HC Deb 27 February 1901 vol 89 cc1357-97


Order for Second Reading read.

* MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

I desire at the outset to say that if, by the chances of the procedure of this House, an opportunity is now afforded us of discussing this Bill, it is largely due to the kindness of Members on both sides who supported the protest I made yesterday, and to the opposition which has kept a debate that might very properly have occupied the whole of this afternoon within very narrow limits indeed. I have to acknowledge also the concession made by the First Lord of the Treasury in taking from the Paper today two of the three Sessional Orders which it was intended to submit for the acceptance of the House. I am, therefore, in the happy position of being able to give thanks all round.

The Bill, of which I have the honour of moving the Second Reading, proposes to enact that a person shall not in any one day of twenty-four hours be employed underground in any mine for a period exceeding eight hours from the time of leaving the surface until the ascent hereto, except in the case of breakage of machinery or explosion from fire-damp or any accident involving the stoppage of the working of the mine. The proposal has the disadvantage of being a more than twice told tale. * It is not a new one to this Chamber, even if it be to the present House of Commons, and if there is difficulty in finding new arguments in favour of it, it is, happily, equally difficult to find new pretexts against it. Nevertheless I recognise that at the present time I have to deal with a certain attitude of the public mind as regards the price of coal—the high price which I has ruled in the coal market for the past twelve months—and that attitude renders my task this afternoon a little more difficult than it would otherwise have been. One hon. Member has told me that the view of his constituents is, that so long-as the price of coal is kept up at its present level it is absurd for miners to desire to have their hours of labour reduced. I have observed, too. in the press a suggestion that if I were to include in the Bill a clause preventing miners taking too long holidays, then, my pro- * For the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in the year 1900, see The Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. Ixxix., page 1303. The footnote references there given furnish the complete Parliamentary history of the movement. posal would be received with more sympathy than it is likely to meet with now. I say, however, without fear of contradiction, that the high price of coal and the peculiar conditions of the coal market during the past twelve or eighteen months have not been in any respect whatever due to the hours of labour or the wages earned by the miners, and therefore I think this debate can well proceed without prejudice from that point of view. Coal has been rendered somewhat scarce and very dear by a series of causes entirely outside the condition of things which would be set up by the operation of this Bill. In the first place there was a boom in the iron trade in this country, and coincident with it there was a partial failure of the coal supply abroad together with a greater demand for coal for export. There was also a panic among the public. The demand for coal for home use was concentrated within a few weeks, and consumers laid in large stocks in a hurry, with the result that prices went up rapidly. Indeed, I have not the slightest doubt that many Members of this House not only filled their coal-cellars to overflowing, but also utilised part of the accommodation afforded by their wine-cellars, in order to secure a sufficient store of black diamonds. The panic was not confined to the well-to-do. In the East End of London I have been told there were cases in which the very poor, who were not the fortunate possessors of coal-cellars, actually stocked the commodity under their beds, because they feared that in the winter time prices would reach such a pitch that they would be unable to buy. Mine-owners and coal merchants were naturally not slow to take advantage of this state of things, and they realised enormous profits. But I want to make it clear at the outset that this panic and this congestion of the trade were not caused in any way by a restriction of the hours of labour of miners or by any increase of their wages. The men were, in fact, working practically full time in that period. They were working eleven days in the fortnight, and so far from their wages having caused the increase in the price of coal, I think I am well within the mark when I say that for every shilling added to the celling price of coal per ton the miner has not received more than one farthing, If it is the desire of the public to bring the price of coal within reasonable limits they should do so not by refusing to pass this Bill, but by considering whether coal should not be treated in the same way as gas and water, and a limit put by law upon the profits earned in its production.

It has been suggested that if this Bill becomes law the output of coal would be restricted, and that that would send up the price. But I have already pointed out that prices have gone up without the operation of an Eight Hours Bill, and I am now going to argue that the adoption of this measure would not cause any great increase in the cost of obtaining coal, and would not, for a long period at any rate, produce any restriction of the output. The temporary inflation of prices to which I have referred is already passing away, and I am told that, within the past fortnight, contracts for steam coal have been entered into at nine shillings per ton. The miners' wages remain practically steady under the agreement maintained by the beneficient operation of the Conciliation Board, the principle underlying that agreement being that there shall be a living wage with an irreducible minimum, that there shall be no unreasonable demand for a rise of wages above that minimum, and that there shall also be no unreasonable demand on the part of the employers to reduce them. I think it is for the general public to recognise that during the recent critical period not only have employers shown themselves reasonable in the matter of wages, but that the men, acting under the guidance of respectable and responsible leaders, have made no attempt to get an increase of wages contrary to the spirit of the agreement. I am told by my hon. friend the Member for Mansfield that it is agreed by mine-owners and mining agents and engineers that if the Eight Hours Bill is applied to the coal trade it will not add very much to the normal price of coal, and one estimate is that the increased charge for all purposes will not exceed sixpence per ton.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

It would not amount to anything like that.


That, I believe, is the case, but for the purpose of argument I have adopted an extreme limit, and I do ask the House to bear in mind how small will be the economic disturbance caused by the change embodied in this Bill. Then there is the question of the restriction of the output. There have been experiments—certainly not very many—in the direction of working mines on the eight hours a day principle, and they enable us to draw a conclusion as to the result. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division tells me that he has for a considerable period experimented in his own coal mines in this direction, and he assures me that, although there may have been some slight reduction in the output, he considers that on the whole the limitation to eight hours has worked advantageously, and that he has gained by the adoption of the eight-hour day. I should like the House to consider some further arguments on this point. The statement is that if you reduce the hours of labour you necessarily reduce the output. On the face of it that would seem to be a logical result, but I wish to point out that the restriction would be merely temporary, and by the play of economic forces and by intenser effort on the part of the miners the output would, after a short period, be brought back to what it was before the reduced hours came into force. Simultaneously there would be a reduction in the price. There would be more pits opened for working, and pits now abandoned when partially exhausted would in the future be completely exhausted, in order to bring more coal on the market, so that within a short period the normal condition of things existing before the reduction of the hours of labour would be regained. Therefore I am entitled to argue, with some show of reason, that the restriction of the individual output and the general output would be only temporary, that output would very quickly get back to equilibrium, and to the normal condition of the trade, with this great advantage, that you would have reduced the hours of labour of a great class in the community from ten to eight, and that you would have produced a great humanitarian reform which would give satisfaction to myriads of highly respectable, industrious, hard working artisans in this country. You would also take a long step along the road, on which of late steps have been rather infrequent, of factory and mining legislation generally, and set up another milestone on the path of progress towards, comfort and human conditions surrounding the work of all the people in this country. You would do this also at the cost of a temporary disturbance, which, financially, could not measure more than 6d. per ton, and perhaps not more than. 1d. per ton—a disturbance which has existed again and again for the profits of mine owners and coal agents during the period to which I have referred. As to output, there is no fear of the supply of coal not being adequate to meet the-demand for manufacturing and household purposes, for I have endeavoured to show that a disturbance of general output would be compensated for by the greater number of pits and workings-coming into play.

It will not be contended, I suppose, that miners working under ten hours-a day, at this date, do not get practically as much coal out of the mines as they did a hundred years ago, when they worked fifteen or sixteen hours a day. The intensity of the labour accounts for-some of it, but there are other reasons—improved mechanical appliances, better winding, closer and more enlightened organisation, and railways; and it is from these means that equilibrium would be reached after a brief disturbance. This House, apart from the difficulties of rules of procedure, does consist of men who are earnestly desirous of taking every opportunity they can of producing for the labouring population of the country improvements and reforms in every possible way in the conditions of labour. Who are the men who make this request from the House? If one studies the condition of the country a little more than a century ago he will discover that the miners of that day were a discredited class, ignorant, ill-mannered, and rather brutal. These were the days before Factory Acts, Mining Regulation Acts, improved education, and higher wages, which purchase more-in the market than of old time.

But different conditions have begun to exist in the class whose claims I am advocating this afternoon. I speak from. eight years personal knowledge of miners in the Nottingham district, and I venture to say that, all class prejudices and misunderstandings apart, the miners of to-day are as respectable and respect-worthy a class as you will find in the whole community. The miner is a taciturn man, who does not wear his heart upon his sleeve. He conceals his thoughts and emotions; but when you get below the surface you find a hard-headed, shrewd, frugal, industrious, respectable man, who deserves the consideration of this House. He is not a casual day-labourer, but a skilled artisan, who must serve, after his boyhood, a two years apprenticeship; and when men of that stamp come before this House to the number of 500,000, and express a wish for the passing of this Bill, I submit that the House will do well to give that wish every consideration. Think what work they have to perform ! Their labour is in the bowels of the earth. They know the upward rush of the earth, as they descend into the pit. They know the damp and the wet, the extremes of temperature, the risks of an inrush of water, the dangers of fire-damp and of falling rock. These are not the conditions in which we would like to labour; but they are conditions which bring about a great number of accidents every year. It has been estimated that 100,000 casualties occur every year underground in coal mines. The greater part of these are slight; but 850 men are killed and 3,650 are seriously injured. I am told that the percentage of killed I to wounded in a battle is ten, but it is much higher in coal mining. If the membership of this House was so dangerous an occupation that every fifteen months a Member was killed by accident, that forty-two were seriously and ninety slightly injured every twelve months by the fall of Blue-books or the explosion of oratorical gas, we should rapidly adopt for ourselves an eight-hours day. Boys under sixteen and over thirteen years of age can be compelled by law to work in the mines fifty-four hours per week. Of 700,000 persons employed in coal mines there are 45,000 under sixteen years of age; and my Bill applies to them as well as to the adults. When you consider the death-roll, the mutilations, and the maiming of the persons employed in mines, the House will not wonder that the miners, through their great organisations, come to this House and ask for the passing of this Bill.

I submit, in spite of the contradictions made before, and which will probably be made again, that something like five-sixths of the miners outside Northumberland and Durham ask for this Bill, and that a large proportion of the miners inside Northumberland and Durham would see the passing of this Bill with pleasure. I acknowledge with sorrow that a discordant note comes from Northumberland and Durham, and that that is the weak point in the prospects of this Bill passing. The hon. Member for Morpeth last year stated to the House that comparatively few of the men in Durham, and also I think in Northumberland, worked more than eight hours per day, that some of the boys only worked eight hours per day, and that the coal-hewers and other classes of adult labour worked less than eight hours per day. If that be so, these miners have secured what I propose by this Bill to apply to all the boys and adults throughout the country. I hope the House will not be led away by the plausible statement that the men are not united on this point into condemning the whole Bill. An hon. Member opposite stated on the last occasion that on a poll ninety per cent, of the miners voted in favour of the Bill. A poll was taken of the Durham miners, when 28,000 voted against eight hours, but 12,000 voted in favour, and 20,000 did not vote at all. Therefore I think I have some reason and justice for submitting to the House that there is not inside the area of Northumberland and Durham an unanimous opposition to the Bill. A cry has come year after year from the miners throughout the country for the passing of this Bill. It began in 1886, and attained its first expression in this House in 1892, when the Second Reading was lost by 112 votes. In 1893 the Second Reading was carried by seventy-eight votes, and in 1894 by eighty-seven votes. It came before the House again in 1897, when the Second Reading was lost by forty-one votes, and last year by twenty-four votes only.

I hope that in this first session of a new Parliament the Second Reading will be carried by a number which will show that whatever the last Parliament may have said on the point, we are determined to do what we can to help forward the humanitarian movement which I advocate. Sometimes in this House we hear Black Rod knocking at the door, and the summons, which is that of the Crown, or of the deputies of the Crown, is listened to by us respectfully. These miners are knocking at the door of the House this afternoon. It is not a summons of the Crown or of the deputies of the Crown, but a summons of men banded together, knowing what they want—of men upon whose labour the very foundations of the prosperity of this country are built, and upon whose labour depends our comfort and our trade. We listen with respect to the summons of the man with the Black Rod; I ask the House to listen with respect to the knocking of men with black faces. What shall we answer? Shall we tell them that they are strong enough to obtain their desire without the help of the Legislature, by means of strikes or agreements? That is the argument which is put forward, as a rule, on occasions like these. But is that an argument that ought to be put forward from a temple of legislation, from this House of Law, where all laws are made? Agreements are but temporary things. There have been agreements on this point, but they have broken down again and again. In one case in Wales the men were locked out nine weeks for demanding the fulfilment of an agreement for an eight-hours day. The trade unions of the country are turning more and more against strikes, and demand the regulation of these things, wherever possible, by law. I ask the House to intervene, and to remember that in regard to almost every other point but this the working of coal pits is already regulated in the closest and most minute manner by law. I ask the House to apply law to the question of the maximum hours to be spent in labour in the coal mines. There are some Members in this House, coal-owners, who are opposed to the proposal, but there are others who are equally in favour of it. Other Members there are who have been miners, who support it, and others who oppose it. I appeal to the impartial sense of the House to settle the dispute. We are told that accidents will increase, and that mining is an exceptionally healthy occupation; but all that is special pleading. I beg the House to forget the weakness of the advocate in the strength of his cause, and to carry the Second Reading of this Bill which I now move.

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

* SIR ALFRED HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.)

I congratulate the hon. Member on the courage which, in introducing this Bill, he has shown in facing what appears to me to be an impossible position. He has admitted, with great candour, that the effect of the Bill would be to reduce the hours of labour by two hours a day. At present the miner works only six and a half to seven and a half hours a day. That is to say, if you reduce the hours of labour by two, you reduce the time of work by something like 30 per cent. The statement that that will not reduce output seems to me to require no answer whatever. The hon. Member very courageously grappled with the point by suggesting that a man could do really as much work in eight hours as in ten. But at present miners are not working eight hours, but only six and a half or seven and a half, and to argue that to reduce these by two would not reduce the output is, I think, a monstrous proposition. The hon. Member said it would reduce the cost of getting the coal by, at most, 6d. per ton. Now, I have some knowledge of I the cost of getting coal—


I said the selling price of coal, not the getting it.


I think the hon. Member is very much further astray in making that statement. He may make some calculation as to what is the cost of getting coal, but to calculate what would be added to the selling price is beyond the hon. Member's ingenuity. Let me deal with the question of cost. The best opinion I have been able to form or to obtain is that the addition to the cost would be at the very least 2s., and in many cases as much as 3 s. per ton. But the effect of diminishing the output would add enormously more than that to the selling price. The hon. Member attributed the late advances in the price of coal to the fact that consumers had become alarmed and had filled their coal cellars; it is obvious that reducing the output percent, would add much more to the price than this. The output of coal would be reduced by from 20 to 40 million tons a year, and the effect of that would be not only to enable, but to compel coal-owners to double or treble the price of coal. [Laughter from the Opposition benches.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I assure them I am perfectly serious in the statement I am now making, and I have been engaged in the coal trade from my youth upwards.

I must say I was surprised that this Bill should be brought forward this session, for we have just had an object lesson as to the effect of the high price of coal. But if this Bill passed, what we have seen would be but a drop in the ocean as compared with what the effect would then be. There is not a Member in the House who has not felt in some form or another in his pocket the effect of the recent additional price of coal. Every man who holds shares in railway or gas companies has had his dividends diminished, and if he employs labour he will find that his poor workmen have had to pay 2s. or 3s. per week more for their coals. The British Government are buying bridges from America for Uganda, Egypt, South Africa, and Burma. We are buying American rails, and even coal is being imported into this country from Australia and America. Take one trade, with which I am best acquainted, the iron trade. The imports of pig iron in January, 1901, were 85,000 tons compared with 40,000 tons in the same month of 1900. The increase of imports of puddled iron is no less than 1,200 per cent., and of steel unwrought nearly 400 per cent. What is more serious is that while our imports have been increasing our exports have been diminishing. In January, 1901. the exports of pig iron were 177,000 tons compared with 528,000 tons in January, 1900, a reduction of no less than 66 per cent.; while the exports of steel unwrought were reduced 39 per cent. We have also seventy-four furnaces fewer at work, or a reduction of 20 per cent. I claim that the main cause—I would be scarcely exaggerating if I said the one cause—of all this has been the price of coal. Look, again, at how soon the price of coal begins to re-act on the workmen themselves. Only forty-six per cent. of the miners worked in the month of January this year for twenty days; whereas last year 68 per cent, worked twenty days. So that it is evident if this proposal of working two hours a day less were accepted and acted upon, retribution would follow on the workmen with very quick steps.

But look at the effect on the general community ! Coal is as much a necessary of life in winter as food; if women and poor children do not get warm in their houses they die as readily as if they were cut short of food. Intolerable suffering has been caused by the recent high price of coal, and many lives have been lost. Is the miner so oppressed, is he in such a bad position that the whole community must suffer, that all the manufacturing interests of the country are to be sacrificed or destroyed in order that people may be made to pay double or triple for a first necessary of life? The miner is so protected by the splendid organisation of his trade that on the very same day in which the newspapers announced a reduction in the price of coal of 3s. per ton, there was likewise announced an addition of 5 per cent, to the miners' wages. What is the position of the coal hewers at the present time? Suppose they are working by the day—I speak of my own district—they earn 5s. 8d., to which must be added 4d. for the coal supplied free, or 6s. a day in all. But if they work by piecework they earn from 6s. to 10s. a day.

MR. PICKARD (Yorkshire, W.R., Normanton)

They do not earn that wage.


They earn on piecework from 6s. to 10s. a day of six and a half hours in the Warwick- shire district. I can only give what happens in my own colliery with my own workmen, and I challenge any hon. Member to deny the truth and accuracy of the statement I have made.

* MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

How many hours winding?




Was it in the month of January?


The figures I have quoted have all been for the month of January. I have had a careful examination made of my accounts, and I find that on an average the individual miner works only four and a half days a week—although some work five and a half or six days. That is to say, the average miner works twenty-nine and a quarter hours per week. Is that so big a hardship that the Legislature should interfere and compel those miners to work fewer hours, who are willing to work more? The hon. Member who moved this Bill said that, owing to improved mechanical appliances and the greater skill and industry of the British miner, there had been a larger production of coal of late years than had ever been made before. I can give the hon. Member some figures on the point. In Great Britain in 1883 the average production per miner was 347 tons; in 1890 it dropped to 308 tons, and in 1897 it was still further reduced to 297 tons. That is to say, there had been a reduction in the average production per miner of about 20 per cent., instead of an increase, with improved mechanical appliances. That is not the worst of the case. If all the miners throughout the world were in the same condition, we might be able to hold our own. But while we are diminishing the output, miners elsewhere are increasing it. In the United States the production per miner was 443 tons in 1890 and 450 tons in 1897; that is to say, the American miner gets 50 per cent, more coal than the British miner.


What part of the United States?


I am taking the United States as a whole.


They use machines.


I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I will deal with that point presently. I say that the production of the United States miner is no less than 50 per cent, more than that of the miner in the United Kingdom. That is not because the miner there is more skilful than the miner here, but because he works more; instead of working six and a half hours, he works ten hours. The consequence is that in the United States coal is less than half the price that it is in this country. I must admit that there is a natural sympathy with a man who works underground—a sympathy which I fully share. He is exposed to very difficult conditions, and the labour which he has to undergo is very arduous. But I was so struck with the smaller cost of American coal that I sent out to America to inquire what was the reason for the difference, and I was told that the principal reason was that the American miner used mechanical appliances for coal-getting. I accordingly sent for these machines and introduced them into my pits; but I am sorry to say they were a complete failure. Every other day they would keep breaking down; something happened and they would not work. But I put to each machine an under-manager, and while the under-manager was with the machine, watching it, it was a complete and perfect success, and the output where the machine worked was doubled, and the men earned more money and had less hard work. I am sorry to say, however, that the moment the supervision of the under-manager was withdrawn the machines broke down again; and as I could not keep under-managers for all the machines, I was obliged to part with them. Now, it was said that a very large proportion of the miners—90 per cent., I think—are in favour of the Bill; but the hon. Member who quoted the figures did not explain how the percentage was arrived at. Meetings are called at the pit-head to discuss the question, and I am told that those who are in favour of the eight-hour day attend the meeting and vote for it, and that those who are not in favour of it keep away. It is a fact that in my own district not more than 10 per cent. of the miners attended these meetings, and of course it is very easy to arrive at unanimity when that is the case.

Well, we must come to the conclusion, beyond any possibility of doubt, that the effect of this Bill would enormously reduce the output of coal. Some authorities put it at as much as forty million tons; but supposing it were only twenty or thirty million tons per annum, the effect would be to run up the price to famine rate. First of all there would be a great rise in the price of coal, and the masters would gain much more than the miners. But when the manufactures of this country had been destroyed by the effect of high prices of coal, the whole thing would come tumbling down and we should have ruin all round. The hon. Gentleman spoke very feelingly about the dangers to which miners are exposed, and this is the very greatest and the strongest objection I have to this Bill—it would lead to an increase of accidents. We all know that the miner's life is placed in a very precarious position unless the props, etc., are carefully watched. But if he is working at high pressure, if he has got to do in five and a half hours what he ought to take six and a half hours to complete, then the proportion of accidents would be enormously increased. I have endeavoured to condense my observations on this Bill as much as possible, although there is a great deal more to be said about it. I think, as this is a new Parliament, there ought to be a very full discussion upon it, and I trust that there will be no attempt to burke that full discussion.

The Bill introduces a new principle, that of regulating the hours of labour of adult miners. The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Bill said that everything in a pit was regulated. Yes, there are a great many regulations, but all these are framed with the idea of preserving life and limb, not of limiting the adult labour of men who are in the full possession of their faculties. I have never heard of anyone being compelled to work in a pit, unless it might be a boy who was constrained to do so by his father. The effect of this Bill would be to prevent an industrious man, anxious to better his position in life, from deriving the full benefit of the fruits of his industry; and I venture to say that some of the most respected coalmasters, who were originally working miners themselves, would not have attained their present position if this Bill had been law. The effect of the Bill would be to reduce all to a dead level, and to prevent any man working more than six hours a day. Moreover, it is a Bill which would upset all the relations between the employers and employed. I believe it would be disastrous, first of all to the manufacturers of this country, second to the workmen, and last of all to the employers.

I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

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

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

* MR. FENWICK (Northumberland. Wansbeck)

I regret that, as this is a new Parliament, the time at our disposal is so short for fully debating the merits of this question, or at least of debating it in such a way as to justify us in taking a division on the Second Reading of the Bill. I must say that, so far as the mover of the Bill was concerned, none of us who are opposed to this measure, and will have to vote against it if we go to a division, can complain, in the slightest degree, either of the language or of the spirit of the speech in which my hon. friend moved the Second Beading. And that at all events is an improvement upon what has happened in past Parliaments when this Bill has come up for discussion in the House. My hon. friend the Member for West Nottingham has said, and said very truly, that this measure is by no means new to the House of Commons. This is the sixth time during the last nine years that the Bill has been brought before the House, and all those who have been so long in the House are no doubt familiar with the arguments for and against, and, as my hon. friend truly said, looking at the number of times this Bill has been before the House, it is difficult to find new arguments either in its support or its opposition; but as this is a new Parliament, it is only fair that we should state the ground upon which the question was first of all advocated by the Miners' Federation and those who are outside the scope of the Federation. My hon. friend has said it is not the object of this measure to limit the output of coal; but that was really the object with which the agitation in favour of this measure was originally begun. That agitation commenced in 1887, but it only arrived at an acute stage in 1888, and at the Bradford Trades Union Congress, when this question was debated, in a speech delivered by Mr. Samuel Woods, it was distinctly stated among other matters that it was to restrict the output of coal, which was about 20,000,000 tons per annum more than necessary. That was the distinct object with which the agitation was begun, but when it was found that the British consumer would have something to say in respect to any limitation of the output, then the promoters of the Bill took up another line of defence, as their second line of defence, and said that if the hours of labour were reduced employment would be found for a greater number. But the weakness of that line was at once pointed out, which was that if it was intended to keep up the limit of output of coal by the increased intensity of labour during shorter hours, how were you going to find room for more labour? Then when they find their position on these lines untenable, the promoters of this measure take up the third line of defence, that this Bill is calculated to increase the safety of the miners. If they convince me that this Bill conduces to the safety of the miners they have gone a great way towards disarming my opposition and the opposition of those whom I represent in this House. They intend to keep up the production of coal by increasing the intensity of labour, but is the rush and hurry which will thus be created not calculated to increase the risk of the miner rather than diminish the risk which he at present has to contend with? The increased intensity of labour is the very thing which causes in a number of cases the accidents which unfortunately arise from time to time.

Now, my hon. friend touched on the question of increased cost, if this Bill were to become law, and he treated that aspect of the question with a light heart; he practically disposed of it with a wave of the hand as being a matter of such small importance that it was not for a moment to occupy the attention of the House of Commons; but I think I shall show before I have finished that, so far as we are concerned in Northumberland, this question of increased expense is of great importance. It is not only calculated to disorganiseour industry, but to injure the men employed in that industry. The hon. Member referred to a statement made to him by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division of Nottingham, who speaks with great authority upon this subject and upon his authority alleges that this Bill would only increase the price of coal about sixpence a ton, and in answer to the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton he said it would not affect the cost of getting the coal, but the price of coal to the consumer; but if the cost of production be increased by only half that sum it would do much to drive us out of the market in which we have for generations been accustomed to trade. During the debate upon the Workmen's Compensation Act I stated that we in Northumberland had lost a contract with Russia that we had been in the habit of fulfilling for years and years on a margin of threepence a ton. Let hon. Gentlemen bear in mind that Russia was the chief foreign market for Northumberland, and threepence a ton increase would be a very large increase so far as we are concerned. Excellent as was my hon. friend's speech, it did not carry us any further forward. He treated this subject altogether from: an academic point of view, and gave no practical suggestion to get us out of the difficulty that confronts us.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean told the House last year, when this question was before us, that this was not an academic but a practical question of how we were to regulate the system of working our mines. From what takes place both in this House and outside, it would seem that the remedy for the present state of things rests with those who have had least experience of mines; and those who, like myself, have been closely connected with the industry for many years, are the only persons who are utterly at a loss for a remedy which would not inflict greater hardship upon those engaged in this industry. My hon. friend has also stated that there is no other industry whore the conditions of labour are so varied, and yet it is for such an industry as this that they attempt to make cast-iron rules of uniformity. You cannot carry-on such a business on such rigid lines of uniformity. If you are to carry on the industry satisfactorily you must have some elasticity; but those in favour of this Bill would tie us down to a hard and fast rule—a thing they are not prepared to ask for in other industries. My hon. friend said that this was the demand of labour: but is there any industry in the country which is prepared to adopt such lines as are attempted to be forced upon us by this Bill? The very furthest that the Trade Union Congress has ever gone is to pass a resolution for forty-eight hours per week. The whole thing seems to me to be ridiculous in the extreme. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the real difficulty in dealing with this question is the system which prevails in Northumberland and Durham—a system that has existed for more than two generations, a system by which one set of boys, working ten hours a day from bank to bank—[Cries of "Shame."] I shall have something to say in reply to that. These boys have to take away the produce of two sets of coal-getters working fifteen hours a day, calculated from bank to bank. To upset that arrangement would completely revolutionise the system of working our mines in the north of England. You would reduce us to one of two alternatives. You would compel us to adopt the single-shift system, much as we dislike it. In Wales they had thirteen months experience of the double-shift system, working eight hours a day; and at the end of that time a deputation waited upon the mine-owner and requested that he would allow them to return to the old system and work more hours. We have, therefore, either to adopt the single-shift system and dismiss a considerable number of our hewers, or we have to adopt the double-shift system with two sets of boys. Now, that we have fairly and fully considered, and we find it is utterly impossible to get the boys for a double shift. We should want additional boy labour, but we should not have any additional labour for men, and a man would not come into a neighbourhood merely to find occupation for his family if he could find none for himself. As I said before, our boys work ten hours a day. Somebody cried out "Shame," but we in the north are no more wanting in natural affection and parental instinct than you are in other counties, where, in many cases, your boys are employed for longer hours than we employ them in the north. ["No, no!"] I say. Yes, yes! because it is only two years ago that a charge was made that we worked our boys like little galley slaves; and what could be a more shameful charge? We are not more wanting in parental instincts than other men, but even if we were, that would not justify you in working your boys longer hours. When this question was before the House in 1894 we gave to the miners of all outside districts an opportunity of reducing the hours of the boys by agreeing to the passing of the Bill subject to a local option clause—the widest that has ever been suggested in this country by labour—by the exercise of the vote of a simple majority. But they were not prepared to take it for themselves unless they were allowed at the same time to inflict a positive injustice on the people of the north.

What is the case so far as foreign competition is concerned? In 1899 the output of coal in Northumberland amounted to 11,000,000 odd tons; out of that 11,000,000 odd tons we exported direct to foreign countries no less than 8,547,000 tons, leaving us for home consumption 2,693,933 tons. So that we in the north have no home market; we depend entirely upon the markets abroad, and the slightest increase in the cost of production would affect us very severely. To Russia alone we in Northumberland send only 708,000 tons less than the combined districts of Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Scotland, and although we have no ! home market, those who support this Bill desire to strike at these markets in which we have a so much larger interest. I protest against a measure of this kind being passed without due respect being paid to the difficulties which confront us in various directions, and I protest against this attempt to cast upon us this cast-iron uniformity. In conclusion I will say that, so long as we are unable to find for ourselves any practical solution for all these difficulties, so long as our friends who support this measure are unable to suggest a solution for them, it will be our duty to vote against this Bill, which, if it becomes law, is calculated to inflict considerable hardships on a great industry. I beg to support the rejection of the Bill.

* MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley)

I represent in this House more than 10,000 men and boys who are employed in coal mines, and I desire to enter my strongest protest against the way in which His Majesty's Government have curtailed the opportunity for discussing this most important Bill that we have now under consideration. Trades like that of coal mining—an exceptional trade, dangerous and arduous in its character—need exceptional treatment, and the 10,000 men of the Barnsley Division of Yorkshire whom I represent are unanimously in favour of this Bill now under the consideration of the House. I believe it cannot be denied that the great majority of those employed in coal mines throughout Great Britain also support this Bill.

What is the object of this Bill? It is that no one shall be employed underground for more than eight hours out of the twenty-four. Now there is one thing upon which I think we are all agreed, and that is that it is indefensible that growing lads of from thirteen to sixteen years of age should be employed underground in a vitiated atmosphere, deprived of daylight and sunshine, for ten hours a day, whilst their fathers and other men are underground for not more than seven hours. These boys are kept underground at a time when it is essential for their proper growth and development that they should have a sufficiency of day light and sunshine in order that their development may go on rapidly. In the rules of the Northumberland Miners Association in 1863, one of their objects was to shorten the hours of labour of boys in mines to eight hours per day. Then at the National Conference of Miners in 1893 the hon. Member for Mid Durham proposed this resolution— That in the opinion of this Conference the hours of labour in the mines are in the majority of eases excessively long, and can and should be materially shortened. So that we are practically all agreed as to the propriety of shortening the hours of boys employed in coal mines, because it cannot be denied that for a young lad to rise at five in the morning, go underground at six, and come out at four leaves him unfit for technical education or continuation schools. To such facts as these is also owing that alarming increase of physical deterioration in the British race which the enormous number of men who volunteered for service in South Africa, and who had been rejected as physically unfit, showed. Hon. Members of the House ought to make it one of their most important duties to safeguard the dangers of such work as this, so that the health of these lads should be protected to the greatest possible extent.

I regret that the short time at our disposal to debate this question entirely deprives me of the pleasure of showing to my hon. friend the Member for Wans-beck how the Eight Hours Bill might be applied to Northumberland. The only difference between us is that some of us are seeking to obtain this reform by trades union effort, whilst others think the shortest way is by legislative enactment. What was the result of voluntary effort? It was only by the passing of the Factories Act that boys under sixteen years of age were prevented from working underground for more than ten hours a day, and it was by passing the Coal Mines Regulation Act that the mines of the United Kingdom are to-day working under more satisfactory conditions than before.

The time at my disposal prevents my going into detail as to how I should apply this Eight Hours Bill. I am somewhat interested in Durham and Northumberland myself, and if I thought this measure was going to be disastrous to the iron, coal, and steel industries, I should not say a word in support of it. I do not deny that it may add to the cost of production of coal if this Bill is passed. I am to some extent a coal-owner myself, but I am willing that this Bill should be applied compulsorily at the collieries in which I am interested so long as it is applied to all competing collieries. So far as I am advised, the increased cost of production is not quite so serious as that quoted by the hon. Member who moved the motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. Two shifts of men and one shift of boys increased in number would not result in an increase of more than 2d. to 3d. a ton on the average, and with regard to the working of collieries you can only take the average. On both sides we are agreed on the desirability of shortening the hours of labour, especially of boys, and we ought to approach this question in that spirit. It would not be difficult for the masters to find a solution for the difficulties which confront them, and benefit the boys working underground. The issue before us does not affect coal hewers and under-ground datale men, but only a number of boys, and when we have improved the mechanical appliances for getting the coal from the working face to the surface, this concession can be given to the lads.


I rise with considerable diffidence to express my sympathy with the mover of this Bill. What has moved me in this matter is my solicitude on behalf of the boys who work so many hours in the mines, and, although I readily recognise the force of the argument adduced by my friend the Member for Wansbeck, I have not found it so affect my mind as to counterbalance my views as to the condition of these lads in the pits. These lads, many of them only fifteen or sixteen, go to work at six in the morning, and they remain in the pits till four in the afternoon—ten hours—and during the bulk of the year, with the exception of four days a fortnight, they never see the light of day. Now, I know that it is said that if you look at them you find them sturdy, healthy lads, and I remember that some years ago those who represented the mining interests of Durham and Northumberland then, as the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton does now, urged that there was no necessity on the part of Parliament to reduce the hours, that these children were so happy, and bright, and brisk and enjoyed life to such an extent that when they came out of the pits they gambolled about like lambs. We know from the Reports of the Government Commission that the health of the children materially suffered, and my observation has convinced me that morally, mentally, and physically these boys in Durham do suffer from their long confinement in the mines. Therefore it is not so much on behalf of the miners of Yorkshire and Derbyshire that I support the Bill, but what has moved me to come into conflict with some of my constituents has been my solicitude for the pit lads of my county. On that point I am not at all certain whether the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division really represents the majority among the miners. I know that he honestly claims that he does, but I have never hesitated, during the time I have been a Member of this House, now some fifteen years, to express without any fear or qualification my approval of the principle of a measure which will limit the hours of miners' work, and so protect the children from what I believe is an evil that exists under present circumstances.

May I refer very briefly to some of the arguments which have been used to-day? An hon. Member who opposed the measure used the stale argument that you have no right to legislate for adults. This is no innovation. Legislation for adults commenced in 1847 by the passing of the Factory Act. It is true that it was not eight hours, but ten hours, then; and by a series of legislative enactments, passed in spite of similar arguments to those used to-day, and passed through, the kindly interest of the Conservative party at the time, in 1850, 1870, and 1874 Parliament has directly or indirectly legislated upon the hours during which adults should be employed, and therefore it seems to me there is no force whatever in the argument which says. that people should be allowed to work out their own destiny by voluntary effort. Upon that point of voluntary effort may I make this observation? It seems to me—and it was aptly put by a former speaker—that it is very much better that the public through their representatives should legislate upon matters which affect the public at large than that a section of the population belong- ing to one particular trade, without conferring with others and without obeying what is the obvious desire of the public, should assert by voluntary effort what might be opposed to the interests of the others. In other words, this is a legislative machine for the purpose of giving effect to what is believed to be not merely for the interest of any particular class, hut what is believed to be for the interest of the community at large. I agree that that is an academic argument, and I do not want to press it. What does the hon Member for the Wansbeek Division mean when he contends that you are going to attain this by voluntary effort?


protested against the statement just made by the hon. Member. He never contended that this limitation should be brought about by voluntary effort. His position had been clearly stated throughout the whole debate.


I willingly accept my friend's renunciation of my suggestion. What I do know is that the argument is used in this House. Let me ask this question—How is it to be effected? It certainly car not be effected by voluntary effort on the part of the miners. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Because the employers have laid down a non possumus. I heard from the mouth of the hon. Baronet opposite that it means ruin to the trade of this country, and we have heard over and over again that the great bulk of the employers will not support the Eight Hours Bill. How can an eight-hour day be obtained except by legislation? It can only be obtained from costly, disastrous, and deplorable strikes, and I am not sure that it can be obtained by strikes. Anyone who takes the trouble to look through the records of strikes will find that almost every strike—or, at all events, a very large percentage of the strikes, for the reduction of the hours of labour—has been abortive.

It comes to this, then, if you are going to get an eight-hour day you must get it by legislation, or you will not get it at all. I admit freely that the economic difficulty is undoubtedly a serious one. I am not able myself to appreciate it. I am not able myself to thoroughly grasp what the consequences will be, but why is that? Because the Gentlemen who oppose this measure on the grounds of the economic difficulty do not condescend to give us any particulars. I should like to ask them this question—What is the rate of wages in relation to the cost of output? What, on the average output, do wages represent? I should like to know the amount paid in wages in reference to the question of profit. The very same arguments which are used to-day about the destruction of trade were used as far back as the year 1847, and if anyone will take up Hansard for that year he will find that practically he might be reading the very debate which is taking place in the House now.

There are one or two points to which my hon. friend the Member for Wansbeck referred to which I wish to refer very briefly. We were told there would be a decrease in the output and an increase in the price. We were told by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Wolverhampton that certain mines worked only twenty days in January, that the average time of the men's work was three, four, and five days a week, and that very often they did not work more than three days a week. Now, what do we propose to do? The Bill proposes, where a reduction would be necessary, to reduce the hours of labour by some hour, hour and a half, or two hours a day. Might I not fairly suggest to the hon. Baronet and to my hon. friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division that it is not an unreasonable argument that instead of working spasmodically, as you are doing now, three or four days a week for ten hours, you should work steadily for five or six days a week seven or eight hours a day? Therefore, it appears to me that, so far from tending to reduce the output and increase the price, you would simply have a regular and more persistent output and more regular and persistent employment. Let me say to those who are going to vote on this question, whether they be representatives of workmen or employers, that a large number of men of experience, aye, and some of them men who have risen from the position of working miners, will be found, not voting with the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, but voting with those who oppose him.

* MR. HIGGINBOTTOM (Liverpool, West Derby)

I rise to oppose the Bill. I do so on the following grounds. The hon. Member opposite asked—What is the rate of wages? I am in a position to give him the rate of wages that has been paid at my own colliery in three mines during the seven weeks of this year. I hope this will be an answer to his inquiry. The rate of wages has been 12s. per day in one mine, 9s. per day in the second mine, and 12s. per day in the third mine.


Are these average figures, or do they refer to individual cases?


These figures have only been sent to me by this morning's post, but I can vouch for their accuracy.

* MR. KEIR HARDIE (rising again amid cries of "Order!")

I was only asking, Mr. Speaker, whether they were averages, or applied to individual cases.


They are averages of the whole wages of each man for each week. The hon. Member would like the weekly averages. I can give them to him. I have worked them out for the seven weeks of this year, and they are as follows: 9s. l1d. per day for the first week; l1s. 7d. for the second; 13s. 5d. for the third; l1s. 1d. for the fourth; 12s. for the fifth; 12s. 1d. for the sixth; and 13s. 9d. for the seventh. These miners are supposed to work fifty-two hours per week. During this year they have worked forty hours per week, and the mines have been open every day from the 1st of January until to-day. The workmen might have been employed every day, but instead they have only worked an average of forty hours per week.

I am sent here by a very large constituency to oppose this measure, as I am sure it is against their interests. I represent one of the divisions of Liverpool, and if this Bill passes I look upon it as a most serious matter for the shipping industry of Liverpool. I look upon it as a most serious matter for the various trades in the county of Lancaster, particularly the cotton, chemical, and iron industries. I calculate that if this Bill is carried we shall have to lose in output something like 30,000,000 tons per annum. If the men had been at work, as they might have been, we should have had 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 tons more coal produced during the past year. I hope this House will not attempt to legislate at the present time. I believe that some of the leaders are anxious on the subject, but I do not think that the workmen, if they had their own way, are anxious for legislation.


I desire in the first place to call attention to the actual conditions of the coal trade. I shall do so very briefly, considering the limited time at my disposal. In the last issued Report by the Home Office the following sentence occurs— The most striking fact recorded in these mineral statistics for 1899 is the enormous output of coal, namely, 220,000,000 tons, showing an increase of 18,000,000 tons compared with the previous year. This country is now producing twice as much coal as it did in 1870, and probably nearly four times as much as it was in 1850. Durham and Yorkshire together are now yielding about as much coal as the whole of the United Kingdom half a century ago. That refers to the country as a whole. I thought from what has been stated that the coal industry in Durham and Northumberland must be in a very delicate position, but I find that the figures for these counties show an increase of 882,000 in the output for the year 1899. Much has been made of the statement that this Bill means a restriction of the output. There is no practical miner in this House, with all respect to my hon. friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division, who will seriously make that statement.


I did not make that statement.


I know you did not, but the House thought you did. This Bill does not mean restriction of the output. The figures given by the different inspectors in the various districts go to attest the fact that where the hours of labour are shortest the output per individual, other conditions being equal, is highest. That accords with all the experience we have had of the eight hours system. One way of stimu- lating the industries of Durham and Northumberland is to give the lads there a shorter working day. It is absurd to say that this would impose a burden on the people of these two counties. My hon. friend says that boys could not be found to equip a second shift if this Bill came into operation. A second shift would mean an increased output, and an increased output would require additional colliers to produce the coal, and this would naturally bring into the counties a sufficient number of boys to equip the two shifts if this Bill became law. I am told, sotto voce, that they are working two shifts in Durham and Northumberland—yes, two shifts of men and one shift of boys. We ask that the boys in these counties shall have their hours reduced to not more than eight per day. That would involve two shifts being worked of all hands instead of two shifts of coal-getters and one shift of boys. In regard to the cost of production, the hon. Baronet the Member for West Wolverhampton alarmed the House by speaking of an increase of 2s. or 3s. per ton as the result of the operation of this Bill. I was sorry to hear my hon. friend whointroduced the measure speaking of even 6d. per ton as the probable increase. We have heard these figures years before. The Workmen's Compensation Act was going to ruin industry by adding 1s. or 1s. 6d. per ton to the cost of coal. The experience of the working of the Act has proved that the actual cost is a little over 1d. per ton, and in some districts not so much; but I speak as a practical collier who has worked eleven hours and eight hours per day, and I can testify in this House that coal is produced in greater quantity, at less cost, and with more safety—a very important point—in the shorter working day than in the longer working day. I prove my point with regard to safety in this manner. A collier in a pit, when kept constantly at work, and when his hours are short, has all his faculties alert and active, he sees danger and makes provision against it; but when his hours are long inertia overtakes him, and he is not so alive to danger and so alert to protect himself against it. If it be true that the eight-hours day is going to add to the danger of the collier at work, why, I ask, do they adhere to the short working day in Durham and Northumberland of six and three-quarter hours? It has not increased the number of accidents; and if it has not done so in Durham, why dare any hon. Member say to this House that it would do so in other parts of the country?

I trust the House will not be misled by this fallacious argument. I use the word with all respect for my hon. friend. If the angels in heaven do weep, it must be when a representative of working men, paid by workmen to come to this House-to protect the interests of workmen, draws forth the enthusiastic cheers of employers of labour in opposing a measure which is introduced for the benefit of working men. I trust that the House will remember that this matter in regard to the Durham miners does not affect the principle of the Bill. It is a fair subject for discussion in Committee. It is a matter that could possibly be-arranged in Committee, and I confidently express the hope that no Member who otherwise would vote for this Bill will vote against it because of the opposition from the north of England. Whatever that opposition may be worth, is a question entirely and exclusively for Committee.

I trust the Second Reading of this Bill will be agreed to by this House, so that we may get rid of one large social question which excites more interest and arouses more support among people of all classes in the community than any other question. My hon. friend said that we only proposed to apply this rigid cast-iron rule to mining. He must have forgotten the Factory Acts. Under the Factory Acts we have the hours of labour rigidly regulated. No harm has come to the cotton trade on that account, and it is absurd to say that what was applied to the cotton trade with such marked benefit will not also be for the advantage of the mining industry.

SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

There has not been one solid argument brought forward by the promoters of the Bill to induce us to come to any different decision on this question from what the previous House of Commons came to. I have listened with very great interest indeed to the various speeches on this question to-day, and I must congratulate my hon. friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division, who happens to be ray own representative, on the, very clear statement he made of our case. I think the House will agree that not one solid argument which he advanced has been dealt with satisfactorily by those who have supported the Bill. Before the House should be induced to make a change on a great question of this kind, it is for the promoters of the Bill to show that that change is justified. I maintain that in the debate to-day, certainly, there has been no such justification given.

I confess I am very much surprised to find that workmen representing the mining industry of certain parts of the country are proposing legislation of this kind. The only thing which a workman has to sell is his labour, and here are those hon. Gentlemen coming forward and asking this House to tie his hands in dealing with the only thing he is at liberty to sell. Notwithstanding the sneers given at employers in this House to-day, I maintain that I am here as a representative of the working classes as much as any man in this House. The working class of the Division I represent sent me here specially to oppose this measure. I cannot help thinking that the feeling in favour of this sort of legislation is not gaining ground in the country. I have observed that although a, certain number of gentlemen have been returned to promote this Bill from mining-class constituencies, yet there are a number of mining-class constituencies which persistently send gentlemen who hold opposite views to represent them in this House, and when hon. Members who have supported this measure state to me that the bulk of the working miners in the federation districts support their action in supporting this Bill, I reply they have not yet proved to my satisfaction that that is the case. They have taken no general ballot in the constituencies, so far as I am aware. I feel sure that if such a ballot were taken it would be found that a very large number of the miners were opposed to this legislation. I put alongside this that certain districts in the mining federation persistently return gentlemen to this House pledged to oppose the Bill. I think the House will agree with me that there is grave reason to doubt that the federation districts are practically unanimous on this question.

I admit that it is a most difficult thing to get the House of Commons to understand this question. Whilst I have been present in the House and heard the movers of the different Bills on this question, it is very seldom indeed that there has been a Member moving the Bill who has understood the question. There has been a great deal said with regard to the effect of this measure. I am not one of those who give estimates, because I know you cannot depend upon them. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said it was an accepted statement when the Compensation Bill was before the House that it would raise the price of coal 1s. 6d. per ton. I challenge any Member of the House to point out to me where any such statement was made. I was present during the whole of the discussion, and, while I never pledged myself to any estimate, the sum stated was threepence per ton. I am happy to say that, so far as that estimate is concerned, the cost has been even less than that up to the present time. With regard to the effect of this measure, I am not going to say whether it would increase or decrease the output, because estimates dealing with a question of that kind are very unreliable. A colliery proprietor informed me that he put three pits on the eight-hours system, with the result, as regards output, that there was in one 22 per cent., in the second 22½percent., and in the third 23½per cent, reduction. I am not prepared to say whether that would occur over the whole area of this country or not, but I am prepared to say, as one who has had considerable experience in the working of mines and the selling of minerals, that there are times when a shortage of five percent, production as against consumption is sufficient to force up the price five shillings per ton, and there are occasions when an overplus of five per cent, as against consumption is a sufficient reason to bring the price down shillings per ton. The forming of estimates is quite unreasonable and unsatisfactory, so far as my experience goes. I can speak so far as the districts of Durham and Northumberland are concerned. While speaking of them I may say that I associate myself with almost the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division. We are certainly in a peculiar position, as eighty per cent, of the production is exported. I can give a striking instance of what effect foreign competition has on the prices in these two counties from my experience during the last week or two. We have seen in Durham and Northumberland prices fall quickly—at a much quicker ratio than in other parts of the country. Coals which sold twelve months ago for exportation at 16s. to 17s. are to-day 9s. to 9s. 6d. That reduction is much greater than in other parts of the country. It is because we have the competition of Westphalia, Belgium, and France to con-tend with, and wherever we send our coals these countries have reduced their prices so enormously that we have been forced to follow suit, and any decrease in the production would limit the area we now supply and would give an increased area to our competitors—the Westphalian and Belgian coal-owners.

I listened to the speech of my hon. friend the Member for the North-West Division of Durham with great interest. When he speaks in this House I am never quite sure which side he is going to take, and when he sat down I failed to hear whether he was in favour of the Bill or opposed to it. I think every employer of labour is extremely anxious, if he can see his way, to give the boys and workmen he employs the best conditions both as regards hours and wages. When the hon. Member says that no great benefit has resulted from conciliation boards of workmen and employers in the north of England, he does not know the facts. In 1870 or 1871 there was an important measure passed in this House dealing with the regulation of mines. I may say that a representative meeting discussed that question, and it was decided then to reduce the working hours of boys from eleven to ten. That is one instance where a practical result has come from

voluntary effort. If I had opportunity I could give a great many instances of that kind to show where it has been possible to arrange a reduction without interfering with the successful working of the industry. Many people act in dealing with a question of this kind with a light heart. In the north of England we have a system of conciliation boards and committees to deal with wages and all the conditions of employment in our mines. These boards have taken thirty years to build up. They consist of representatives of the men and masters, and if you pass this measure you completely upset the whole of this organisation. [Cries of "Divide."] I have a great deal more to say on the subject. I "Divide."] It has been stated again and again—["Divide."]—I do not think that the House has yet realised the fact that in Durham and Northumberland the boys are working exactly the same number of hours as in other parts of the country. ["Divide."]


I beg to move that the question be now put.


The motion of the hon. Member places me in a position of considerable difficulty, having regard on the one hand to the shortness of the debate and the importance of the question, and on the other hand to the length of time the measure has been before the country, and the extent to which it has been discussed inside and outside the House. On the whole, I have come to the conclusion that the proper course for me to adopt is to leave the House to decide the question.

Question put, "That the, Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 231; Noes, 184. (Division List, No.18.)

Abraham, Williaim (Cork, N. E.) Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy) Blake, Edward
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Bain, Colonel James Robert Boland, John
Aird, Sir John Barlow, John Emmott Bolton, Thomas Dolling
Allen, Chas. P. (Clone, Stroud Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Boulnois, Edmund
Ambrose, Robert Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Boyle, James
Arrol, Sir William Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol Brand, Hon. Arthur G.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bell, Richard Broadhurst. Henry
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Bryce. Rt. Hon. James
Austin, Sir John Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Burdett-Coutts, W.
Burke, E. Haviland- Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D. O'Shee, James John
Burns, John Helder, Augustus Partington, Oswald
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Philipps, John Wynford
Caine, William Sproston Henderson, Alexander Pickard, Benjamin
Caldwell, James Holland, William Henry Pirie, Duncan V.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside) Power, Patrick Joseph
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Rea, Russell
Carew, James Laurence Howard, Capt. J (Kent, Faversh Reckitt, Harold James
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Hozier, Hon. James Henry C. Reddy, M.
Causton, Richard Knight Hudson, George Bickersteth Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Hughes, Colonel Edwin Redmond, William (Clare)
Cawley, Frederick Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Reid, Sir R, Thrcshie (Dumfries
Clare, Octavius Leigh Johnston, William (Belfast) Remnant, James Farquharson
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. K. Jones, David B. (Swansea) Rickett, J. Compton
Cogan, Denis J. Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Coghill, Douglas Harry Jordan, Jeremiah Roche, John
Colville, John Joyce, Michael Roe, Sir Thomas
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Craig, Robert Hunter Kinloch, Sir John George S. Russell, T. W.
Yean, Eugene Labouchere, Henry Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Cremer, William Randal Law, Andrew Bonar Schwann, Charles E.
Crombie, John William Layland-Barratt, Francis Seton-Karr, Henry
Cullinan, J. Leeky, Rt, Hn. Wm. E. H. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Daly, James Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Shipman, Dr. John
Dalziel, James Henry Leigh, Sir Joseph Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Leng, Sir John Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Lough, Thomas Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Delany, William Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-shire) Lundon, W. Soares, Ernest J.
Dickson, Charles Scott MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich
Dillon, John M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall) Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk
Donelan, Captain A. M'Crae, George Stevenson, Francis S.
Doogan, P. C. M'Fadden, Edward Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Govern, T. Sullivan, Donal
Dully, William J. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Duncan, James H. M'Kenna, Reginald Tennant, Harold John
Dunn, Sir William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Elibank, Master of M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Ellis, John Edward Malcolm, Ian Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower
Evans, Samuel T. Markham, Arthur Basil Thomson, F. W. (York, A V. E.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Tollemache, Henry James
Farrell, James Patrick Mildmay, Francis Bingham Tomkinson, James
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith Milton, Viscount Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ffrench, Peter Mitchell, William Tully, Jasper
Field, William Mooney, John J. Ure, Alexander
Fison, Frederick William Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Wallace, Robert
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algemon Moulton, John Fletcher Walton John Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Murphy, J. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nannetti, Joseph P. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Flynn, James Christopher Newdigate, Francis Alexander Warr, Augustus Frederick
Poster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. Newnes, Sir George Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. Webb, Colonel William George
Gilhooly, James Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John Norman, Henry Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Nussey, Thomas Willans Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Gretton, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, Fred. (Norfolk, Mid
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Haldane, Richard Burdon O'Doherty, William Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hammond, John O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsh'd
Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Dowd, John Wylie, Alexander
Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East.)
Harwood, George O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.
Hay, Hon. Claude George O'Malley, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Hayden, John Patrick O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Yoxall and Mr. Jacoby.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Allsopp, Hon. George Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Anstruther, H. T. Baird, John George Alexander
Allhusen, Augustus Henry F. Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Balcarres, Lord
Baldwin, Alfred Graham, Henry Robert Muntz, Philip A.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christchch Greene, Sir E W (Bry S. Edum'nds Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Banbury, Frederick George Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Grenfell, William Henry Myers, William Henry
Bartley, George C. T. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Nicholson, William Graham
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Guthrie, Waiter Murray Nicol, Donald Ninian
Beckett, Ernest William Hain, Edward Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Bignold, Arthur Halsey, Thomas Frederick Parkes, Ebenezer
Bigwood, James Hamilton, Rt Hon Ld. G (Midd'x Paulton, James Mellor
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)
Bond, Edward Hardy Laurence (Kent Ashford Penn, John
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth Percy, Earl
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Pilkington, Richard
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Higginbottom, S. W. Plummer, Walter R.
Burt, Thomas Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Butcher, John George Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E. Purvis, Robert
Cavendish,VCW (Derbyshire) Hoult, Joseph Renshaw, Charles Bine
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Rentoul, James Alexander
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies Renwick, George
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Richards, Henry Charles
Churchill, Winston Spencer Joicey, Sir James Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Coddington, Sir William Kenuaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Kenyon Slaney, Col.W. (Salop Round, James
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Kimber, Henry Rutherford, John
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready King, Sir Henry Seymour Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Kitson, Sir James Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles
Compton, Lord Alwyne Knowles, Lees Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.
Cook, Frederick Lucas Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Corbett, A. Caineron (Glasgow) Lawson, John Grant Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cranborne, Viscount Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Leigh- Bennett, Henry Currie Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Leighton, Stanley Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cust, Henry John C. Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R, Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Spear, John Ward
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Stewart, Sir M. J. M 'Taggart
Dorington, Sir John Edward Lonsdale, John Brownlee Thorburn, Sir Walter
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent) Thornton, Percy M.
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Edwards, Frank Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Macdona, John Gumming Wason, John C. (Orkney)
Faber George Denison M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton)
Fardell, Sir T. George M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst M'Kiliop, James (Stirlingshire Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Finch, George H. Maple, Sir John Blundell Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fisher, William Hayes Martin, Richard Biddulph Wilson, John (Falkirk)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Fletcher, Sir Henry Milward, Colonel Victor Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)
Forster, Henry William Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Furness, Sir Christopher Moon, Edward Robert Racy Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond. Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh Sir Alfred Hickman and
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. Mr. Fenwick.
Colliding, Edward Alfred Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

The House divided:—Ayes, 212: Noes, L99. (Division List, No. 19.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Bain, Colonel James Robert Boland, John
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Barlow, John Emmott Bolton, Thomas Dolling
Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud) Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Boyle, James
Ambrose, Robert Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Brand, Hon. Arthur G.
Arrol, Sir William Bell, Richard Broadhurst, Henry
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Burke, E. Haviland-
Austin, Sir John Blake, Edward Burns, John
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Caine, William Sproston Helder, Augustus O'Shee, James John
Caldwell, James Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Philipps, John Wynford
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Henderson, Alexander Pickard, Benjamin
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Holland, William Henry Pirie, Duncan V.
Carew, James Laurence Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Power, Patrick Joseph
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Rea, Russell
Causton, Richard Knight Hughes, Colonel Edwin Reckitt, Harold James
Cawley, Frederick Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Reddy, M.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Jones, David Brynmo-(Swans'a Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Clare, Octavius Leigh J ones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Redmond, William (Clare)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Jordan, Jeremiah Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Cogan, Denis J. Joyce, Michael Rickett, J Compton
Coghill, Douglas Harry Keuyon, James (Lancs., Bury) Ridley, S. Forde (BethualGreen
Colville, John Kinloch, Sir. John George Smyth Roche, John
Condon, Thomas Joseph Labouchere, Henry Roe, Sir Thomas
Craig, Robert Hunter Layland-Barratt, Francis Relleston, Sir John F. L.
Crean, Eugene Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Rutherford, John
Cremer, William Randal Leigh, Sir Joseph Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Crombie, John William Leng, Sir John Schwann, Charles E.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lough, Thomas Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Cullinan, J. Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Seton-Karr, Henry
Daly, James Lundon, W. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Dalziel, James Henry MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Shipman, Dr. John
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Macnamara. Dr. Thomas J. Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan M Arthur, William (Cornwall Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Delauy, William M'Crae, George Soares, Ernest J.
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. M'Fadden, Edward Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (N'rthants
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Govern, T. Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich
Dillon, John M'Hugh, Patrick A. Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk
Donelan, Captain A. M'Kenna, Reginald Sullivan, Donal
Doogan, P. C. M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire) Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Tennant, Harold John
Duffy, William J. M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Dunn, Sir William Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Thomas. Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Elibank, Master of Markham, Arthur Basil Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Ellis, John Edward Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower
Esmonds, Sir Thomas Milton, Viscount Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Evans, Samuel T. Mitchell, William Tomkinson, James
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Mooney, John J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Farrell, James Patrick Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Tully, Jasper
Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith) Moulton, John Fletcher Ure, Alexander
Ffrench, Peter Muntz, Philip A. Wallace, Robert
Field, William Murphy, J. Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Fison, Frederick William Nannetti, Joseph P. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Newdigate, Francis Alexander Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Newnes, Sir George Warr, Augustus Frederick
Flynn, James Christopher Nolan, Col. Jn. P. (Galway. N.) Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Webb, Colonel William George
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Norman, Henry White, Patrick(Meath, North)
Gilhooly, James Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John Nussey, Thomas Willans Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid Willox, Sir John Archibald
Green, Walford D (Wednesbury O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Gretton, John O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Wilson, Henry J. (Yorks, W. R.
Haldane, Richard Burdon O'Doherty, William Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Hammond, John O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W. Woodhouse, Sir. J T (Hudd'rsh'd
Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Dowd, John Wylie, Alexander
Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Harwood, George O'Kelly, Jas (Roscommon. N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Hay, Hon. Claude George O'Malley, William Mr. Yoxall and Mr.
Hayden, John Patrick Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Jacoby.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Banbury, Frederick George
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)
Aird, Sir John Baird, John George Alexander Bartley, George C. T.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. Balcarres, Lord Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol
Allsopp, Hon, George Baldwin, Alfred Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.
Austruther. H. T. Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Beckett, Ernest William
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Balfour, Maj K. R (Christchurch Bignold, Arthur
Bigwood, James Guthrie, Walter Murray Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hain, Edward Myers, William Henry
Bond, Edward Halsey, Thomas Frederick Nicholson, William Graham
Boulnois Edmund Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld G (Midd'x Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Parkes, Ebenezer
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd. Paulton, James Mellor
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Harris, FLeverton (Tynemouth Pease, Sir Jose ph W. (Durham)
Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Penn, John
Burdett-Coutts, W. Higginbottom, S. W. Percy, Earl
Burt, Thomas Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd. Pilkington, Richard
Butcher, John George Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside Plummer, Walter R.
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Hoult, Joseph Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Howard, Capt J. (Kent, Faversh Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Remnant, James Farquharson
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hudson, George Bickersteth Renshaw, Charles Bine
Coddington, Sir William Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies Rentoul, James Alexander
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Johnston, William (Belfast) Renwick, George
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Johnston, Heywood (Sussex) Richards, Henry Charles
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Joicey, Sir James Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson
Colston, Chas. Ed W. H. Athole Kenuaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Ropner, Colonel Robert
Compton, Lord Alwyne Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Round, James
Cook, Frederick LUCAS Kimber, Henry Russell, T. W.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) King, Sir Henry Seymour Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cranboine, Viscount Kitson, Sir James Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Knowles, Lees Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J
Cust, Henry John C. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Sharpe, W. E. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of Law, Andrew Bonar Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lawson, John Grant Simeon, Sir Barrington
Dickson, Charles Scott Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Ed. H. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Smith Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Dorington, Sir John Edward Leighton, Stanley Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R. Spear, John Ward
Duncan, James H. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stanley, Edward J.(Somerset)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Stevenson, Francis S.
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S. Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Edwards, Frank Lonsdale, John Brownlee Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lowther, Rt. Hon James (Kent) Thorburn, Sir Walter
Faber, George Denison Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Thornton, Percy M.
Fardell, Sir T. George Lucas, Reganild J. (Portsmouth Tollemache, Henry James
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray
Finch, George H. Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Macdona, John Gumming Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir W. H.
Fisher, William Hayes M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wason, John C. (Orkney)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinhurgh, W.) Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon Malcolm, Ian Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Fletcher, Sir Henry Martin, Richard Biddulph Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Forster, Henry William Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Gibbs, Hn A. G. H (City of Lond. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Milward, Colonel Victor Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. (Bath)
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Colliding, Edward Alfred Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Young, Commanded Berks. E)
Graham, Henry Robert More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Sir Alfred Hickman and
Grenfell, William Henry Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute Mr. Fenwick.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.


claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

Forward to