HC Deb 10 April 1913 vol 51 cc1458-89

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Mr. DELANY

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to insert the words "upon this day six months."

By the Preamble of this Bill hon. Members will see that the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland is connected with the Great Western Railway Company of England. I desire to speak with regard to a question relating to the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland, which widely-affects my Constituents.

Mr. SPEAKER

Questions relating to the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland would be in order on a Bill of that company, but are not in order on this Bill.

Mr. DELANY

On a point of Order. May I refer to a paragraph in the Preamble which authorises the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the Great Western Company to subscribe towards and guarantee the capital of the company for the particular purpose mentioned "and other purposes"? I submit, therefore, I am entitled to call attention to the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland.

Mr. SPEAKER

No, I think not. The mere fact that there is a Clause authorising subscription does not entitle the hon. Member to bring up a grievance against the Great Southern and Western Railway. He could do that on a Great Southern and Western Railway Bill. It is obvious he could not do so here, because if he wished to insert a Clause dealing with the matter he could not do that in this Bill because the Fishguard and Rosslare Company would have no authority to carry it out on the Great Southern and Western Railway.

Mr. DELANY

There are other points upon which I wish to oppose this Bill. In the second place, I refer to the combined action of these two companies to divert the traffic from the ordinary and proper course through Dublin on to Waterford. That system has been going on ever since the amalgamation between the two companies. Dublin, after all, is the capital of Ireland and the natural channel through which most of the traffic should go. That is one point on which I object to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field) will deal more explicitly, and I am sure with greater knowledge, with this part of the question. There is another question, and that is the appointment of a staff, and in this regard the question extends over the whole system, because the appointment of clerks of the Great Southern and Western Railway extends to the Rosslare and Fermoy line, which is practically owned by the Great Western Railway Company and worked by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. Some few years ago the Board of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company were forced, practically forced, by public opinion to adopt the system of competitive examination.

Mr. SPEAKER

That may be a matter of complaint against the Great Southern and Western Company, but it is not a matter of complaint against the Fishguard and Rosslare Company.

Mr. DELANY

I respectfully submit it is for this reason, that those clerks are interchangeable between the different lines, and go on to the Rosslare and Fermoy line, which, as I say, is practically owned by the Great Western Railway Company, because while it is owned by the Great Western Railway Company it is worked by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. On that account I submit I am entitled to call attention to the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER

I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member, but I will hear what he has to say before stopping him any further, though I doubt whether his point is a good one.

Mr. DELANY

Would you hear the substance of the complaint I have to make? It is this, that under pressure of public opinion the Great Southern and Western Railway Company adopted the competitive system. At the last half-yearly meeting of that company the chairman announced, for what reason I do not know, that the Board were contemplating overturning that arrangement altogether, that they were not getting the best men, and that they were not getting the proper men, and all the rest of it. What I wonder at is this: that a system by which all the public positions under the Government and all the Civil Service appointments are at present made is not good enough for the Great Southern and Western Railway. The chairman says they are not getting the proper men. Perhaps they are not getting the men according to their own hearts. I believe the fact is they are getting too many good men. They are getting them from the Christian Brothers schools, which are taking the lead in the examinations and passing first. Perhaps those men do not meet Sir William Goulding's particular views upon what a good man is or ought to be. There is one thing about it, and that is that as regards mathematics or a general uniform class of men, there are no youths better equipped for clerical purposes and to take up any clerkships than the boys of the Christian Brothers.

Mr. SPEAKER

What I have heard from the hon. Member makes me think that his complaint is really against the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. If they had a Bill before Parliament, that would be his opportunity to say what he wished to say, but the question does not really affect this Bill.

Mr. DELANY

I respectfully submit that it is a joint board, and their names are here in the Preamble, which says:— Whereas it is expedient that the company should be authorised to raise additional capital and to apply their funds for the purposes of this Act, and that the Great Western Railway Company and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland …… should be empowered to subscribe towards and guarantee the capital of the company, and to apply their respective funds for the purposes of such subscription. ……

Mr. SPEAKER

The fact that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company are to be entitled to subscribe, or to be called upon to subscribe, towards the guarantee of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company, does not make the Fishguard and Rosslare Company responsible for the matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. They are two entirely separate companies, and, although it is true that one may have a considerable holding in another, that does not constitute them the same company.

Mr. DELANY

I bow to your ruling, but I regret I have not the opportunity of dealing with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, because I have a very strong indictment against them. I beg to move.

Mr. FIELD

I rise to second the Amendment, and I do so in various capacities—first, as a Member of Parliament for the City of Dublin; secondly, as a member of the Port and Docks Board; thirdly, as a member of the Dublin Industrial Development Association; and, fourthly, as President of the Irish Cattle Traders' and Stock Owners' Association. We have no desire whatever to oppose improvements in connection with the railways; on the contrary, we wish that greater railway facilities should be given to the public, as it is well-known that commerce and trade and transit facilities travel together. Without desiring to transgress the ruling that has been given, may I point out that the Great Western Railway of England, and the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland are practically like the Siamese twins. They are bound together by the strongest force in modern times, namely, financial sympathy, but the Great Western Railway of England is the governing force. An agreement was entered into between the Great Western Railway of England and the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland that as far as possible all the cross-channel traffic from this side should go via Waterford instead of straight to Dublin. The meaning of that was that the port of Dublin was to a large extent boycotted, and an enormous amount of trade was diverted from Dublin. This was felt so strongly by the Port and Docks Board that they appealed to the Railway Commission. That appeal cost us something like £4,000, which shows how difficult it is to approach the Railway Commission with regard to grievances, or to get matters remedied. But although the finding of the Commission was in our favour, it was practically in-operative, because by some means or other the Great Southern and Western Railway have not carried it out. It may be said that the public have the privilege of sending goods by whichever route they please. That is true to a certain extent; but anyone acquainted with the management of railways knows that in the manipulation of the traffic, unless the particular parcel or consignment is specially ordered to be carried by a certain route, the officials of the railway can send it by whatever route they please.

So far as I am concerned as a Dublin representative, I do not wish to prevent the southern people from having facilities with regard to the Fishguard and Rosslare route. On the contrary, I think that that line deserves to be supported by what may be termed its natural geographical area, but I object to the enormous power wielded by the Great Southern and Western Railway in what railway men call its sphere of influence. It must be remembered that railways are practically a monopoly, and that in Ireland there is really no such thing as competition. The country is divided up among four or five railways, between whom there is a sort of understanding that they shall not interfere with one another. The result is that the public have to suffer. These monopolistic powers are granted by Parliament upon the distinct understanding that the public shall be served, but in my view the Irish railways do not serve the public. The practice is to give preferential rates to all kinds of foreign importations and to have high inland rates. The manufactures and industries of Ireland are handicapped by these high inland rates, while those who import goods enjoy low rates and better facilities. The evidence given before the Commission showed that goods from Newbridge, a short distance from Dublin, were brought round to Dublin via Waterford. I, myself, had a parcel of perishable goods which, not being instructed to be sent via Holyhead, was sent round via Waterford, and arrived in two days, instead of within a few hours. That sort of thing ought not to be permitted. It may be alleged that there was nothing wrong in it, but sometimes it means considerable loss and inconvenience to the people concerned. Owing to the difficulties under which we labour in the discussion of Railway Bills. I think that a little latitude ought to be allowed to us. The Great Southern and Western Railway control an enormous, area of Ireland, particularly since, under a Bill passed some time ago, they obtained a further large slice of territory. Dublin undoubtedly has suffered. I suppose I should be ruled out of order if I tried to bring something in in regard to the Dublin Industrial Development Association and some concessions which they desired to secure from the Great Southern and Western Railway. But I will take my chance.

Mr. SPEAKER

I may put the hon. Member out of his doubt at once on that point. I do not think that that would be relevant. If, however, his point is that traffic which ought more properly to go via Dublin is being diverted by the Fishguard and Rosslare route, that would be in order. That is relevant to the Fishguard and Rosslare Bill, and the hon. Member is entitled to deal with it.

Mr. FIELD

That is the point. Under the circumstances, I think it would be reasonable that this Bill should be deferred for three or six months, in order that a conference might be arranged and an amicable settlement arrived at. Seeing how hard it is to get round points of Order in dealing with these Railway Bills, it is difficult to deal with matters which affect practically the whole community. The prosperity of the country depends to a very large extent upon railway facilities. One word more and I have done. I agree with my hon. Friend here in regard to the examinations, but I do not intend to pursue that matter further because other hon. Members have it in hand. There is another question that I think ought to be referred to in this discussion, and that concerns the railway strike which took place last year. Unless my information is incorrect, I understand that, following the strike, correspondence took place with the directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway, and endeavours were made towards an amicable settlement. We understood that there was to be no victimisation of the men. As a matter of fact, there has been victimisation. Since that time wages have not increased according to promise, and various other things have occurred which have caused friction between the men and the directors. In addition to that—and this, I think, comes at least within the purview of this discussion—the Arbitration Courts which were to be set up have not been set up.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the discussion which relates to the Fishguard and Rosslare Bill. Where is the connection between the Bill and the point he is making?

Mr. FIELD

I think it will be shown by a Member who will speak subsequently that a portion of the railway under the Bill is under the control of the Great Southern and Western Company. That being so, I think, of course, whilst I respect your ruling that it is a matter of fair comment in a Bill of this kind.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think that is so, because, according to the view of the hon. Member every employé employed by the Great Western Railway might take the opportunity of having his grievances aired in connection with this Bill. That is a reductio ad absurdum of the position.

Mr. FIELD

The Great Southern and Western Railway Company are practically partners in this concern. That being so, I cannot understand why we should be ruled out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER

These are separate undertakings. It is perfectly true that the Great Southern and Western Company may have a considerable holding in the Fishguard and Rosslare line. So have the the Great Western. But the Fishguard and Rosslare line is a separate undertaking, and in my opinion this is an occasion to consider grievances in relation to the Fishguard and Rosslare line. On a future occasion the house will be very glad to hear the hon. Member speak on a Great Southern and Western Bill, or any other.

Mr. FIELD

I will conclude, then, by making the suggestion that this Bill be deferred to such a time as may afford an opportunity for a conference between those opposed to the Bill and the railway company, so that some amicable arrangement may be come to that will be to the advantage of the parties concerned. For, after all, even railway companies cannot afford to fall out with their customers. I trust the suggestion will be adopted, and I beg to second the rejection.

Mr. O'SHEE

With a long acquaintance with the history of this company and as a Member of the hybrid Committee which passed the original Act in 1898, may I draw attention to that Act? That Act—the principal Act in this case—Section 89, declares that—

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act the principal directors of the company shall be seven, of whom four shall be directors of the Great Western Railway and three directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway … such directors shall be nominated as soon as practicable after the passing of this Act by the directors of the two companies. …"

That provision of the Act has been altogether broken and neglected, because it is a fact that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland alone controls the working of this railway line from Fermoy to Rosslare. No tickets have ever been issued in the name of the line: the tickets have been issued by the Great Southern and Western Company. The employés on the line from Fermoy to Fishguard are interchangeable with the employés on the other parts of the system. For instance, at the present time it is proposed to transfer one of the stationmasters in Tipperary to another part of the system. The staff are moved about in a similar way. The working of this small line is now done exclusively by the Great Southern and Western Company who claim to have exclusive control of the working and management of this line in Ireland. The hybrid Committee in 1898 went out of its way to insert a provision in the Act that that should never take place. Their Report, which I have here, was presented to this House by the Chairman, Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth. Clause 14 says:—

"That the board of directors of the whole undertaking shall consist of four Great Western directors and three Great Southern and Western directors so as to secure permanently a controlling voice for the Great Western in the railway system from Fermoy to Cork. …"

It was only on account of that special Report made by the Hybrid Committee to the House that the original Act got its Third Reading. I would call the attention of the House to the history of that proposal. The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Hanbury, made a speech on the Second Reading on 3rd May, 1898. He said:— I should have thought everybody would have been of one mind as to the fact that it would be of great advantage to the South of Ireland to get a company like the Great Western, and on the other hand, with regard to the Great Southern, what we are anxious to do is, knowing they are the owners of the present route to Dublin, to prevent them having an absolute command of both routes. And it was in consonance with that view expressed by Mr. Hanbury and a the evidence taken by the Hybrid Committee, which sat for about six weeks, and of the special Report made by it to this House, that Section 89 was inserted in the Act. I say that Section has been flagrantly broken by the arrangement which has since been made between those two companies. Whereas the Great Western has nominally four directors, as they still have, because I looked up the Stock Exchange Book, and I find that they have nominally four and the Great Southern have only three, notwithstanding that fact, in essence and in fact—and it is claimed by the Great Southern and Western to be the fact—the Great Southern do manage and control the line from Fermoy to Rosslare, which is the only railway line belonging to this company in Ireland. Though my mind has not been directed to the considerations which have appealed to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field), undoubtedly the intention of Parliament was that the Great Southern should not have control of the line from Fermoy to Rosslare, but that the Great Western should have the preponderating voice, and that they should have control by a majority on the board of directors. The fact that the Great Western are not exercising that control has given rise to all the complaints with regard to this Bill. The Great Western Company has a better reputation in Ireland than the Great Southern Company. Unfortunately the Great Southern Company had been managed by a gentleman who did not quite understand how to manage a railway line in Ireland, and he, we are glad to know, has been transferred to England, from whence he never should have been taken. At the present, I am glad to say, an Irishman is managing the Great Southern Company, and, I think, if the present general manager of the line got a free hand, it is possible that we would not have as many complaints to make as we are making on this occasion. The general manager of the Great Southern was the general manager of the line from Fermoy to Rosslare, and he managed it, not under the direction of the Board which was constituted under the Act of 1898, but under the direction of the Board in Dublin, on which the directors of the Great Western are not represented at all.

The strike which took place in Ireland more than a year ago affected the Rosslare line is Ireland as well as the rest of the Great Southern, and the men there went out in sympathy with the men in other parts of the system, and we say with regard to the action of the Great Southern, which really controls these men—I cannot blame the Great Western, because they have no responsibility for the consequences of the strike or the result—but the effect is felt over the whole line at the present, and the men are dissatisfied. There is an undercurrent of friction and irritation resulting from that strike, and I fear the consequences of that state of irritation, unless the new general manager is able to allay them, will be that we may have a strike again in the near future. What has happened since that strike? The present general manager was not then in office, but what I may call the blacklegs—that is what the trade unions term them—who came in and took the places of the men who went out on strike, and the men who remained at work and did not go upon strike, have all been retained by the company. Not only that, but the men who remained at work and the new men who came in have been promoted, without doubt by favour, by reason of their attitude during the strike, over the heads of more competent men who had gone out on strike, and it is that fact that has caused the greater part of the irritation. Wherever you come across a man who remained in the employ of the company during the strike you will find that man has been promoted over the heads of far more competent men. No doubt the company claim to have taken back 96 per cent. of the men that went out on strike. It is a grievance that they did not take back the other 4 per cent., but the greater grievance is that the men who were taken back are not getting fair play. They are not treated fairly as compared with the men who remained at work for the company during the strike.

What has happened with regard to wages on the line from Fermoy to Rosslare, and what I say in regard to them applies also to the men on the whole of the Great Southern system. They are in the same position as the men in the other part of the system and under the control of the same managers. These men have got an advance in wages since the strike of 6d. per man per week, that is a penny per day, and, of course, that is more irritating to the men than otherwise, because their demand was a far greater demand than 6d. per week. The 6d. per man was imposed all round; it was given to the man earning 20s. a week as well as to the man earning 13s. or 14s., but the company, in order to find this 6d., increased the fares. They put up the fares for market tickets, and market tickets are a very important institution in Ireland. It means that on Saturday or some other day people are induced to come in to the large market towns, and these market tickets are nearly one-third of the local passenger traffic carried on in the neighbourhood of these market towns, but these tickets have gone up, and season tickets and excursion tickets were also raised. The excuse for raising these fares was that they were giving this increase of 6d. per man per week to the employés. I say that what the company derive from the fares they have raised is considerably in excess of this miserable sum of 6d. per man per week. My grievance under Section 89 of the Act of 1898 arises on this point, because if the Great Western really managed and controlled this line from Fermoy to Rosslare we should never have had that strike at all on that portion of the system. It would have been a separate system, worked separately and independently from the Great Southern system, and it was on the Great Southern system that the strike originated. If it had not been that these men were under the same employer there would not have been any strike on the Rosslare line, because the Great Western directors, being in control of the line, would have treated the men more fairly than they have been treated by the directors of the Great Southern and Western Company. As regards competitive examination, when this Bill comes back I intend to move an Instruction that this system should be applied, and that all clerkships should be filled up by a system of open competitive examination. The Great Southern Company now send the clerks they appoint to this line, and they are really appointed under the system in vogue on the Great Southern system, and they are men who come from the Rosslare line as a result of examination held by the Great Southern Company, and this shows that my indictment as to the way this line is managed by the Great Southern Company is correct. It is contrary to the intention of the Act of 1898 and to the intention of Parliament stated in the paragraph which I read in the special Report of the Chairman of the Hybrid Committee. It is also contrary to the speech of Mr. Hanbury on that occasion, and besides that it is contrary to the intention that the Great Southern system should work or manage this line in Ireland, and until they fulfil the provisions of the principal Act by carrying out Section 84 and give the effective control of that line to the Great Western Company they ought not to get any facilities from this House for the passing of another Bill.

Mr. CHARLES CRAIG

When the hon. Member got up I was in hopes he was going to speak in favour of this Bill. He represents a constituency which is comparatively close to Rosslare, but as he did not speak in support of the Bill, I find myself compelled to say a few words on behalf of the Rosslare Company. I do not think it would be fair to the company, and it would not be putting the matter in its proper light, if it was to go forth that the Rosslare Company had not got a single champion in this House. I hope I shall be able to show from the statements which have fallen from the lips of hon. Members below the Gangway that the Great Southern and Western Railway and the Rosslare Company are in the right. The hon. Member informed us that if the Rosslare Company had not been to a certain extent under the control of the Great Southern and Western Company there would never have been any strike in connection with the Rosslare Company. He told us that as a result of that strike the men had had sixpence a week added to their wages. That may not be a large sum, but I think we should all be very glad to have that amount added to our weekly income. Having admitted previously that there would have been no strike, and that these people had no grievance, I do not see that they have very much ground to complain if after the strike they find themselves sixpence a week better off than they were before.

Mr. O'SHEE

What I complained of was that if the Great Western Company had had control of the men they would have been treated more fairly than they have been by the Great Southern Company.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. C. CRAIG

My case is a concrete one. Here is a number of men who would not have struck if they had not been associated with the Great. Southern and Western Railway, and we are entitled to assume that they had no grievance. They did strike, and at the end of it they came out sixpence better off than at the beginning. Therefore I say that they have no very great grievance. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but I should like them to show that the position after the strike was worse than it was before it. We have been told that the men on the Rosslare line have not been fairly treated by the Great Southern and Western directors, but I believe those directors absolutely deny that statement, and the hon. Member who made the statement has brought forward no evidence in support of his assertion. A complaint has been made that some of the strikers were not employed again by the company after the strike was over. Everybody in Ireland knows that one of the conditions upon which the strike was settled was that certain of those men who took part in the strike should not be taken back in the employment of the company, because the strike was undertaken for no reasonable cause whatever, and it broke down, which was certain evidence that it had not behind it public opinion. The railway company, I think perfectly rightly, settled the strike by agreeing to take the bulk of the men back in their employ on the understanding that certain ringleaders should not be taken back. Whether they were right or wrong is a matter of opinion, but it is unfair to try and upset this Bill because the Great Southern and Western Railway took that course, or because those were the conditions under which the men came back to work. The hon. Member who has just spoken complained that the Rosslare Railway is under the control of the Great Southern Company, but admitted that the terms of the Act of Parliament were carried out by there being four directors of the Great Western Railway of England on the board. If that is so, then I think we have no right to ask for anything further, and we ought to assume that those four directors who have the preponderating voice think it proper to allow the Great Southern and Western Railway to have the management of the line in their hands, and Parliament has no right to find fault with that. I do not think anything which the hon. Member has brought forward has shown that the original Act of Parliament has been departed from in any way. Let me refer to the subject which was raised by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field). He made one very significant admission in his speech which carries us a very long way in this controversy. He said very truly that the prosperity of a country depends very largely upon its railway facilities. Before the Rosslare line was instituted all the traffic from the South of Ireland had to pass via Dublin or further north. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is well known that the other routes which were in existence at that time got their fair share of cross-Channel traffic, and I do not see how the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin can make out that the facilities in the South of Ireland are worse off now under the new route which has been opened via Rosslare and Fishguard.

Mr. FIELD

I said I had no objection whatever to greater facilities being provided in any particular district, but I objected to goods traffic and passengers being diverted from the shortest route in order to please a particular railway.

Mr. C. CRAIG

I was struck with the hon. Member's remark, and he clearly said that the prosperity of a country depended upon the railway facilities.

Mr. FIELD

Yes.

Mr. C. CRAIG

And that the further means of carrying goods from Ireland to England provided by these two companies gives extra facilities—

Mr. FIELD

I agree.

Mr. C. CRAIG

And therefore makes for the prosperity of the country as a whole. The hon. Member referred to the diversion of traffic from its natural geographical direction. I am informed that 97 per cent. of the traffic of the Great Southern and Western Railway is actually consigned by a particular route by the consignor. There is, therefore, only 3 per cent. of the entire traffic over which they have any discretion, and of that 3 per cent. I am informed that half is governed entirely by the place of destination. If goods are sent from Cork to Northumberland in England, they are obviously and properly sent via Dublin. It would be ridiculous to send them by the other route. On the other hand, if they are consigned from Dublin to Bristol, they are invariably sent by the Rosslare and Fishguard route in preference to via Dublin and Holyhead, because that is the natural route. According to the information which has been supplied to me, which I understand is accurate, there is only 1½ per cent. of the entire goods put into the hands of the Great Southern and Western Railway over which they have any discretion whatever as to the route by which they shall be sent. That is a very small percentage of the entire traffic, and, seeing that the company have been at very great expense in starting this new route of Fishguard and Rosslare, which I have always understood from my friends in the South of Ireland has been looked upon as an immense boon, I think it is not unreasonable, where it is equally convenient, that they should send goods by Rosslare and Fishguard rather than by Holyhead and Dublin. There are points which might properly be dealt with in Committee, but I submit that nothing whatever has been put forward by any hon. Member below the Gangway which ought in any way to prevent hon. Members from giving this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. HUDSON

I was astonished to hear some of the statements which the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. C. Craig) seemed to put forward authoritatively with regard to the strike which took place in Ireland in 1911 and the agreement as it affected the Fishguard and Rosslare Company. I think he had not carefully examined this matter or he would never have made the statement that an agreement was come to at the termination of the strike to leave 10 per cent. of the men out of employment.

Mr. C. CRAIG

I said that it was a condition, or, at any rate, that it was perfectly understood, that certain strikers would not be taken back into employment, but I never said "10 per cent." or specified any percentage.

Mr. HUDSON

I accept the hon. Member's correction with regard to the number, but I again challenge him on the statement that anyone was to be left out. I may say, for his information, that while I was not there at the commencement of the strike, I was there at the end of it, and I had a great deal to do with the settling of it. Consequently I know the circumstances under which it was settled. It was a condition that 90 per cent. should at once resume work, leaving the other 10 per cent., without any definite statement, to be employed as they could find room for them. The great complaint on the part of the men in Rosslare and the immediate district has been that the company did not fulfil the first condition, to at once reinstate 90 per cent. of the men. It has been complained that even the best men have been seriously victimised since the strike. It is quite true that there is an interchange of employés at Fishguard, Waterford, and even other centres; and, while the Fishguard and Rosslare Company have direct control over the Rosslare working, the whole influence is dictated, as has been already said, from Dublin. We want this company to at least carry out the agreement as honourably as we could expect the men to do, and when we know that they have seriously violated an agreement, the House ought to seriously pause before allowing them any further power whatever. The hon. Member for Antrim said that the men had got 6d. a week advance as a result of the strike. They did not get is as a result of the strike.

Mr. C. CRAIG

I took my facts from the hon. Member below the Gangway.

Mr. HUDSON

It is quite true they have it now, two years after the strike. There is a wonderful difference in that. Many of them got what is known as an Irishman's rise: they received less wages than before, and the company saved a considerable amount of money by depressing the wages during the first year which followed the strike. I should like the House to bear in mind another consideration as regards this Fishguard and Rosslare Company. They are really under an obligation to this House to carry out the findings of a Royal Commission that was set up in 1911. That Commission recommended that Conciliation Boards should be applied in an amended form to the railways of the United Kingdom. Let me point out the inconsistency of this particular company. On the Fishguard side they do carry out this particular recommendation of the Royal Commission; on the Rosslare side they do not. I quite admit that the influence comes from another company, but we are now dealing with a company which is applying for further powers under the name of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company, and it is quite logical to draw the conclusion that these companies, having ports on each side of the Channel, are one company for the purposes of the Bill, which should not be allowed to go through unless they are favourably prepared to carry out that obligation.

But there is something worse even than that. They never carried out, in a reasonable and logical form, the scheme which was set up in November, 1907. Had they done so they and the other companies in Ireland would never have had a strike. I may be twitted by some who will say that this was not the actual cause of the strike. But it is the actual cause of much irritation in the minds of the people. It does not matter very much what is the immediate question upon which you get the outburst of industrial war. The most important question is, What is it that causes the irritation in the minds of the men? think that those in charge of this Bill, speaking for the company, ought at least to recognise that it would be very much to their advantage—as well as to the advantage of the general community—to see that this particular scheme for the purpose of building up good relations between employers and employed is observed and carried out in a reasonable and proper spirit, giving the men a proper outlet for the grievances that exist. The system of oppression and trying to keep down every desire to formulate the grievances of the men is sure, sooner or later, to bring about a result such as we had at the end of 1911. How can they explain their failure to carry out a measure very seriously recommended by this House after the national strike in 1911, and which should afford the machinery to obviate all irritation between one side and the other? How can they reconcile their attitude, when they only apply that system on one side of the Channel and resolutely refuse on the other side of the Channel to negotiate with the men? For these reasons I can assure hon. Members from Ireland that, if they press this matter to a division, I shall vote against the Bill. It is desirable the House should take a firm stand upon this question. You cannot expect to get industrial peace if you are to have this autocratic Government and this unreasonable attitude on the part of people who ought to do their share, in order to discuss with the men, at a round table conference, all those matters which must naturally arise from time to time where large bodies of men are employed.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

This Bill affects my Constituency. It is evident that, by a combination of the Labour Members with the Irish Members it is about to be rejected, and I wish to give the reasons which animate me in voting for it. I quite agree that there is a just grievance against the railway company in Ireland in respect of the strike. In the little town of Mallow alone, no fewer than twelve men were victimised, and I am sorry to say they were also deserted by the Trades Union at whose instance they sacrificed themselves. But that occurred when the company was under a very high-handed and foolish manager. I am glad to say that he has no longer anything to do with the company. His entire connection with it, in my opinion, spelt mischief if not disaster to the company. An entirely new state of things now exists. A new manager has been brought in, a man with sympathy for the men, a man with consideration for his fellow men, and I am not without hope that, under this new system, having got rid of a foolish tyrant and having put a Christian gentleman in his place, an entirely different state of things will be created. It must be remembered that thousands of Irishmen came out purely in sympathy with the English strikers, not only on this but on many other lines. They were the best men I have ever known, men with ability enough to hold any position in this land or in any country, and they have been left to suffer. They did not get the help they might have expected from some hon. Gentlemen opposite. Be that as it may, let us consider what this Bill proposes and why I support it. It is a Bill which has no other raison d'être than the deepening of the harbour in Wales. The only provision affecting Ireland is that it enables an Irish company to subscribe to the deepening of a Welsh harbour. It is very hard indeed, except by your kind indulgence, Sir, for which I most heartily thank you, to make relevant all those matters with which we should like to deal, and for the discussion of which this Bill has been a small safety valve. The ruling from the Chair makes it impossible for us to adequately discuss that matter, therefore I am bound to look at the Bill purely from the point of view that Fishguard Harbour is to be deepened and extended. What advantage have we to gain from that? That a better and more suitable line of steamers plying to our country and dealing with the traffic and passengers particularly in the South of Ireland is to be created, a line which will carry animals without suffering and men without discomfort. This applies entirely to the South of Ireland.

I do not see how any Gentleman connected with Ireland can object to better facilities being afforded. I quite agree with what the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division (Mr. Field) has said, that the opening of this line has undoubtedly affected Dublin. Every competitive line you create must affect some other line. If you want to see that, you have only got to go by the quarter past ten train at night, by the excellent service from Euston of the London and North-Western Railway. You find that the Rosslare line has to some extent drained and tapped the service which plies to Dublin. That was inevitable. This House supported it, and, what is more, on the faith of the support of this House, the Great Western Company—against whom we not only had no grievance but to whom those connected with Cork owe a great debt of gratitude—because the Great Southern Company refused to construct a bridge across the Lee to connect the system with the North, put their hands into their pockets and constructed this bridge and thereby connected the South of Ireland with a railway system with the northern parts of the country. We must not forget, whatever grievance we have against the Great Southern Company, that this is a Bill under which the Great Western Company of England is far more deeply affected than the Great Southern Company. I do not think the Great Southern Company cares three straws whether this Bill passes or not. I will tell the House why. For every mile of advantage they would get if this Bill passes, it will be far better for them if they continue the Dublin route, because they get a longer mileage. So far from trying to starve the Dublin end of the traffic, I am of opinion that the Great Southern Company were coerced by the Great Western to give further facilities on the Rosslare side. As regards what the hon. Gentleman for West Waterford (Mr. O'Shee) has said, I think so far as affection is concerned, he is entirely mistaken. The Great Western Company appoints four directors to control this line, and the Great Southern only appoint three. So far from there being brotherly affection between these two companies as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I believe the correspondence between them is largely fiction. These four gentlemen assert their views and carry out their policy, and it is the Great Western policy and not the Great Southern policy they carry out. The view that is taken that this line is being worked by the Great Southern and milked by it for its own purposes against the Great Western, is to my knowledge absolutely without foundation.

It is justly said that this company did not carry out its undertaking to construct the line from Fermoy to Cork. We complained of that during the last seven years, but we got very little assistance from those who might have helped us on the point. What did we do? I, by questions in this House, practically fined the Great Southern Company £80,000 for that dereliction of duty. We got the company to refund the £70,000 or £80,000 which they were to have got from the Government. We fined them that amount by compelling them to refund it to the Treasury, for we had a bargain with the Treasury to grant that sum to induce the Great Southern Company to construct this line. Before we tempted the Great Western to make this line, I remember that so long ago as 1887, when Mr. Goschen was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he empowered us to go to Paddington to canvass the Great Western directors and beg of them to make this line, with the promise of a large financial subsidy. Now, because we have a crow to pluck with the Great Southern, which undoubtedly we have, we are trying to prevent the Great Western Company from putting their money into our country by endeavouring to make a better harbour for the accommodation of Irish traffic and the Irish public. That would be most unjust to that company, against which we have no grievance. From my recollection of the railway strike in this country, I think I am right in saying that the first company which came forward to promise a minimum wage of £1 a week was the Great Western Company. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I thought it was one of the first to give some betterment in the wages of the working men. However, I resume the whole case by saying that this is a Bill purely for the purpose of deepening a Welsh harbour to accommodate Irish traffic. It has no connection whatever with Ireland beyond allowing an Irish company to advance money for that. On the ground that it is a beneficent Bill, I give it my support.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down made a very interesting statement, assuming that there was a combination existing between the Nationalists and the Labour Members to defeat this Bill. One can only comment that, judging by the speech of the hon. and learned Member and that of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. C. Craig), there has apparently been a combination to see that it is not defeated. In any case, so far as we on these benches are concerned, we are not the least concerned as to associating ourselves with anybody, for we are primarily concerned in doing what we believe to be in the best interests of those we represent, and whether it be with Nationalists or Conservatives or any other Members, we are going strictly to carry out that policy. I want to reply at once to a very serious indictment made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that while he had nothing but condemnation for the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway in their conduct of the strike, he wanted to remind the House that the twelve men who he says were victimised were also deserted by their trade union. There is one simple answer to that—it is not true. In the first place, this strike was brought about by the Irishmen themselves, badly led and following bad advice, and were it not for the stupidity of the Irish management it would have been settled in a day. Before our executive left London we sent a telegram to the managers of the Great Southern and Western of Ireland, and said, "We are leaving England with a view of trying to effect a settlement. Will you meet us, and help us with that object?" They not only refused to acknowledge the telegram, but they point-blank refused to make any effort to assist them, not for the purpose of spreading the strike, but actually for the purpose of finding some means by which these men could go back to work. With regard to the desertion of the men, is the hon. Gentleman aware that this English trade union paid £11,000 to these Irishmen who struck? Is he aware that at this moment they are paying them 15s. per week? Where was he when we on these benches asked the Government to take their stand in assisting us to compel the railways company to do justice to these men? He went into the other Lobby, and not with us. But let us take the speech of the hon. Member who said he spoke as the champion of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company—the other party to the combination.

Mr. C. CRAIG

What the hon. Member describes as the other party to the combination did not use the language attributed to him.

Mr. THOMAS

I took the words down. The hon. member said he antici- pated that the hon. Member who preceded him was going to support the Bill, and, seeing that he did not, he did not want it to go forward that there was no champion. He said, speaking as the champion of this particular company, he desired to emphasise the good management of the company.

Mr. C. CRAIG

I never said that.

Mr. THOMAS

I think the hon. Member is not quite sure what he did say.

Mr. C. CRAIG

May I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the statement that he repeated was quite different from the first statement he attributed to me? If he will now give a second version of what I said it will probably be the correct one.

Mr. THOMAS

I repeat that the hon. Member went on to say that he considered that not only did the Great Southern and Western management carry out their side of the settlement, but he considered that they were magnanimous.

Mr. C. CRAIG

I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. THOMAS

In any case I will leave it at this, that any Member of the House, no matter on what side he sits, or what interest he represents, whether he be a railway director or shareholder, or any other employer of labour, who knew the history of this unfortunate business, could say one word in defence of this particular company. I said the strike was altogether wrong, but do not let us forget that at that moment hundreds of the people who the hon. Member said got 6d. a week advance were getting 13s. and 14s. per week. Whatever might be said of the merits of the strike, I have nothing but commendation for the man who says "I will not work for 13s. a week." When you remember that there were men who lost their lives in consequence of that dispute and men who are in lunatic asylums to-day, and when you remember the cruel and miserable manner in which this company prostituted their power, it is a shame and a disgrace to any employer of labour, I want to ask the Government what is their position in connection with this Bill. It is very well to say that all the grievances of the men and all the matters which have been discussed are foreign to the real objects of the Bill. That may be perfectly true, but the real point that we have to consider is this: Here is a company coming to this House for additional power, and we have to see whether their past record justifies us in giving them that additional power, and I say that the whole history of the Great Southern and Western Company shows that they are not fit to be entrusted with further power. The Great Western know perfectly well that I have never hesitated to say I appreciate in no small measure the splendid manner in which they are trying to give effect to this scheme, but if they have a representation of four as against three, they are not exempt from blame if they allow this thing to go on.

I come back to the position of the Government. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a pledge that when this strike was settled and the conciliation scheme was set up, whatever the findings of the Royal Commission were, if legislation was necessary, legislation would be introduced. It was on that understanding that we, as representing the men, settled that dispute. The Government the other day recognised the position of the Irish company by accepting an Amendment striking Ireland out of the provisions of the Railways (No. 2) Bill. Now we are dealing with a joint line. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, you are going to have the anomaly that the Fishguard men will be working on a railway practically controlled by the Great Western management and under Great Western conditions. They are doing so to-day. They have a Conciliation Board, and they will be bound by any agreement arrived at by that Board, but the men employed by the same company and doing precisely the same work, because they happen to be employed at Rosslare instead of Fishguard will be denied all the advantages which their brethren at Fishguard enjoy. I submit to the hon. Gentlemen who will speak in support of this Bill—Gentlemen who have done their best to give effect to the Conciliation Board's scheme—that they should recognise their responsibility in the matter. They are in a majority on this Board, and, while they cannot compel the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland to have a Conciliation Board for the whole of their employés, they can, so far as they are interested in the working of the line at Fishguard, require that the men should be under the same conditions as those at Rosslare and vice versâ. They ought to go further, and say that while the Great Southern and Western may have claimed a victory over the men in the unfortunate dispute, it is not for them, because of that victory, to prostitute their powers. Let them recognise that now is the occasion for them to be magnanimous. There is a feeling in the mind of the men on the Great Southern and Western Railway that they are not receiving justice. Though they were defeated on that occasion it does not tend to good feeling that the present state of things should continue. Unless there is some guarantee given on the lines I have indicated—it is not too much to ask that guarantee—I will join with my hon. Friend and go to a Division. If, on the other hand, a guarantee is given, I hope that this Debate will tend to a better feeling between the men and the companies, and if that should be the result I feel sure that no one will regret this discussion.

Mr. BALDWIN

As no director of the line in question is present in the House to-night, I as one who stands in the position of foster father, being a director of the Great Western Railway, may be allowed to say a few words. Most of the points have already been answered by my hon. Friends. There was one matter referred to by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field) with respect to which I think I can put him right in a moment. He complained that he despatched a parcel of perishable goods which took two days to reach its destination. If he will mark on his parcels the route by which he wishes them to be conveyed they will reach their destination in time.

Mr. FIELD

I did not say that I despatched the parcel myself. I gave the information which had been communicated to me. Even a railway director may make a mistake.

Mr. BALDWIN

I thought the hon. Member said he despatched the goods. He may give my advice to his friend who sent him the information. The hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. O'Shee) and the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), although their speeches were very different in manner, touched upon the same point. I think they were labouring under a similar misapprehension. The gist of their complaint was that the Great Western Railway has not the management of the line on the Irish side. I should like before answering that point to say with what immense pleasure I sat here and heard all the kind things which were said of the Great Western Company. Long may the Channel roll between Ireland and England if it continues to lend such enchantment to the view. The Great Western Railway Company have no option in the matter of the regulation of the railway on the Irish side, because it is distinctly laid down in the thirteenth Sub-section of a Schedule in the Act of 1899 how the undertaking on the Irish side is to be worked. It seems to me, therefore, that a great deal of what was said on that point falls to the ground. As to market and season tickets, what was said by the hon. Member for Wrest Waterford was beside the question. The Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Company have no power over the Great Western Company, or the Great Southern and Western Company, which would enable them to alter the rates for tickets. The hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Hudson), naturally and properly from his point of view, devoted the whole of his speech to the recent strike in Ireland. I confess that I came here entirely unprepared to deal with the question, no one having given me any intimation that it was to be raised. I cannot see how the question of the strike on the Great Southern and Western Railway affects this Bill promoted by the Fishguard and Rosslare Company.

Mr. THOMAS

I did not saw the Great Southern and Western Railway. I said the strike of the men on the Fishguard and Rosslare line.

Mr. BALDWIN

I was going to say that, unless I am incorrectly informed, the Irish railway companies were not a party to the strike settlement to which the hon. Member alluded, and consequently I do not think the charge of bad faith lies against the Irish railways, but if there is a charge of bad faith I would remind the hon. Member that the agreement was only come to about fifteen or eighteen months ago. He must remember that in Ireland they are twenty-five minutes by time behind this country, and you cannot expect people in an agricultural country like Ireland to act with the same celerity as the people in a business country like this.

Mr. THOMAS

I can assure the hon. Member that I do not forget that so far as the railway companies are concerned.

Mr. BALDWIN

The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) told the House what this present Bill is. It is a Bill promoted by the Fishguard and Rosslare Company, and is solely for the purpose of raising money to repair the damage done in Fishguard Harbour during the gales in this exceptionally severe winter, to make certain alterations in the harbour in the way of dredging, to provide additional breakwaters, and to improve and consolidate the service that runs between England and Ireland by that route. I would remind the House that the only result of rejecting this Bill to-night would be to imperil the service between England and Ireland to this extent, that if the damage is not repaired, if the harbour works are not strengthened, and if we have another winter with gales of such severity as we had last winter, it is quite possible that the service might be impaired, or for a time the traffic between the two countries, which hon. Members are just as anxious as I am to improve, would be interrupted.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson)

I shall not attempt to go into the merits of the controversy which have been raised this evening, but I may venture to suggest to the House, from the Board of Trade point of view, that the House should take a strictly business view of the Bill at this stage. The most important speeches that have been made have reference to an old quarrel—a strike in 1911. They were animated and interesting, but I do not gather they had any bearing on the real merits of the Bill now before the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson), I understand, has a difficulty in forgetting his experience at that period. Even that difficulty should not stand in the way of his considering this Bill on its merits. It is a Bill the effect of which will be to employ labour on the Welsh harbour, the result of which will be to maintain and extend the facilities for intercourse between Ireland and England. To neither of these objects can any of my Friends below the Gangway have any objection.

Mr. THOMAS

This is the first time we have had a chance to attack the policy of this company, when they are asking for further power.

Mr. ROBERTSON

Having had that chance, and used it so effectively as they have done to-night, my hon. Friends may now be in the position to allow the Bill to go to a Committee. I have listened very carefully to all the grievances which have been urged, and, apart from the old strike, the grievances do not seem to be at all serious enough to justify delaying this Bill. I understand that it is not disputed that the management of this railway company has now entirely changed. Surely, then, even the argument upon the strike—

Mr. HUDSON

I do not think that is so.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I think that my hon. Friend is in error as to the facts. The management has changed.

Mr. HUDSON

That refers to the Great Southern and Western Company, but not to this particular company.

Mr. ROBERTSON

It does not appear, at all events, that whatever grievances existed at that period, which were connected with that strike, are in operation to-day. I think that my hon. Friends, who, speaking on behalf of the railway men's interest, have fully utilised their opportunities, do not suggest that delaying the Bill can do any particular good to the interests which they wish to protect, and that it is not too much to suggest that the House should allow the Bill to go to a Committee.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. BOOTH

I do not follow the argument of the Secretary to the Board of Trade. This is the one chance the House has not merely to speak our mind, but to show it in the Division Lobby. If directors of railway companies know that we shall be content always just to voice grievances, and still give them their Bill, they will not mind in the least an hour or an hour and a half debate. The suggestion that there has been even a change in management is really very weak. It is the old familiar argument that when a licensed house has repeatedly broken the law and there have been repeated convictions, the owners go before the Court and say, "We have just appointed a new manager, and therefore all is well." Magistrates have refused to fall in with that view, and have insisted on taking into account the character of the house. I do not know that I have ever voted against a Railway Bill since I came into this House. I always rather lean to the development of industry, as being in business myself, but having listened very carefully to the Debate, I think that a strong case has been made, both for the men in the locality and for the labour men. I came into the Debate with a perfectly unbiassed mind, but there has been no complete answer, and if directors are ever going to have a sharp lesson from the House I believe that a very well-deserved occasion presents itself now.

Mr. CULLINAN

I think that the statement made by the Secretary for the Board of Trade is most unsatisfactory. An appeal was made by the hon. Member opposite for a guarantee to this House that the Board of Trade should interfere to remove the grievances of which the men complain on the Great Southern and Western system. If the representative of the Board of Trade had displayed any sympathy whatever with the claims made by the representatives from Ireland, and by hon. Members opposite, who represent the trade unions, it would go very far to conciliate their view, but I must protest against his reference to this opposition to-night being due to the result of a recent strike.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I did not say the opposition. I said that the most impressive speeches made to-night had reference to that.

Mr. CULLINAN

The strike emanated from the grievances under which the men laboured on the Great Southern and Western Railway. Since then, to my own personal knowledge, the greatest dissatisfaction exists among the employés on the Great Southern and Western Railway, and if we had anything like sympathy from the representative of the Board of Trade in dealing with that matter it would be a most pleasant thing to ask us to walk into the Lobby to support his suggestion. The complaints against the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway have been very great in my Constituency. The Great Southern and Western Railway Company go in for economy. They go in for increasing the rates for week-end tickets, and season tickets, in order to make up the sixpence they pay the men, and at the same time they have gone in for considerably reducing the staff. Great complaints have been made by traders as to the inconvenience which they have suffered, and in those circumstances I must protest against the reference of the representative of the Board of Trade.

Mr. J. W. WILSON

If this Bill is defeated in this House, it will be on account of details of management of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland, who are not represented as promoters of this Bill. The promoters of this Bill have to do with one of the routes across the Irish Channel, the spending of money at Fishguard. The Great Western Railway, either individually or as a board, have no actual voice in the management or conduct of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland; neither have they power to take over the management of this short piece of line out of the hands of the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. As far as the Great Western Company of England are concerned, they must stand or fall by the decision of the House in this matter. As far as their influence does go in indicating what the contractors, the Great Southern and Western Company, who are contractors for working this short piece of line from Rosslare, may do, as far as the Great Western Company is concerned, I have no doubt that they will take notice of what has been said in this House by hon. Members from Ireland. Further than that we are not able to go, except to emphasise the fact that this is a Bill for restoring damage that has been unexpectedly done in Fishguard Harbour, and which it is found necessary to repair. If the Bill is thrown out, the railway company themselves cannot be responsible for further consequences.

Mr. FFRENCH

If this Bill goes to a Division I shall feel myself constrained to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I have this day received a resolution passed by the Wexford County Council asking that the boat should be kept on the Rosslare service for the conveyance of live stock to this country. Previous to the taking over of the Rosslare Company by the present company there was a boat on the Rosslare service which made a trip to Liverpool and to Bristol once in each week, carrying live stock, and it was generally understood, and I believe it was part of the bargain, that the present company should keep on this service. Although resolutions have been passed over and over again by public bodies the company has taken no notice of them, and, therefore, on behalf of my Constituents I feel constrained to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

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

Division No. 39.] AYES. [10.8 p.m.
Agnew, Sir George Griffith, Ellis J. Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Rees, Sir J. D.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) Robinson, Sidney
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Henderson, Major H. (Berks.) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Boyton, J. Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Sanders, Robert A.
Brocklehurst, William B. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Sanderson, Lancelot
Brunner, J. F. L. Hohler, G. F. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Bryce, J. Annan Holmes, Daniel Turner Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Sutherland, J. E.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)
Carlile, Sir Edward Mildred Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Cassel, Felix Maclean, Donald Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. Touche, George Alexander
Clough, William M'Micking, Major Gilbert Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Magnus, Sir Philip Waring, Walter
Cripps, Sir C. A. Manfield, Harry Webb, H.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Middlebrook, William Weston, Colonel J. W.
Fell, Arthur Mount, William Arthur White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Murphy, Martin J. Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Needham, Christopher T. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Gilmour, Captain John Newman, John R. P. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Gladstone, W. G. C. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Glazebrook, Capt. P. K. Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Yate, Colonel C. E.
Grant, J. A. Peto, Basil Edward Young, William (Perth, East)
Greene, W. R. Pollock, Ernest Murray
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. W. Wilson and Mr. Baldwin.
Greig, Colonel James William Pringle, William M. R.
Gretton, John Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Adamson, William Hackett, J. Muldoon, John
Addison, Dr. C. Hancock, John George Munro, R.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Neilson, Francis
Arnold, Sydney Hardie, J. Keir O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) O'Doherty, Philip
Barnes, G. N. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) O'Dowd, John
Barton, W. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Grady, James
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Hazleton, Richard O Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Hemmerde, Edward George O'Malley, William
Boland, John Pius Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Booth, Frederick Handel Higham, John Sharp O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Hinds, John O'Shee, James John
Brace, William Hogge, James Myles Outhwaite, R. L.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Parker, James (Halifax)
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Chancellor, Henry George Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Chapple, Dr. W. A. Jowett, Frederick William Radford, G. H.
Clynes, J. R. Joyce, Michael Raffan, Peter Wilson
Condon, Thomas Joseph Keating, Matthew Reddy, M.
Cotton, William Francis Kellaway, Frederick George Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Kelly, Edward Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Crooks, William Kennedy, Vincent Paul Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Crumley, Patrick Kilbride, Denis Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cullinan, John King, J. Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Davies, Timothy (Louth) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Roe, Sir Thomas
Delany, William Lardner, James C. R. Rowlands, James
Devlin, Joseph Leach, Charles Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Doris, William Low, Sir F. (Norwich) Scanlan, Thomas
Duffy, William J. Lundon, T. Sheehy, David
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lynch, A. A. Sherwell, Arthur James
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Shortt, Edward
Elverston, Sir Harold Macpherson, James Ian Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Esslemont, George Birnie M'Callum, Sir John M. Smyth, Thomas F.
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Marshall, Arthur Harold Snowden, P.
Ffrench, Peter Meagher, Michael Sutton, John E.
Fitzgibbon, John Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim) Thomas, James Henry
Gill, A. H. Millar, James Duncan Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Goldstone, Frank Molloy, M. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Gulland, John William Morison, Hector White, Patrick (Meath, North)

The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 133.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) Wing, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Field and Mr. Hudson.
Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Second Reading put off for six months.

Forward to