H. M'Kean, John
Brace, William Ginnell, L. M'Kenna, Reginald
Branch, James Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John M'Killop, W.
Bright, J. A. Glover, Thomas Maddison, Frederick
Brocklehurst, W. D. Goddard, Daniel Ford Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Brooke, Stopford Gooch, George Peabody Marnham, F. J.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Greenwood, Hamar (York) Meehan, Patrick A.
Burke, E. Haviland- Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Menzies, Walter
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gulland, John W. Micklem, Nathaniel
Burnyeat, J. D. W. Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Molteno, Percy Alfred
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Halpin, J. Money, L. G. Chiozza
Byles, William Pollard Hammond, John Morrell, Philip
Cairns, Thomas Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Murphy, John
Cameron, Robert Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Myer, Horatio
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Nolan, Joseph
Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight Harrington, Timothy Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cherry, R. R. Hart-Davis, T. Nuttall, Harry
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Harwood, George O Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)
Cleland, J. W. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Clough, W. Haworth, Arthur A. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Clynes, J. R. Hazel, Dr. A. E. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Hazleton, Richard O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Cogan, Denis J. Healy, Timothy Michael O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Henderson, J. M (Aberdeen, W.) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W Henry, Charles S. O'Malley, William
Cooper, G. J. Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) O'Mara, James
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Higham, John Sharp O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hobart, Sir Robert Parker, James (Halifax)
Cowan, W. H. Hodge, John Paul, Herbert
Cox, Harold Hogan, Michael Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Holden, E. Hopkinson Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Crean, Eugene Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N Pollard, Dr.
Cremer, William Randal Horniman, Emslie John Power, Patrick Joseph
Crooks, William Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Crossfield, A. H. Hunt, Rowland Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E)
Crossley, William J. Hyde, Clarendon Radford, G. H.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Jenkins, J. Rainy, A. Rolland
Delany, William Johnson, John (Gateshead) Reddy, M.
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway) Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Redmond, William (Clare)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras N. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Rees, J. D.
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Jowett, F. W. Rendall, Athelstan
Richards, Thomas W. Monm'th Shipman, Dr. John G. Wardle, George J.
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn Silcock, Thomas Ball Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Richardson, A. Simon, John Allsebrook Waterlow, D. S.
Rickett, J. Compton Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Watt, H. Anderson
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Snowden, P. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Stanger, H. Y. Weir, James Galloway
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Steadman, W. C. White, George (Norfolk)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Stewart, Halley (Greenock) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd Sullivan, Donal Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Robinson, S. Summerbell, T. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Sutherland, J. E. Wiles, Thomas
Roche, Augustine (Cork) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Williams, J., (Glamorgan)
Roche, John (Galway, East) Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury) Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn
Rose, Charles Day Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Runciman, Walter Thorne, William Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Tomkinson, James Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Torrance, A. M. Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne Toulmin, George Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Sears, J. E. Verney, F. W. Young, Samuel
Seddon, J. Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Seely, Major J. B. Walker, H. De. R. (Leicester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Clancy and Mr. Mooney
Shackleton, David James Walsh, Stephen
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Walters, John Tudor
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Main Question as amended, put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.