HC Deb 10 December 1912 vol 45 cc400-11

Order for Third Reading read.

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


I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words "recommitted to the former Committee."

I wish to impress upon the House the fact that the East Surrey Water Order has never yet been properly considered either by the Board of Trade or by the Committees of the House of Lords or of this House. I went up to the Committee perfectly independent and free. I had not even heard the Debate on the Second Reading, though I read it afterwards, and whatever conclusion I came to I came to after hearing the evidence given before the Committee. I was not at all interested in the Croydon Corporation or any other association, nor in the water company itself, but I was and am interested in the people of Croydon and the people on the River Wandle. One is especially interested in the people of Croydon because there are 175,000 people living there, and there will soon be 200,000, according to the estimates, and consequently it is the duty of Parliament, I should say, to see that they are properly protected. It would be only fair that this House should re-commit this Bill to-night, and the company should be told that they must come to Parliament with a Bill in the ordinary way. The matter is so serious for the Croydon people and the people on the River Wandle that a further opportunity should be given for the consideration of the Bill before it is too late to protect both of these interests. In the ordinary way the company should endeavour to settle with these interests so that there should be no chance of their being injured. As far as the proceedings upstairs were concerned, there is no doubt at all, in my mind, that the weight of evidence was all in favour of the statement that the Croydon water supply would be damaged. The water in the Wandle has already been lowered. The Wandle was supplied from springs and is likely to be further reduced if this company pump more water. The Board of Trade did not help us at all. I have always understood that the Board of Trade inquired into a case of this kind, and came to some the matter, and so helped the Committee when the Bill came before the Committee upstairs. In this case the Board of Trade had an inquiry, but came to no conclusion in the matter. But they voted for this Order. It is, of course, very unfair to the opponents that a Provisional Order should be granted in this case at all. It gets a very unfair advantage in this House and elsewhere that the Bill confirming the Order should be supported by the Board of Trade, the Liberal Whips, and some Members of the Government, for no particular reason that I know of. I say that the Board of Trade ought to be in an independent position and ought to come to some decision to be submitted to the Committee upstairs. We had no report in this case from the Board of Trade.

There is another important reason why the Bill should be recommitted. The Bill went to the House of Lords before it came here. When it came before the Committee there it turned out that, the promoters had retained Mr. Baldwin Lathom but did not call him. I think it is always understood that whoever goes into a Court of Law or comes to Parliament and asks for anything that they should come with perfectly clean hands. In this case it can hardly be said that they did, because while they retained Mr. Baldwin Lathom as a most important expert witness they never called him. Their object in retaining him was to prevent him being retained by the other side, and so prevent the Committee from getting his evidence. I must say-that that was very unfair, and I am surprised that the House of Lords allowed the Bill to proceed. We had the evidence of expert gentlemen upstairs, and undoubtedly it was all in favour of the view expressed by the Croydon and Wandle people that they would be damaged if there was a further demand on their water supply. This is really a case of the people versus company. This company do not care what they do. They do liot offer or consent to give any recompense if they do any damage either to the people on the River Wandle or elsewhere. I have to ask the House to put this off for the time being. I do not say a word against the company. I understand that it is a most respectable company. All they are asking is to get more money to do more business. We have nothing to do with that. But when they are doing that we ought not to allow them to damage the water supply of the people of Croydon or the people on the River Wandle, and if there is any doubt as to what mischief would be done, the people of Croydon should have the benefit of that doubt, and there should be some independent inquiry as to what damage is likely to accrue. The House of Lords put in a Clause that the company might take four million gallons a day on an annual average. That might mean ten million gallons one day and perhaps very little some time later, and the water might be taken just at the dry period of the year, when water is most wanted by Croydon. I hope that the House will insist on this company coming before the House in some other Session in the ordinary way, so as to give everybody's interests an opportunity of being properly considered.


I beg to second the Amendment.

As a member of the Committee upstairs I voted against the confirmation of the Order because I thought that the powers sought by this company were unfair to the mill owners and others interested in the River Wandle. The evidence of the experts on both sides no doubt was very contradictory, but I think if the scale was turned at all it was turned against the East Surrey Company. The evidence of Mr. Baldwin Lathom who was originally engaged by the company as a competent, impartial person, and an engineer who had been living in the district for half a century, was emphatically against the confirmation of the Order. It was apparent that the taking of this extraordinary volume of extra water from very near the source of the Croydon supply would inevitably deplete the supply and so deprive the mill owners on the River Wandle of the water necessary for the working of the mills. Upon these grounds I thought it my duty to vote against the Order, though I should have been very willing to vote for it if there was any provision by which those who were damaged by its operation could seek compensation from the East Surrey Company. If the company's case were an honest one, and they believed in it they would have agreed that they could not be damaged by the Amendment proposed here the other evening. Unless the people of Croydon and the people on the River Wandle proved conclusively that they were damaged by the operations of the company, the company could not be called on to pay them anything. The company opposed that Amendment, and I think that that is a confirmation of my suspicion that they do not believe in their own case. They said that this would expose them to litigation. No wrongdoer likes litigation. It was also urged that other companies had got water, and that this compensation Clause was not included in their Orders. Three or four wrongs do not make one right, and it is not at all right that these comparatively poor mill owners, who already suffer from other water owners, should have their means of living swept away entirely by this company. It was also urged by the East Surrey Water Company that as owners of the land they have absolute right to all underground water, quite regardless of any damage that would be done to their neighbours. If that be the Common Law, then the sooner this House puts an end to it the better. It would be quite ridiculous for a commercial company earning good dividends to acquire land from which the whole countryside derives water, if they are to have the power of appropriating all the water and then to sell it back to their victims. I do not think this House would sanction anything of the kind. If this Bill be recommitted I presume some arrangement might be come to by which the people of Croydon and on the Wandle would be protected from this great injury, and which I think they have good grounds for fearing. I quite agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. I think, as a matter of simple justice, the House ought to pass this Amendment, and reject this Order.


The hon. Member who submitted this Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman who seconded it, referred to the case of Croydon and to the case of the Wandle, and the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) also spoke of the company versus the corporation. On all these three grounds their case falls to the ground. I have been surprised how readily Members have spoken against the Order, because it is promoted by a company. This is not a case of company versus corporation. There is no public authority to supply this district, or likely to supply it; therefore the simple question is whether the whole district of East Surrey is or is not to be supplied with water. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] There is no other question, because the Croydon Corporation supplies its own district, while the East Surrey Company supplies a district of 500 square miles. It is a very important company, doing very important work. Croydon has its water supply, and it has a public authority carrying out the water undertaking. This House is not likely to do anything to injure Croydon. Croydon had an opportunity of stating its case; it put its evidence before the Board of Trade, before the House of Lords Committee, and before the Committee upstairs; and it has not been proved in evidence that the supply of water to Croydon will be in any way diminished by the East Surrey Company having the power to take a sufficient water supply for its own area. It is well known that Croydon has another source of supply if it is necessary. On the Second Heading an hon. Member below the Gangway opposed the Order in the interests of the working classes of Croydon. There is no danger of the working classes of Croydon, or the population of that place, being deprived of any water in consequence of this Order passing through Parliament, because the Croydon corporation can always fall back upon the Metropolitan Water Board.


That was denied on oath upstairs.

11.0 P.M.


It is pretty well known that no part of Greater London, or no part of Croydon, or no district around London, is likely to be deprived of any water supply, for the Metropolitan Water Board can be required to supply water, and it is wholly a question of terms. No doubt the Croydon people would carry on a good deal of negotiation to obtain water. Croydon can obtain water, and, on the other hand, if the East Surrey Water Company is not allowed to take the water of its district, then the large population of the whole of East Surrey will be deprived of water, and the working-class districts in the country-side would not have the water they are entitled to. We must remember that this water is the water flowing from the very district which this company supplies, and to deprive the company of this Order is to deprive the people living in East Surrey of the water which flows from their district to Croydon. Surely this House is not going to take away from this rural district its natural and proper water supply. I am not interested in any way in this company, but I happen to have a house in the centre of the district which is supplied. [Mr. J. WARD: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for Stoke says, "Hear, hear." I dare say he would know that anyone who lives in a good-sized house can take care of his own water supply. He can sink for water. I am not thinking of my own supply. There would be no difficulty for me and other people living in the same size of house getting a water supply. What interests me with regard to this company is to see that throughout this whole rural district there is a good water supply, and it is my interest to see in large rural districts a good main water supply. That excites my interest on behalf of this company because you are never going to get good rural housing of the agricultural people unless there is a proper water supply, and it is also in the interests of public health. I say it is of the utmost importance to the working classes of East Surrey that this company should have this Order, which has been passed by the Board of Trade, passed by a Committee of the House of Lords, and passed by a Committee of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Sutherland said that there has not been sufficient inquiry. Would you believe that this Bill has been under consideration by the Board of Trade and the Committees of Parliament since last February right down to December? What does tins amount to when you look at it? The company has already spent £600,000 in this undertaking, and it conies to Parliament simply to ask for an additional £160,000, not to sink new pumps or new wells, not to introduce a new source of supply, but simply to extend its means of supplying this large area and to extend its machinery.


And pump more water.


Yes, but there is a great difference in extending plant and water mains and coming to Parliament for a new source of supply. In this case they have spent £600,000, and they are merely asking for another £160,000. The whole matter has been inquired into from February to December, and after the whole Parliamentary machinery and Government machinery has been used we are asked after all those inquiries to send the Order back for further inquiry. It makes the whole business of supplying water to the people throughout the country impossible unless we allow this Order to go through. If it was a question of a public authority versus a company, then I, with my municipal experiences and prejudices in favour of municipalities, would go straight for the municipality, but the question here is nothing of the kind, but one of further water for this district, for the supply which flows through it by this company. During the whole of these Debates not one word has been said against this company, and it is quite evident that if anything could be said as to the way the company has carried out its obligations it would have come out in the Debates or before the Committee upstairs. No one has anything but praise for this company as to the manner in which it has done its work. Why should we at this end of the Session interfere with the due progress of an Order of this kind? When the matter was considered by the Board of Trade a Clause was inserted reducing the rates of charge. That was satisfactory to me. I do not believe that any water company should have unlimited power of making charges upon the people whom they supply with water, and I satisfied myself that that point had been safeguarded by the Board of Trade. In the House of Lords a Clause was inserted limiting the amount of water the company could take. Everything seems to have been done in proper order and with due regard to the public interest. Therefore, in my opinion, we should be going against the public interest if we failed to pass this Bill. I hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Parlimentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will speak in support of the Order. It would be a great misfortune if we allowed ourselves to be influenced by prejudice, either on the question of company versus corporation—which does not apply in this case—or on the ground that Croydon will be injured, or in reference to the River Wandle. Nobody wants to deplete the River Wandle.


How do you know?


I know that the Croydon well is within half a mile of the Wandle, and that of the wells of the company one is over three miles and the other two miles distant. If you are going to deal with the watershed of the Wandle you will have to deal with the Metropolitan Water Board, the Croydon Corporation, and the Sutton Company, as well as this company. You cannot in any spirit of fairness pick out this company for special treatment on the Third Reading of the Bill. I trust that the machinery of Parliament will not be used to destroy this Order, and that the large rural population of East Surrey will not be deprived by this Motion of the opportunity of securing the water which flows through their district.


I do not desire to say anything on the merits or demerits of the question, whatever they may be; but I might remind the House that this is the third time this question has come before it, and that little short of three or four hours of the time of the House has been devoted to the matter. I suggest that there must be some sort of finality in this procedure. On the first occasion the point before the House was substantially the justice or injustice of the exclusion of certain evidence. After considerable discussion the House decided by a large majority that the Bill should go upstairs to a Committee, it being preeminently a question which could only be decided, not on the floor of the House, but before a Committee hearing and seeing witnesses. Members who are experienced in Committee work know that the advantage of hearing the witnesses themselves is inestimable. On the second occasion it was said that the Committee had sat five days and most carefully investigated the question. It is perfectly true that we have had the advantage here to-night of hearing the views of the two hon. Members who composed one portion of the Committee, and on the last occasion we had the advantage of hearing the views of the two hon. Members who composed the other part of it. The conclusion of the Committee, as I understand, was arrived at by the casting vote of the Chairman. That was distinctly within the limits and the rights of the Committee. Therefore, without saying anything further, or going into the merits or demerits of the question, might I suggest, with some personal knowledge of the work of Committees, that hearing the speeches here it is impossible to form a conclusion. Directly contrary views are expressed. If this is remitted again to Committee the same result may occur again. Therefore I suggest, under the circumstances, that a very good rule for hon. Members to act upon when they go into the Division Lobby is that, when in doubt, support the decision of the Committee.


One or two minutes will be quite sufficient to reply to hon. Members above the Gangway. I am not surprised at the hon. Member above the Gangway supporting this Bill. I do not think there has been any private Bill for creating a monopoly during the six or seven years I have been in the House of Commons that the hon. Member has not supported. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members say it is not Croydon only. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wandsworth represents people living along the Wandle, and has pointed out that the river had been practically turned into a sewer because of the drainage at the sources of the springs at the end of the Wandle. The hon. Member above the Gangway must understand that if Croydon were applying to be allowed to pump more water we who live in the lower reaches of the Wandle would be just as much opposed to that extraction of water as we are now. It is not a personal question, nor a question of a private monopoly. It is merely that already the river is a sewer, as the hon. Member for Wandsworth, in opposing this Bill, pointed out on the last occasion. The hon. Member suggested that there was quite an easy way out of the difficulty for Croydon if it wanted this water for its population: that it could always apply to the Metropolitan Water Board, and they would only be too delighted to supply them with as much as they required. But would not the same thing apply to the Surrey company? Anyone who has the slightest practical knowledge knows that it would be just as easy for the Metropolitan Water Board to supply the extra water to the company as it would be to carry out the suggestions of the hon. Member, and supply Croydon. The truth of the matter is that this river is being depleted to such an extent that the county council, the body of which the hon. Member is a member, have recently registered it as an open sewer and unhealthy for the workpeople along its banks. That is the real reason we are opposing the Bill.


Is the House really going to reopen a question of this kind? And is it going to be led away by speeches such as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Stoke? This matter was before a Committee of this House and before a Committee of the House of Lords, and safeguards of every kind were put in. It was discussed at great length on Second Reading, and passed by a big majority, and was then sent to a Committee upstairs. It passed that Committee, and then when it came down here again it was open to hon. Members to move to recommit it or to reject it altogether. They put down a Motion on the Paper, but they never moved it. Instead of that they moved an Amendment asking for compensation. They failed to get it, and now they come, after all these matters have been gone into, and after the address of the Deputy-Chairman, and ask to have this Bill recommitted and to reopen this matter in a sort of haphazard manner. The hon. Member who has just sat down has said Croydon could get extra water from the Metropolitan Board. The hon. Member said the mains are there, but the fact is the mains are miles away; there is not a single main of the Metropolitan Board running in this district. They could not get the extra water from the Metropolitan Board except from mains which are miles away. I have no interest in the matter one way or another, but I venture to submit we should trust our Committees in their findings and not attempt to reopen this matter.


Reference has been made to the Board of Trade in connection with this matter, and I think it is fitting I should say a word. The hon. Member for Sunderland complained that the Board of Trade gave no lead in the matter, but the Board of Trade properly followed out its functions. It decided that the question was not one for its decision, but one for decision by some weighty authority, and it held that the Board of Trade, was not that authority. It followed out its functions by stipulating as a condition to giving the Order that the company should reduce its charges to those supplied with water, and that condition was agreed to. Beyond that the position of the Board of Trade was that the proper tribunal was a Parliamentary Committee, and that the question should

be threshed out before it. That has been done, and we are agreed that it should not now be threshed out again.


I have been asked by the borough of Wimbledon, through whose district the River Wandle runs for some miles, to support the proposal to-night. My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth supported it on the last occasion, and the borough of Wimbledon also supports it. This is a matter which interests three or four hundred thousand people who are to be sacrificed to the interests of about ninety thousand people. The people who inhabit that district wish to take one and a half million gallons more water from the Wandle than they do at the present time. If this additional 1,500,000 gallons a day is taken from the River Wandle, the condition of that river will be such that it will have to be covered over with arches and turned into a sewer. There are many mills upon that stream, but, beyond all things, there are several recreation grounds, and one of them has been laid out at great expense by the borough of Wimbledon. [HON. MF.MBEHS: "Divide, divide."] There is not the slightest——

Mr. CLOUGH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."


I think the House is now prepared to come to a decision.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the-Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 70.

Division No. 411.] AYES. [11.25 p.m.
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Brunner, J. F. L. Fiennes, Hon, Eustace Edward
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Burns, Rt. Hon. John Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.
Agnew, Sir George William Carr-Gomm, H. W. Flavin, Michael Joseph
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Cassel, Felix Fleming, Valentine
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Cautley, H. S. Forster, Henry William
Baird, J. L. Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Gardner, Ernest
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Gibbs, G. A.
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gilmour, Captain John
Baldwin, Stanley Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Gladstone, W. G. C.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)
Barnston, H. Clough, William Greig, Colonel J. W.
Barrie, H. T. Cooper, Richard Ashmole Gretton, John
Barton, William Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Griffith, Ellis Jones
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Gulland, John William
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Cullinan, John Gwynne,- R. S. (Sussex. Eastbourne)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hamersley, Alfred St. George
Benn. Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Dawes, J. A. Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.' Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Esslemont, George Birnie Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Blair, Reginald Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Falconer, James Helme, Sir Norval Watson
Booth, Frederick Handel Falle, B. G. Higham, John Sharp
Boyton, James Farrell, James Patrick Hills, John Waller
Bridgeman, W. Clive Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Hogge, James Myles
Holmes, Daniel Turner Muldoon, John Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Hope, Harry (Bute) Munro, R. Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Stanier, Beville
Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh Needham, Christopher, Thomas Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Illingworth, Percy H. Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Stewart, Gershorn
Jessel, Capt. H. M. Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Sutherland, J. E.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Nuttall, Harry Swift, Rigby
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Talbot, Lord E.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Ogden, Fred Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Keating, Matthew O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)
Kilbride, Denis O'Sullivan. Timothy Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
King, J. Palmer, Godfrey Mark Touche, George Alexander
Lane-Fox, G. R. Pollock, Ernest Murray Toulmin, Sir George
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Lawson, sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) Pretyman, Ernest George Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Levy, Sir Maurice Pringle, William M. R. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Lewis, John Herbert Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.) Watt, Henry A.
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Radford, G. H. Webb, H.
Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Reddy, M. White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Robertson, John HI. (Tyneside) Wiles, Thomas
McGhee, Richard Robinson, Sidney Wills, Sir Gilbert
Maclean, Donald Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
M'Callum, Sir John M. Rowlands, James Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Royds, Edmund Winfrey, Richard
Manfield, Harry Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Marshall, Arthur Harold Salter, Arthur Clavell Young, William (Perth, East)
Mason, David M. (Coventry) Sanders, Robert A. Younger, Sir George
Millar, James Duncan Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel
Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Shortt, Edward Rawson and Mr. Rawlinson.
Mount, William Arthur
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Fitzgibbon, John O'Malley, William
Adamson, William Gill, A. H. O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Barnes, George N. Ginnell, L. O'Shee, James John
Bigland, Alfred Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Parker, James (Halifax)
Bowerman, C. W. Hackett, J. Pointer, Joseph
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Hardie, J. Keir Power, Patrick Joseph
Brace, William Hayden, John Patrick Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Brady, P. J. Hazleton, Richard Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Brocklehurst, William B. Hodge, John Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Bryce, J. Annan Hohler, G. F. Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Burke, E. Haviland- John, Edward Thomas Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Joyce, Michael Scanlan, Thomas
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Lundon, T. Sheehy, David
Clynes, John R. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)
Condon, Thomas Joseph M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)
Crumley, Patrick Malcolm, Ian Spear, Sir John Ward
Delany, William Martin, J. Sutton, John E.
Devlin, Joseph Meagher, Michael Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Doris, William Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Duffy, William J. Morison, Hector Wilkie, Alexander
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Nannetti, Joseph P. Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Nolan, Joseph
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny] TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Fell, Arthur O'Doherty, Philip Morton and Mr. J. Ward.
Ffrench, Peter

Main Question put, and agreed to. Rill read the Third Time, and passed with Amendments.

The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."