§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
§ Mr. O'SHEEI rise to move, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee or Private Bill Committee, and on re-committal, that it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert such provisions as shall prevent the directors of the Fish-guard Company, as constituted by Section 89 of The Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Act, 1898, from having their control of the undertakings and affairs of the Company, whether on the English side or the Irish side, abrogated by anything contained in Clause 13 of the agreement comprised in the Seventh Schedule to The Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Act, 1899."
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid the hon. Member must give notice of any Instruction. The course open to the hon. Member now is to move that the Bill be considered this day six months.
§ Mr. O'SHEEI will take that course.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
§ Mr. O'SHEEI beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
With reference to the Motion I hoped to be able to make to the House, it is 1115 necessary I should explain what has happened since this Bill was read a second time on 5th March. Two of my colleagues and I, on the 16th March, put down three Instructions—Notices of Motion at the time of Private Business—and these notices appeared on the Orders for the Day, one in the name of the hon. Member for Queen's County, another in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of the City of Dublin, and another in my own name. These Instructions appeared on the Order Papers of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th March, and my hon. Friend and I sought to move them on the 16th, 17th, and 18th. I am glad to see that the Chairman of Ways and Means is in his place, as on the evening of the 18th March my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Patrick's Division and I had an interview with the Chairman of Ways and Means with reference to our Instructions. He stated it was not for him to decide whether or not the Instructions were in order, but that it was a matter for Mr. Speaker. He added that the Instruction I had on the Paper during the preceding week was, in his view, not in order. I pointed out that I had removed that Instruction on Monday, the 16th March, and he informed me that he had not seen the Instruction in its new form, but he said that if it were in order he would not be enabled to give an opportunity for discussing it that week, and that he could not give such an opportunity until the following week. My hon. Friend and I expressed our entire satisfaction with that statement—
§ The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley)I think I must intervene and say that the hon. Member is in error. I gave no such promise or undertaking.
§ Mr. O'SHEEI entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. It is not suggested that he gave the promise in an affirmative form. He merely said he could not give an opportunity for discussing my Instruction during that week, nor could he give such an opportunity before the following week. His statement was conditional on his ascertaining whether my Instruction was held by Mr. Speaker to be in order. For that reason my hon. Friend and I awaited some intimation from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he had found the Instruction to he in order, but, to our surprise, on the 1116 following afternoon—the afternoon of Thursday, the 19th March—we were not called upon by Mr. Speaker to move our Notices of Motion. On the following day, as we thought it was an inadvertent omission, we made inquiry, and then ascertained that the reason we had not been called upon was that on the afternoon of Thursday, the 19th March, the Bill had been reported to the House as an unopposed Bill, and came as such before the Chairman of Ways and Means and Mr. Speaker's counsel. We were very much amazed to find that, instead of having the opportunity which we had hoped for of moving our Instructions, we were deprived of it. It is for that reason that I rose just now to move my Instruction. You have, however, ruled that it is not in order to move that the Bill be recommitted in order to insert such provisions as were referred to in my Notices of Motion. I am constrained now by your decision simply to move that the Bill be considered this day six months. I regret very much that my Motion must take that form, because I was anxious to get these provisions inserted, and if they had been inserted I should have desired to facilitate the passing of the Bill. The reason why I have taken such an interest in securing the insertion of the provisions is because as a member of the Hybrid Committee which sat in 1898 to deal with the original Bill—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think I ought to stop the hon. Member at this point, and say that the provisions which I gathered from the Instruction he read just now he desires to insert in the Bill cannot be discussed at this stage. We are here to-night to consider the Bill as it passed, and we must limit our discussion to what is contained in that Bill. As I gather from the words he read out just now, it deals with matter extraneous to the Bill; we cannot, on the consideration of what is in the Bill, consider those matters which the hon. Member mentioned in his Instruction. I hope I have made myself clear.
§ Mr. O'SHEEI will endeavour not to deal with the details of my Instruction, but only with the Bill as it stands. With this Bill the Acts of 1898 and 1899 are incorporated, and I propose to deal with those Acts as they are affected by this Bill. The Act of 1898 was passed after much discussion by the Hybrid Committee, and this Bill is an amending Bill giving further powers to the company. My objection to 1117 the further consideration of this Bill is that the giving of such consideration involves the sanction of this House to what I venture to describe as one of the most flagrant evasions of the provisions of an Act of Parliament which has ever been brought to the notice of this House. This Bill gives further powers to the board of directors of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company. My object in making this Motion is to endeavour to persuade the House that that board ought not to get any further powers, because it has not faithfully carried out the powers given to it by the principal Act.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)The hon. Member is now going outside the ruling a moment ago laid down by Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. O'SHEEI have no intention or desire to discuss any subject which I am precluded from discussing by the ruling of Mr. Speaker. Perhaps have not been able to make my intention sufficiently clear. I desire to give reasons to the House why it should not consider this Bill. It is because this Bill gives further powers to the Fishguard and Rosslare Company.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat would be sound argument on Second Reading, but not on Consideration. I would remind the hon. Member that Mr. Speaker directed his attention to the fact that the House is now considering the Bill as passed in Committee, and I invite the hon. Member to confine himself to the provisions of the Bill.
§ Mr. O'SHEEThe Preamble to the Bill says:—
Whereas it is expedient that the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company, in this Act called the company.And Clause 4 gives the company additional powers to make harbour works. I think I am entitled to ask the House to declare that it will not give the company any such powers, and, in doing that, to tell them what the company is and how it has carried out the powers given to it by Parliament. Otherwise we are precluded from dealing with the Bill as it stands. I am dealing with the powers given to a company, and subject to your ruling, I think I am certainly entitled to give to the House the character of this company.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIn my view that goes beyond the ruling laid down by Mr. Speaker. Clause 4 is quite definite. It deals with power to make harbour 1118 works, and the hon. Member must confine himself to the subject matter of that Clause.
§ Mr. O'SHEEMay I ask whether this House is not entitled to review the decision of the Committee, and to consider whether the Committee ought to have come to the conclusion at which they arrived? Has this House a right now to-consider the decision of the Committee to report this Bill to the House? I submit that is the object of the Consideration stage of a Bill, namely, to consider it as it comes back from the Committee. Any Member of this House ought to be entitled to give any additional reasons for the reconsideration of the Bill which the Committee had no opportunity of hearing. I am anxious to give those reasons. Our Instructions were put down, but we had no opportunity of moving them. If we had had that opportunity we should certainly have had an opportunity of giving the reasons why we held that those Instructions should be given to the Committee which was considering the Bill.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThis is not the time for discussing those Instructions. I again invite the hon. Member—I think this is the second time I have done so—to confine himself to the subject matter of Clause 4.
§ Mr. O'SHEEBefore I proceed to deal with the various Clauses of the Bill—and I intend to deal with them—may I ask you to say, for the guidance of the House, what the Consideration stage of the Bill is for, because I am really unable to apprehend it from what you or Mr. Speaker have stated, except that I may deal with tire Clauses and criticise the powers contained in them. Am I to understand from your ruling that I am not entitled to criticise the body which is to have these powers? All I am anxious to do on this occasion is to give reasons why this incorporated body which is to get those powers should not get them with the assent of this House. In dealing with the various Clauses I must, of course, deal with the substance of the additional powers this Bill proposes to give, and in dealing with that substance I must be prepared to indicate to the House my reasons why the particular powers proposed to be given in those Clauses should not be given to this company. I should be precluded from giving reasons of that kind unless I am entitled to point to the past history of this company.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI thought I had made it quite clear to the hon. Member, following what Mr. Speaker had said, that the line he now proposes to take is definitely out of order. This would have been proper matter for discussion on the Second Reading, but it is not on Consideration. Clause 4, to which the hon. Member now directs attention, contains a definite power to construct harbour works. I am quite prepared to hear all that the hon. Member has to say on the question of the harbour works referred to in that Clause. The point the hon. Member is endeavouring, with some ingenuity, to again make is going back to the subject matter of his Instruction, which Mr. Speaker very clearly ruled out of order.
§ Mr. FIELDAre we to understand that, if a Bill has passed its Second Reading, under the peculiar circumstances which exist at the present moment, hon. Members of this House have no right whatever to criticise the Bill, because the fact that it has passed Second Reading precludes us on its Consideration from any criticism which, according to your judgment, we were then entitled to bring forward?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERPerfectly correct. The Rules of the House do preclude hon. Members on Consideration, or on Third Reading of a Bill, from discussing any extraneous matter. It is quite different from a discussion on Second Reading.
§ Mr. FIELDSurely the point raised by my hon. Friend is not extraneous to the Bill? It is in relation to the Bill.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat is entirely a matter for the judgment of the Chair. Mr. Speaker has already ruled, and I have followed his ruling, that the points which the hon. Member is raising are outside the limits of discussion to-day.
§ Mr. O'SHEEIt is your ruling that it is out of order to discuss the past conduct of the Fishguard and Rosslare Harbour Company?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERYes, most decidedly.
§ Mr. MOONEYIf it is out of order, am I to understand that it is out of order on any stage of the Bill to grant further powers to a company to discuss how they have used their powers in the past as a reason why we should not give them additional powers?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERCertainly not; I thought I had made it perfectly clear. That may be done on Second Reading but not on the Consideration stage, with which we are now dealing.
§ Mr. MOONEYIs it not a fact that on any stage of a private Bill it is open to the House to amend, rescind, or amplify any decision they have previously come to on that Bill? Therefore, surely it is in order on this stage of the Bill to move that the company in the past have exercised their powers in such a way that they ought not to be given such powers in the future, on the ground that we can give evidence before the House which was not given to the Committee?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is bringing in matters which are extraneous to the Clauses of the Bill now before the House.
§ Mr. O'SHEEI will confine myself absolutely and strictly to Clause 4. Clause 4 says that subject to the provisions of this Act the company may make and maintain in the lines and according to the levels shown on the deposited plans and section the harbour works hereinafter described, and may enter upon and take and use all such lands delineated on the deposited plan as may be required for this purpose. I ask this House to give no authority to the Fishguard Company to do this, and, as I understand your ruling, I am precluded from saying why I consider that this company should get no such advantage. Supposing I can show the House that this company is not in a position to carry out this Clause, that it has had similar powers in the past, and has not carried them out according to the powers given to it, and that it has departed front the provisions of the Act under which it acted—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI thought I had made that perfectly clear. That is a point for Second Reading, and not a matter to be raised on this Clause. I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to this Clause.
§ Mr. FIELDMay I read this passage from Sir Erskine May? "On the Consideration of a private Bill, unless a Motion to defer the Consideration to a future day or to recommit the Bill be made and carried, the House may introduce new Clauses or Amendments, subject to the restrictions imposed on such Amendments by the Standing Orders just described, and by 1121 Standing Order No. 41 (public business)." We have to consider this Bill. Surely we are in a position to bring forward Motions of this kind?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThere is nothing in the ruling which I have given which is inconsistent with the Standing Order the hon. Member has read.
§ Mr. O'SHEEIf this authority is correct, and I do not understand that you have controverted it in any way, on the Consideration of a private Bill, the House may introduce new Clauses or Amendments. We are now on Consideration of a Bill, and I suggest that the House should introduce a Clause to the effect that Section 89 of the Act of 1898 shall be carried out by the Fishguard and Rosslare Board exercising an effective control on their own lines of their harbours and railways.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERSuch a proposal as that requires notice.
§ Mr. FIELDThis is a matter of a new Clause. As I understand it, it is quite open to any hon. Member to hand in during the discussion the terms of a proposed new Clause. It is not necessary, as far as I understand the procedure, for the terms of a new Clause, or an Amendment to an existing Clause in the Bill to be on the Notice Paper. That does not apply to the Consideration stage.
§ Mr. O'SHEEThe reason I made the point is that I did not understand that you had in any way controverted what I had said. I understood that we were now dealing, as this paragraph mentions, with the Consideration of the Bill. This authority that my hon. Friend has handed me—perhaps the words are intended to refer to the Committee stage; I am not sure of that. That is what I thought you would enlighten the House upon. It says, "On the Consideration of a Private Bill." It does not say "on the Consideration stage." If it refers to the Consideration stage, we are on that Consideration stage, and the House may introduce new Clauses or Amendments on that stage. If it refers to the Consideration in Committee, I quite understand what you have just said, but if you are not clear that this does not refer merely to the Committee stage, but to the Consideration stage, at which this Bill now is, then according to this authority we should be entitled now to introduce new Clauses and Amendments.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKEROnly after due notice is given. No notice has been given of any proposal. The hon. Member cannot introduce new Clauses or Amendments without notice on the Consideration stage, and it is too late, of course, to give notice now.
§ Mr. FIELDShould I be in order in moving to defer Consideration of the Bill in order that notice might be handed in?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member who is in possession of the House has already moved, "That consideration of the Bill be deferred until this day six months."
§ Mr. O'SHEEI understand that has not been put to the House. I suggest that the consideration of the Bill be deferred until this day three weeks. We are not anxious that the Bill should be killed. We are anxious that the Bill should pass with Amendments.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI understand the hon. Member moves, "That the Debate be now adjourned." Does any hon. Member second that?
§ The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANSI hope that hon. Members will not persist with this Motion. It gives me the opportunity of saying a word in reply to what the hon. Member (Mr. O'Shee) said in his opening sentences. He appears to have been under a total misapprehension with regard to myself, and I am sorry for it, because I had no blame in the matter. It is true that he and his hon. Friend came more than once to see me about certain Instructions they had on the Paper. I told him that, in my opinion, these Instructions were not in order, for they dealt with a matter which was wholly outside the scope of the Bill. On the last occasion he saw me he told me that he had put down a new Instruction in another form, and I promised to consider it. I found that that Instruction, equally with the others, was outside the scope of the Bill, and I think it was the same one which he read out to Mr. Speaker a few moments ago. Mr. Speaker was clearly of opinion that it was out of order. I would point out to the hon. Member that he would gain nothing by the adjournment of the Debate, because his Instruction would be out of order. He was quite entitled to raise these matters on the Order for the Second Reading, and 1123 to ask the House not to read the Bill a second time, for the reasons which he has stated—reasons as to some previous powers which were given to the company not having been carried out. But after the Second Reading stage is over that opportunity is gone, and, in the interests of the private business of the House, I suggest to hon. Members that, having done their best, within the Rules of the House, to obtain the object they have in view, and having allowed the Second Reading to pass, they should not go to a Division on this Motion to adjourn the Debate. I may point out to the House generally that there is great pressure of private business, and that I have very considerable difficulty in finding proper time for it. My endeavour always is to suit the convenience of all Members of the House, and to deal with them fairly in this respect. But if there are to be Motions for the adjournment of Debates when Bills have been set down with sufficient notice, it will be impossible to conduct private business in the way I am instructed by the Standing Orders.
Mr. J. W. WILSONThe Chairman of Ways and Means has appealed to the House on the ground of the congestion of private business. I would add an appeal on behalf of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company, who are promoting this Bill, as to the necessity of getting it without further delay. Every three or four weeks make a difference as to the amount of progress that can be made with the work which the Bill authorises. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not wish to delay the Bill, because they realise that it is for expenditure on works on this side of the Channel which is absolutely necessary if the work already done is to be maintained under stress of weather in the coming winter. The company really feel that great and most serious damage will be entailed if this Bill cannot be proceeded with. The House will remember that twelve months ago a similar Bill was defeated. That might have been attended with serious results if we had had a winter like that before last. I appeal to hon. Members who are attacking the Bill on extraneous matters whether, having laid their case fully before the House on the Second Reading stage, they are not now putting the company in a false position by pressing their objections?
§ Mr. MOONEYI would like to get quite clearly to understand the ruling which you have just given as to the procedure on the Report stage of a Bill—namely, that it is not possible to discuss the measure fully and in the same manner as on the Second Reading. That is what I understood Mr. Deputy-Speaker to say. I am not opposing this Bill in any shape or form, but, as I understand, it is quite competent for any Member of the House on the Report stage of a Bill to discuss any Clause in it, and to show that the Clause goes beyond what the House thinks fair and right. I am not now on the subject of Clause 4 at all, nor am I saying whether the Instruction is in order or not. I am dealing with the Clause which gives the company power to raise more capital. Surely I would be entitled to discuss whether this company ought to get more capital or not in view of the way they have used their powers in the past: I wish to get a specific ruling on the question whether on a private Bill this House has power to discuss every Clause, and to add to it or to delete it, as long as on the Report stage the House does not attempt to do by way of Amendment anything which would not have been in order on the Second Reading. I suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that every Member in this House is entitled to move any Amendment he thinks fit, subject only to the ruling that, if it was not in order on the Second Reading, it would not be in order on the Report stage. I take no interest in this Bill at all, except in so far as regards what may happen under the ruling you have given to some future Bill.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe rulings of the Chair in previous cases have not been contrary to the view put forward by the hon. Member. All the rulings of Mr. Speaker and myself have confined the discussion within the scope of the Bill as we now have it in our hands, and we have not allowed the discussion to deal with such extraneous matters as might be in order on the Second Reading.
§ Mr. O'SHEEAs to what fell from the Chairman of Ways and Means, that we should have put our Amendments on the Second Reading, I would point out that Mr. Deputy-Speaker has stated that if we had put down Amendments within the scope of the Bill this would have been our opportunity for moving the Amendments. We have had no such opportunity. 1125 This Bill was put on the Notice Paper this morning without notice to us. I was not aware until three o'clock this afternoon that this business was to come up to-night. Therefore, it was impossible for me to put down a Notice of Motion of any kind. I do not know who is responsible for putting down this matter for to-night, but it has taken my hon. Friend and myself completely by surprise, and we have not been able to prepare Amendments to get a discussion on the points which we wish to raise on that Bill. According to the ruling of Mr. Speaker, he did not rule that the Instruction which I wished to move was outside the scope of the Bill, but he did rule that my Motion could not be considered as it was not on the Paper. I had no opportunity of putting it on the Paper at this stage, because I only knew at three
§ o'clock in the afternoon of it being taken to-night.
§ The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANSThe hon. Member is quite in error there. The Notices were given on Friday last and appeared in the Papers corresponding to this.
§ Mr. O'SHEEWe were quite unaware until this afternoon that this Bill was to be taken to-night, and for that reason no Amendments were put down. Therefore, I must persist in the Motion that this Debate be adjourned, and must divide the House on it.
§ Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 158.
1127| Division No. 58.] | AYES. | [8.58 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Hardie, J. Keir | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Boland, John Pius | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Hazleton, Richard | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Joyce, Michael | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Kelly, Edward | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Cullinan, John | Kilbride, Denis | O'Shee, James John |
| De Forest, Baron | Lardner, James C. R. | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Delany, William | Lundon, Thomas | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Reddy, Michael |
| Doris, William | McGhee, Richard | Sheehy, David |
| Duffy, William J. | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Molloy, Michael | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Muldoon, John | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Neilson, Francis | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Hackett, John | Nolan, Joseph | Field and Mr. F. Meehan. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Fell, Arthur | Hodge, John |
| Adamson, William | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Hogge, James Myles |
| Alden, Percy | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Arnold, Sydney | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Hope, Harry (Bute) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Gill, A. H. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gilmour, Captain John | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Barnes, George N. | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Glanville, H. J. | John, Edward Thomas |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East). |
| Boyton, James | Goldstone, Frank | Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Guiney, John | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Kenyon, Barnet |
| Cassel, Felix | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert |
| Chancellor, Henry | Hancock, John George | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Clough, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs). |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Cotton, William Francis | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Crooks, William | Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) |
| Currie, George W. | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Morrell, Philip |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) | Morison, Hector |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Norton-Griffiths, J. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hewins, William Herbert Samuel | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | O'Malley, William |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Higham, John Sharp | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Esslemont, George Birnle | Hills, John Waller | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Hinds, John | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Sanders, Robert Arthur | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Perkins, Walter F. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Peto, Basil Edward | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H. |
| Pratt, J. W. | Snowden, Philip | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Spear, Sir John Ward | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Scarborough) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Sutton, John E. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Swift, Rigby | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Talbot, Lord Edmund | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Robinson, Sidney | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Touche, George Alexander | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| Rowntree, Arnold | Walker, Colonel William Hall | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Watt, Henry Anderson | |
| Salter, Arthur Clavell | Webb, H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Weston, Colonel J. W. | Mr. James Mason and Mr. Baldwin. |
| Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Original Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
§ Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the third time.