MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.

HC Deb 12 June 1901 vol 95 cc176-212

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)

said the Amendment which stood in his name was to postpone Clause 1. The reason for postponing Clause 1 was because it was the usual procedure in very many Acts to make it the last clause of the Bill instead of the first. It was difficult to say what this Bill might be when it emerged from the stage of a Bill into an Act of Parliament, but if this Bill were to pass in its present form it would be the first Act of Parliament containing a restriction on the hours of labour of men over twenty-one years of age.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

No, no.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. and gallant Member is now discussing the Bill as a whole. He cannot do that on a motion to postpone the first clause. He must confine himself to reasons for postponing the first clause.

COLONEL PILKINGTON

said his reason for moving an Amendment to postpone the clause was that until the character of the Bill was made evident, and until it was seen what it would be, they could not give it any name. They could not say that the Bill when it was finished in Committee would be an Eight Hours Bill, for it might not be an Eight Hours Bill at all. Then there was the question of precedent. The description of a Bill was generally given much later in the Bill than was done in the present measure. The precedents that he would bring to the notice of the Committee were, first of all, the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, 43 & 44 Vict. In that Bill the concluding section (Section 1) was as follows— This Act may be cited as the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, and shall continue in force until the 31st day of December, 1887,' and the end of the next session of Parliament and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine, and all actions commenced under this Act before that period shall be continued as if the Act had not expired. That was one precedent. It had to do with labour, it had to do with workmen, and so it seemed to him that that of itself ought to induce the House to vote for his Amendment. But if it was the fact that one precedent was not good enough, he would quote the Canal Boats Act of 1877, 40 and 41, Vict. c. 60. The concluding section of that Act was as follows— This Act may be cited as the Canal Boats Act, 1877. The next Act that he would draw attention to was the Customs Act of 1876, 39 and 40 Vict., the concluding section of which was as follows— This Act shall come into operation on the day of the passing of this Act, and when cited in any other Act of Parliament shall be called the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876. But what might be considered on this occasion a more important and more convenient precedent was the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1876, 59 and 60 Vict., c. 43, the concluding section of which was as follows— This Act may be cited as the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1877 to 1896. It would seem that all the precedents he had so far given had connection with miners and mines. The next precedent that he came to was the Truck Act of 1896, 59 and 60 Vict., c. 44. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] An hon. Member said "Hear, hear." He must have had something to do with the passing of the Truck Act of 1896, and probably he would remember that what he was stating was the fact and was a precedent to follow in this case. The concluding section to which he referred—[Ironical laughter.] Of course, some hon. Members ought to know all these things. They were well up in these legal matters, but he believed there were many new Members of Parliament who, though probably well-informed long before they came to this House, had found it impossible to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with all these intricate subjects. He would suggest with regard to Acts of Parliament which did not attract general attention that they might still be most important, and that it was well on occasions such as this that as much information as possible should be communicated. The last Act of Parliament that he would put before the House as a precedent was the Conciliation Act of 1896, 59 and 60 Vict., the concluding section of which was as follows— This Act may be cited as the Conciliation Act of 1896. Almost all Acts of Parliament that he had cited had reference to mines and mining regulations, or had something to do with mines, and he therefore thought that it would be far better for the House to insert the clause much later, and postpone it now, so that when the Bill had been thoroughly discussed and amended, and made into a thoroughly good measure, which he thought it was not at the present time, then they could give it a good name.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 be postponed."—(Colonel Pilkington.)

MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)

supported the Amendment, and said that it seemed to be the general feeling of the Committee that Clause 1 should be postponed. Supposing some alteration was made later on with regard to the limiting of the hours of labour, what would happen? If they passed the first clause, after discussing the other clauses and various Amendments, and taking all sorts of divisions, they would finally have to amend the Bill, and amend the first clause by altering the title. The altering of titles by side notes was no use whatever. The title must appear in one of the clauses, and it seemed a most reasonable proposal that the clause giving the title to the Act should be postponed until the other clauses had been considered. The Bill was an absolutely unworkable measure, and even if they passed it verbatim as it stood at present, the supporters of the measure would find it absolutely unworkable. It must be admitted all round that Amendments were necessary, and if Amendments were carried there was every probability that the title would require alteration. At the present moment it was a very one-sided Bill, and was not worth passing into law in its present form.

MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)

said that this measure was purely an Eight Hours Bill.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

Hear, hear.

MR. JOHN WILSON

said he could quote even the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean as an authority in favour of this clause being postponed.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

You cannot.

MR. JOHN WILSON

said that upon one occasion the right hon. Baronet came down to speak in the North of England, his mission being to convert the people there to his way of thinking. In his speech he spoke of the difficulty of applying an eight hours day to the various trades of this country, and he instanced the railways, the shipping, and agriculture, and he said that there were obvious difficulties in applying a rigid Eight Hours Bill to those trades. The right hon. Baronet in the same speech went on to say that there was no occupation in which the conditions of work varied so greatly as in the mining industry. He thought that now the right hon. Baronet would be inclined to agree with his contention.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

No.

MR. JOHN WILSON

If the right hon. Baronet will belie his own thoughts, then I must pass him by. There was an Amendment on the Paper providing for forty-eight hours a week, and there were many reasons why the making of a rigid eight hours day would affect the miners very unfairly. He thought he could quote even the Secretary for the Colonies in favour of this contention. There were deep and shallow mines, and the miners had to travel a very long way in some mines to their work, whilst in others they had not to travel so far. Then, again, there were different degrees of hardness and easiness in the working of the mines, and a Committee of experts considering the question of shortening the hours of labour should take into consideration those different degrees. If the first clause was carried, then this measure would be an Eight Hours Bill for everybody. Having regard to the complications and the various conditions of work, it was necessary that some men should work longer than the others.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The question before the Committee is the postponement of this clause.

MR. JOHN WILSON

said what he wished to point out was that if the first clause was adopted as it stood at present, many of the Amendments on the Paper could not be introduced. What harm could it do to the Bill to postpone the first clause? He supported the motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, and he hoped the House would agree to the postponement of the clause.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)

The reluctance of the opponents of this Bill to accept this very reasonable proposal seems to rest on some occult reason with which we are not fully acquainted. This proposal is undoubtedly a reasonable one, which I think the Committee might accept. I cannot see under ordinary circumstances that it will make the smallest difference whether the title appears in the first clause or not. This induces me to ask a question upon a point of order. I wish to know if this clause is affirmed now will it be competent for any hon. Member of the House to move any Amendment which would have the effect of altering the eight hours principle, whether up or down? It seems clear that if my supposition that this clause carries the whole principle of the Bill is correct it would be out of order to move any such Amendment, for then the whole question would have been debated upon this clause. Therefore I wish to ask you, Mr. Lowther, whether, if this clause is affirmed by the Committee, it will be in the power of any hon. Member to move an alteration of the eight hours, either up or down?

*THE CHAIRMAN

In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that any Amendment controverting the main principle would be admissible if the Committee assents to the title "Mines (Eight Hours) Bill." Such an assent would naturally be taken as an assent to the principle that the hours of labour are to be limited to "eight hours." Any Amendment in direct opposition to that could not be put.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

The right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked whether there is any occult reason for objecting to this clause being postponed. I think it is only right that we should be perfectly frank with the Committee upon this point. Those who were in the House on the last occasion when this Bill got into Committee after being read a second time will remember that the promoters dropped the Bill altogether upon a certain Amendment being carried. It is the case that we regard eight hours as the fixed principle of this Bill, and if any other figure is carried we should abandon the Bill altogether rather than accept anything else.

MR. SEELY (Lincoln)

asked if it would be in order if Clause 1 were adopted to afterwards move that the Bill should not apply to certain mines.

*THE CHAIRMAN

That possibly would be in order, because it does not controvert the general principle of the Bill.

*MR. RITCHIE

Under your ruling, I presume that the whole question of the principle of this Bill is now open for discussion. [Cries of "No, no."] I think I am right in saying that the whole question of the eight hours principle is before the Committee.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think that would arise on the next Amendment, which proposes to leave out "eight" and insert "ten."

*MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydfil)

asked whether it was not the usual practice of the House to consider the title of a Bill last. He wished to know whether the bringing on of this clause first would not defeat this practice.

*THE CHAIRMAN

There is no Standing Order with regard to that. The Standing Order provides that in any Bill which is of a temporary nature the duration of the Bill should appear last. There is no Standing Order to the effect that the short title must come last.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite what objection he sees to taking the opinion of the House upon the question of eight hours, because, after all, that is really the important thing. That is the real question, and the sooner it is determined the better, for it would save them a great amount of time. It would, in my opinion, be a clear advantage if the opinion of the House was taken upon the question of eight hours.

*MR. RITCHIE

I do not see any objection to taking the opinion of the House upon the question of eight hours, but when I rose I did so, not to make any objection, but to get to know exactly how we stood in the matter.

EARL PERCY (Kensington, S.)

asked whether they would be able when they came to the next Amendment to discuss the question whether the hours should be ten instead of eight. He understood from the Chairman's ruling that it would be impossible to discuss the question of the limiting of hours at all if Clause 1 was agreed to.

*THE CHAIRMAN

If the words "eight hours" are struck out of the first clause, then Clause 1 would read, "This Act may be cited as the Mines Act, 1901." Therefore, when we reached the second clause any Amendment limiting or extending the hours might be in order. But if the words "eight hours" remain in the first clause, I think I shall be bound to accept the decision of the House upon it, and exclude all Amendments which would alter that decision.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorganshire, Rhondda)

said it was all very well for hon. Members to ask them to postpone this clause, because they all knew what postponement really meant. The object of postponing the clause was simply to endeavour to defeat the Bill. It was not at all likely that hon. Members opposite would vote for ten hours instead of eight, and they were not afraid of this Bill on account of any danger of increasing the number of hours. If the question of the principle of the Bill was to be fought, it might as well be fought at once, because people would be able to see the real reason for this motion if they took the division at once. They did not need to enter into the question as to whether this, that, or the other could be done afterwards. His object in rising was to endeavour to clear what was supposed to be a great difficulty out of the way.

MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

pointed out that the limitation of eight hours was the very essence of this Bill, which principle was affirmed on the Second Reading. Although there were points of detail in connection with the Bill which might be fairly considered during the Committee stage, he did not think that the promoters would assent to any alteration which would defeat the object of the Bill, and which would defeat the intention of the Second Reading. He appealed to the Committee to take a division at once.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think I ought to point out to the Committee that at the present moment this discussion should be limited to the question of postponement. We really have not yet reached Clause 1. When it is reached I shall then be called upon to decide the principle. Until the Committee has settled whether it will postpone the clause or not, hon. Members are not entitled to discuss this question.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

wished to know whether, under the Chairman's ruling, the promoters of this Bill would be able to fight the principle of the measure all over again on the first clause, which professed only to deal with the title. If so, it was a grave departure from their usual Parliamentary practice, and if upheld, would undoubtedly land them on future occasions in very great difficulties. He thought as a businesslike assembly they ought to consider the actual proposals to be made in this Bill, in order to see how many of them could be amended, rather than have a Second Reading discussion on the principle of this clause. It was not in the interest of the Bill itself that this clause should be taken first, and in the interests of Parliamentary procedure they ought to assent to the motion to postpone this clause.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The hon. Member who has just sat down has stated that it is the usual practice to settle the principle of a Bill last. My experience is that the draughtsman always puts the principle in the Bill as early as possible, in order that it may be disposed of. That is the principle which I think we have always pursued. As a rule, the whole object of the draughtsman is to put the most controversial part in the first clause, so that we may know what the opinion of the House is upon it. This Bill is either an eight hours Bill or it is not; therefore the opinion of the House may just as well be taken, in order to decide that principle at once, instead of going on fighting a number of small details without determining the principle.

*MR. RITCHIE

The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to me upon this point, and I can confirm what he says in regard to drafting. We always endeavour to put the vital clause at the beginning. That, however, is different to what has been done in this particular case. I do not remember in all my experience that there has ever been a case in which the title has appeared first as a title embodying the whole principle of the Bill, and shutting out all Amendments and alterations. I do not believe that a single case of this kind can be quoted. I know there are many cases in which the title has appeared in the first part of the Bill, although in a great majority of the Bills the title appears at the end. I do not believe that any Member of this house can give an instance in which the title has been placed first when that title embodies the whole principle of the Bill, thus shutting out all Amendments afterwards. I do not believe that there is another case of this kind.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The title in this case is the Bill, just as Egypt is the Nile.

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

said he had never known a case before where the whole principle of the Bill was embodied in the name of the measure. He presumed that the reason for this was that the House recognised that if the whole principle was fixed in the name it would prevent many hon. Members from discussing important details, which were absolutely necessary if the measure was to be made a useful one. He could not understand why the promoters refused to pursue the course which was usually followed in connection with matters of this kind. The promoters of the Bill pretended to be frank in this matter, but he was not satisfied with the character of their frankness, and he was inclined to believe that they had not shown all their mind upon this question. He had an Amendment on the Paper to provide that instead of eight hours being the limit per day it should be fifty hours per week. He looked upon this Bill as a measure to reduce or regulate the hours men worked in coal mines, and he maintained that if it had been known upon the occasion of the Second Reading that the details of the Bill would have been controlled in such a way as the promoters now proposed to control them, many of those who supported the Second Reading would not have done so. He thought this was an attempt to take an unfair advantage of the House, and evidently what they wanted to do by this course was to prevent hon. Members who opposed the Bill from stating their case. And why? Because they believed that the opponents of the measure had such a strong case that they would be able to influence the House, and that they would be able to introduce such Amendments as were demanded by many parts of the country. If the House allowed this Bill practically to be settled by the principle contained in the first clause, he was satisfied that, instead of draughtsmen preparing Bills in the usual form, they would try and put the most important matter of the Bill first, so as to prohibit the discussion of details. He hoped the House would not agree to their hands being tied in this matter, because he was satisfied that there were many questions which would be shut out from discussion if they agreed to this motion for postponing Clause 1.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said the promoters of this Bill were asking the Committee to sanction an innovation of the most objectionable kind, and they were taking up an attitude in regard to this question for which the miners would not be grateful.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

May I be allowed to point out that when this Bill was defeated in Committee upon the last occasion the objection now raised was not taken, and this clause was discussed without the slightest difficulty.

EARL PERCY

said he thought it was advisable that they should thoroughly understand what effect the postponement of this clause would have. He understood that the Chairman ruled that, if this clause were passed, it would not be competent to discuss the number of hours which should be worked in all mines. He wished to ask whether it would be out of order to move to exclude any part of the country upon that ground.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think that a motion for "local option" in the adoption of an eight hours day for miners would be out of order.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

This clause contains the words "eight hours." I presume that it would be competent for anybody to substitute anything for "eight hours" by an Amendment. My hon. friend behind me might have put fifty hours a week, or else might propose nine hours or eight and a half hours as an Amendment to the word "eight." I imagine, Mr. Lowther, that this is so, and that this proposal will not shut out any Amendment that may be proposed.

*THE CHAIRMAN

What I said was that if the clause passed in its present form, then I could not admit any Amendment varying it. Until the House has assented to the day being eight hours it is possible to amend the title.

*MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)

asked if it would be competent for him or any other Member upon Clause 2 to move instead of "one day of twenty-four hours," say a week or a month.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland. Wansbeck)

asked, when Clause 1 was put from the Chair, would it be competent to discuss the principle of eight hours, or would that clause be put from the Chair and accepted without any further discussion?

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member asks me what would happen if the motion now before the Committee were to be withdrawn or rejected. In that case I should have to call upon those hon. Members who have given notice to move their Amendments on Clause 1. Then the clause as amended would be put in the ordinary way. When that clause was disposed of it would not be competent to admit, on Clause 2, any Amendment which controverts the principle laid down in Clause 1. The whole principle of the Bill could be discussed on that clause.

MR. FENWICK

Supposing there is no Amendment carried to Clause 1 and the question is put "that this clause stand part of the Bill," would it be open to discuss the general principle embodied in that clause or not?

*THE CHAIRMAN

That is rather a difficult question to answer. If the discussion has really ranged round the question of eight hours and then I put Clause 1, I think I should have to rule that the whole question was open. There might be some details with regard to it to be filled in on Clause 2, and that really is one of the difficulties in dealing with the principle of the Bill on the short title.

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

said he had very little to say on this point. He took it for granted that those who were trying to postpone Clause 1 would oppose everything else throughout the Bill. He believed that their main object was to continue talking so that they would not get beyond a certain point. He had worked in the pits himself for twenty years, and he considered eight hours was long enough for any man to work in a coal mine. He could not see the utility of talking any further upon this question, which they would carry to a division. They claimed the support of the Government in carrying this Bill into law. The supporters of the measure believed that this was a fair and a just Bill, and eight hours was the principle of it. He wished that principle to be maintained so that it could be carried into law, and then the Tory Government would have the honour of having passed the Eight Hours Bill.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

thought the suggestion made by the Chairman was an admirable one. The words "eight hours" might be omitted altogether from the clause, and the Bill would then be called "the Mines Act, 1901." He thought the Chairman's suggestion might be very well adopted by the promoters of the Bill.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I did not make that as a suggestion. What I said was that it would be competent for the House to strike out the words "eight hours," and that would have left the discussion open.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

thought that almost amounted to a suggestion, and it was a very valuable one. The Bill was described as one to restrict the hours in mines to eight hours per day from bank to bank. He wished to know if those words "from bank to bank" would be imported into the clause if it was carried as it stood at present. This was a most important point, for he had always felt that eight hours a day was enough to work in a mine, but when they adopted the bank to bank principle it was a very different thing.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think the words per day must be understood to mean an eight hours day. As to when those hours begin or cease, that is a matter for future decision.

MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydfil)

said he hoped the House would go to a division on this point. He thought that every Member of the House who was returned pledged to vote for an eight hours day in mines had no option but to vote for Clause 1 of the Bill.

*COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, Ince)

was understood to say that he had been returned by a mining constituency pledged to vote against the Eight Hours Bill, although he knew that at that time many mining organisations were in favour of it, but the older miners individually felt, he believed, that if the Bill passed they might be forced to work six days instead of five per week.

SIR JAMES JOICEY

wished to know exactly where they stood. Were they by this motion going to tie up the whole Bill? This was the first time he had known a case where the title of a Bill had shut out the debate upon any other part of the measure. Had they known their hands would have been so tied they would have raised the question before. This was a matter of vast importance.

MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stowmarket)

, suggested as a compromise that Clause 1 should be postponed until after Clause 2.

*MR. JOHN WILSON (Falkirk)

said as one who had had a lifelong experience of the practical working of coal mines, and who had voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, he was bound to say that the title of the Bill had placed him in a considerable difficulty, If the promoters intended to beg the question in this way, and thus exclude what he considered reasonable amendments, then, although he was one of their supporters, he must at this stage vote against them.

MR. YOXALL

said the question was whether they should or should not discuss the principle upon Clause 1.

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

said that he apprehended that the title of a Bill was always postponed so that it could be amended in accordance with any Amendments made to the clauses. He thought the hon. Member for Falkirk was under a misapprehension upon this point.

MR. BANBUEY (Camberwell, Peckham)

said he could not possibly conceive why any person should object to the title being postponed. It seemed to him that the only reason why the promoters opposed this course was that they were determined to pass this Bill without any amendment of any kind. If that was so, as soon as the Committee understood it the better. He was certain that a Bill of this kind was not going to get through without any amendment. If the promoters desired that no time should be wasted they ought to agree to postpone Clause 1. This was a very serious question, because they were really considering whether they should have a fair discussion of the Bill or not. The question of what the measure was to be called really did not arise at all, and he sincerely hoped that they would go to a division, and that this clause would be postponed.

*MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)

asked, if Clause 1 was passed, would eight hours be the maximum and not the minimum? Would it be possible for a mine owner to move an Amendment of which the effect would be that anyone going down to work in his mine would have to stay for the full eight hours?

*THE CHAIRMAN

I will rule upon that point when I see the Amendment.

COLONEL PILKINGTON

said his desire was to get a full and thorough discussion of the measure, and he wanted to get rid of this stifling clause.

MR. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)

said he was one of those who liked to see an Act of Parliament brought before the House in such a manner that, when it had to be enforced by His Majesty's judges, there would be some reasonable chance of them understanding it without leading to innumerable lawsuits. He was astonished that there should be any discussion as to the postponement of this clause. If the Bill was an Eight Hours Bill, everybody would know from its title what it proposed to do. Therefore he could not understand why hon. Members on either side of the House should propose to postpone the clause, unless it were for the purposes of obstruction. Many of them were quite prepared to fight this question upon its merits, and the tactics of those who desired to postpone the clause were very unwise. He held his own opinion as to the advisability of controlling the hours of labour in regard to persons of adult age, and he certainly thought this clause ought to be fought out upon its merits, and they should vote upon it before they proceeded further. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] He should divide in time no doubt, If this Bill was going through at all, then he thought that Clause 1 ought to be a part of it.

Question put.

The Committee divided.—Ayes, 167; Noes, 201. (Division List No. 248.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F	Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Denny, Colonel
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Allsopp, Hon. George	Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield
Anstruther, H. T.	Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Doughty. George
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Bullard, Sir Harry	Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Burt, Thomas	Duncan, J. Hastings
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cameron, Robert	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Edwards, Frank
Balcarres, Lord	Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.
Baldwin, Alfred	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds	Chapman, Edward	Fenwick, Charles
Banbury, Frederick George	Coddington, Sir William	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bill, Charles	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Fisher, William Hayes
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Fletcher, Sir Henry
Bond, Edward	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Forster, Henry William
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn	Dalkeith, Earl of	Furness, Sir Christopher
Brassey, Albert	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Galloway, William Johnson
Garfit, William	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Rentoul, James Alexander
Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.	Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Gore, Hn. G. R C Ormsby-(Salop	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Ropner, Colonel Robert
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)	M'Calmont, Col. H L B (Cambs.)	Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter
Graham, Henry Robert	M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)	Majendie, James A. H.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Malcolm, Ian	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)	Manners, Lord Cecil	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside
Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)	Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks
Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N. W.)	Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)	Stevenson, Francis S.
Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.	Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Morrell, George Herbert	Stock, James Henry
Higginbottom, S. W.	Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Hill, Arthur	Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford	Tollemache, Henry James
Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)	Mount, William Arthur	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hobhouse, H. (Somerset, E.)	Muntz, Philip A.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Hope, J. F. (Sheff'ld, Brightside	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Houston, Robert Paterson	Myers, William Henry	Walker, Col. Wm. Hall
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.
Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. L.	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Joicey, Sir James	Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Parkes, Ebenezer	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Kimber, Henry	Paulton, James Mellor	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Kitson, Sir James	Pease, Herbt. P. (Darlington)	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.	Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Laurie, Lieut.-General	Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.	Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Law, Andrew Bonar	Percy, Earl	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Lawson, John Grant	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Plummer, Walter R.	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Purvis, Robert	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)	Pym, C. Guy
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Rankin, Sir James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)	Reid, James (Greenock)	Lieut.-Col. Pilkington and
Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Mr. Knowles.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Griffith, Ellis J.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Craig, Robert Hunter	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Crean, Eugene	Hain, Edward
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud	Crombie, John William	Hammond, John
Arrol, Sir William	Cullinan, J.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Atherley-Jones, L.	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil
Austin, Sir John	Delany, William	Harwood, George
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Hayden, John Patrick
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Dillon, John	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.
Bell, Richard	Donelan, Captain A.	Helder, Augustus
Black, Alexander William	Doogan, P. C.	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Blake. Edward	Duffy, William J.	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)
Boland, John	Dunn, Sir William	Holland, William Henry
Boyle, James	Elibank, Master of	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Brand, Hon. Arthur G.	Ellis, John Edward	Horniman, Frederick John
Brigg, John	Emmott, Alfred	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Broadhurst, Henry	Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)	Hughes, Colonel Edwin
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Bull, William James	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Field, William	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U
Burns, John	Fison, Frederick William	Kennedy, Patrick James
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Caldwell, James	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Flower, Ernest	Labouchere, Henry
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Flynn, James Christopher	Lambert, George
Causton, Richard Knight	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	Langley, Batty
Cawley, Frederick	Fuller, J. M. F.	Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Gilhooly, James	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Clancy, John Joseph	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Leamy, Edmund
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)
Cogan, Denis J.	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn	Leigh, Sir Joseph
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Levy, Maurice
Colville, John	Green, Walford D (Wednesbury	Lewis, John Herbert
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Gretton, John	Lloyd-George, David
Lough, Thomas	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Lundon, W.	O'Malley, William	Shipman, Dr. John G.
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	O'Mara, James	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsbire)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
M'Crae, George	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Soares, Ernest J.
M'Dermott, Patrick	O'Shee, James John	Spear, John Ward
M'Govern, T.	Partington, Oswald	Spencer, E. (W. Bromwich)
M'Kenna, Reginald	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)	Strachey, Edward
M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Perks, Robert William	Sullivan, Donal
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Philipps, John Wynford	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Markham, Arthur Basil	Pickard, Benjamin	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire	Pirie, Duncan V.	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Milton, Viscount	Power, Patrick Joseph	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Mooney, John J.	Price, Robert John	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Moss, Samuel	Priestley, Arthur	Tomkinson, James
Murnaghan, George	Randles, John S.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Rea, Russell	Ure, Alexander
Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Reddy, M.	Wallace, Robert
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Redmond, William (Clare)	Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Norman, Henry	Reed, Sir E. James (Cardiff)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries	Weir, James Galloway
Nussey, Thomas Willans	Richards, Henry Charles	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid	Robinson, Brooke	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Roe, Sir Thomas	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Russell, T. W.	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)	Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Seton-Karr, Henry
O'Dowd, John	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)	Mr. Yoxall and Mr. Jacoby.

COLONEL PILKINGTON

said the Amendment which he now begged to move was to leave out "eight" and insert "ten" in Clause 1. The object of the Amendment was to make this a thoroughly satisfactory workable Bill. It must be remembered that at the present time there was no limit. Supposing, for instance, the men were to work ten and a half hours, they would be outside the limit he proposed, and they or their employers would be subject to be penalised according to the clauses which would be found in this Bill, if ever it became an Act of Parliament. The reason why he proposed ten hours was because at the present time the operations in the mines were practically comprised in ten hours, or within possibly some thing a little less, so that in making it ten hours they would provide a very moderate time, and it would be more elastic than eight hours. In fixing eight hours they would be pressing the work of the mines into a time within which it would be difficult to do it. It would be very much like taking an Englishwoman into a London shop and making her put her feet into Chinese shoes. The fact was that eight hours from bank to bank did not afford sufficient time for the operations of the miners. It would be far better, having regard to the customs of the trade, that some time should be fixed within which the miners would be able to do their work without great discomfort and great confusion. If anything less than ten hours were fixed they would create immense loss and great disturbance in the working of the mines. An eight hours limit would really result in only six hours, or even perhaps less, actual work in getting coal. By allowing a reasonable time for doing the work they would have it done more easily and satisfactorily, and they would prevent the continual hurry and skurry of the men, and the continual tendency on the part of the employers, officials, and workmen to evade the provisions of the Bill. The Committee had listened to a discussion already, and he contended that very few people know the effect which an eight hours arrangement from bank to bank would have, and that was the reason why he proposed that it should be ten. He held that what had to be gone through in these eight hours could not be done. What were the operations of miners now? In the first place the miners assembled at a certain time in the morning at the pit, near the cage or lift apparatus. Possibly there might be from 400 to 600 men there. The lift would hold from six to twelve people at a time. In other words, only a very few indeed would be able to go down at once. Some of these shafts were not very deep, while others were just the contrary. They varied in depth from 200 to 1,000 yards. The men descended in relays, and he should think it would take at least half an hour for all the men to get down. When they got to the bottom of the shaft they had in many cases a long way to travel in order to get to their work, and that took time. Of course, it was not like walking down Regent-street or Oxford-street, or even down a country road. They had to go along an underground passage and walk circumspectly. Very well; the miners set about their work, after finding whether the place was safe. The Government had passed enactment after enactment that the place should be properly timbered and the roof all right before the men began to work. The Committee did not suppose that a man came to his place and found everything ready for work. It sometimes happened that there had been a fall during the night, and that had to be put right. He thought most reasonable men would agree that it took an hour for all this to be done. Then the man went on with his work. But in the course of his work he had to take meals. It was said that in 1873 the miners had lobster salad, but that, he thought, was not true. But a miner required to have good sustenance, and he was told two meals while at work. It was most likely that he would take half or three-quarters of an hour, and he thought three-quarters of an hour should be allowed to any man who wanted a reasonable meal. Gentlemen on this side of the House knew perfectly well that when they went out shooting in Scotland they allowed an hour after the work of the forenoon. Therefore the miner must have a proper time for his meals. What about the end of the day's work? The miner had to go back to the mouth of the pit. He had to collect his tools and see that his place was ready for to-morrow, so that it required a certain time to prepare for the return journey. He travelled back again along the underground passage to the lift which took him to the top of the pit. They had to ascend in relays, taking perhaps half an hour again. Under these circumstances an eight hour day from bank to bank would be absolutely impossible. He complimented his hon. friends who represented the miners on the way they attended to the interests of miners. At this time, however, they had made a most extraordinary mistake. If they would adopt these Amendments in the interest of the workmen and in the interest of all concerned they would have a Bill such as might be worked. He thought there was another question which ought not to be quite forgotten, and that was the different kinds of coal. There were hard coal and soft coal. It took longer to get the hard coal. There were mines where the seams were thick and others where they were thinner, and there again they had a question which affected the time required for working. In connection with this measure they had also to look to the fact that collieries in different districts paid different rates of dividend or no dividend. He thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean had not considered all these conditions. The question was, Is this Bill going to do good or ill for the miners of the country? Those who believed that it was going to hamper them greatly and do them great harm were obliged, in fairness to their constituencies, to take the opportunity of stating the case against the proposals, in the Bill. They would see at once, from the arguments he had used and from his statement of the case, that probably the hours of labour would be restricted by at least two hours. That was to say, instead of having something like seven and a half or eight hours at the face, they would have five and a, half or six hours. They would see, therefore, that if this Bill was going to knock two hours off the eight it was going to decrease the output of coal by 25 per cent. The result would be that the price of coal would rise, and manufacturers would find that they had to pay 25 per cent. more for their coal, and thus they would be hampered in carrying on their arrangements. The householders would also be pinched, for they also would find that they had to pay 25 per cent increase. Another matter of great importance was that the Navy would have to pay 25 per cent. more for its coal. This increase was going to be put on the great product on which the industry, strength, and power of this nation rested. How Members of this House could join together and put their names on the back of this Bill passed his comprehension. Why should they put this restriction on the body of men who worked their coal? It was not done in America or Germany, which were our two great competitors. Were we to confine our market for coal to the United Kingdom? If twenty-five per cent. was put on the price of coal, what was to become of our steamships? His Amendment did not say that the men must work ten hours. He must explain that, because he had been twitted and taunted on the subject. They said that he intended to ask the people in the mines to work ten hours. He did not want anything of the kind. He wanted ten hours to cover everything, whether seven, eight, nine, or ten, from bank to bank. He only wanted that the miners should not be crushed into a time limit in which they could not possibly do the work. He thought Members of Parliament had lost sight of the fact that the miners did not work much more than four and a half days per week. That was a subject that wanted careful consideration. If they put eight hours instead of ten in the Bill, and if the men worked only four and a half days per week, they made a thirty-six hour week. Looking to the fact that the miner was perfectly comfortable, that he worked pretty much as he pleased, that he made good wages as things were, and that the price of coal was coming down, he asked the House on all scores to fix the limit at ten hours, which would cover everything and leave everything as it was now.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 7, to leave out the word 'eight' and insert the word 'ten.'"—(Colonel Pilkington.)

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

*SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

said he objected to the word "eight," but he could not stand the word "ten" as a substitute. The word "eight" was not palatable to many of his constituents, because they thought that if it stood in the Bill they would be expected to be eight hours in the pit, which was contrary to the Northumberland and Durham practice. Therefore he objected to these figures altogether. Everybody who knew anything of the conditions of mining knew that there must be variety in the hours of working and in the employment. The question of the limitation of the hours should be carefully gone into by the Committee with the view of placing the men in the position which would best enable them to discharge their duties to themselves, their families, and their employers. He was quite certain that a rigid line would be a fatal mistake in the interests of the coalowners, and also in the interests of the shilling which the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped to get from them. The matter was comparatively simple. There was a variety of employment, and there should be a variety of hours for working. Instead of inserting eight or ten or any other number of hours, let the Bill be a Bill for the "limitation of hours," and in that way the matter would be settled very speedily. If the word "eight" were taken out of the Bill it would be open to him to move an Amendment in the direction he indicated, which he was prepared to do.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said he agreed to a great extent with the remarks of the hon. Baronet. He considered that eight was objectionable, but thought that ten was objectionable also. He took it that his hon. and gallant friend intended the eight hours to apply to men at the face of the coal, and that ten hours was to mean from bank to bank, but there was no explanation as to why the one was substituted for the other. He thought the suggestion of the hon. Baronet a good one. To a great extent it followed the suggestion which he himself had made in a previous debate, when he proposed that the words "eight hours" should be omitted, and that the title should read, "The Mines Act, 1901." There was a third suggestion, which he thought would be applicable to all collieries, whether new or old, shallow or deep. It was suggested to him by a deputation of miners who waited on him some years ago. He had always a friendly feeling towards his mining friends and neigh tours, and supported the idea of an Eight Hours Bill, though not a Bill for a hard and fast eight hours from bank to bank. The leader of the deputation suggested that, if objection were taken to fixing the hours from bank to bank or at the face of the coal, eight hours should be fixed from station to station. That would put all pits on the same level, and the men would have no difficulty in getting from bank to station and back again.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see how that arises on this Amendment. It may arise at a later stage, but at present the only Amendment is to substitute ten hours for eight hours.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said he was trying to show that his hon. and gallant friend, in moving to substitute ten for eight, had two ideas in his mind—one, eight hours at the face of the coal, and the other, ten hours from bank to bank. He was perfectly willing to adopt the suggestion proposed by the hon. Baronet, that the Bill should be described as "The Mines Limitation of Hours Act, 1901."

MR. BANBURY

said he did not agree with his hon. and gallant friend in thinking that the alteration of eight to ten was the best Amendment that could be moved. His hon. and gallant friend had given very excellent reasons for making an alteration in the number eight, but his reasons for substituting ten were not as strong. There were, of course, seams of hard coal and seams of soft coal, and some pits were more easily worked than others. If the hours in all were limited to eight, then the owner of a pit having soft seams would be in a better position than the owner of a pit having hard seams. He should like to mention that they were now, on the title, practically discussing the whole merits of the Bill. It was quite a new thing in his Parliamentary experience that the whole of a Bill should be in the title, and it was extremely inconvenient. Reverting to hard and soft seams, in the majority of cases the collier was paid by the amount of coal he cut, and the consequence would be that a collier working on a hard seam, if the hours were limited to eight, would not be able to earn as much as a more fortunate brother who was working on a soft seam. Therefore, not only the proprietor but the collier would be injured. That emphasised very strongly the difficulty of attempting to limit the hours of adult labour. Again, it seemed to him very important, in connection with the Bill, how long it took a man to get from the surface to his work.

MR. PICKARD

submitted that the remarks of the hon. Member were not relevant to the question before the Committee.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think the hon. Gentleman has yet said anything irrelevant.

MR. BANBURY

said his point was that if a hard-and-fast rule were fixed it would inflict an injury, and he was endeavouring to show how that injury would be brought about. He would say that he had never yet been called to order, and should be extremely sorry if that were to be his first occasion. He could assure hon. Members that it would be his endeavour not to break what he hoped he might consider an honourable record. He was discussing the question of the time occupied by a man in travelling from the bank to his work. In some places he believed that the distance was as much mile. [An HON. MEMBER: Three miles.] He also presumed that there were collieries where the distance was only half a mile, and therefore the provision in the Bill would be putting a great burden on the men who had to travel long distances. He thought he had shown that eight was perhaps not as good a figure as could be put in the Bill, but he was not at all sure that ten was the best figure that could be inserted. Ten hours would no doubt recompense the owner and the collier in a pit which it was difficult to work, because a longer time was necessary; but he thought it would be possible to put even something better in the Bill. The hon. Baronet opposite, who had very great experience in colliery matters, was very much against the word "ten," but he did not tell the Committee what he proposed to substitute for it.

*SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said he suggested the withdrawal of the Amendment, in order that he might move to insert the words "limitation of hours."

MR. BANBURY

said that the hon. Baronet did not tell the Committee whether he approved of any particular number of hours other than ten.

*SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said he did not name any number of hours, owing to the variety of the work.

MR. BANBURY

said that that was a very excellent sentiment. He would wish to know if it were allowable in discussing the omission to discuss whether any number should be inserted at all.

*THE CHAIRMAN

assented.

MR. BANBURY

said he was glad of that, because it would give the Committee an opportunity of considering again whether it was desirable to insert any number of hours at all. They had heard only a few weeks ago of the fate that was shortly to overtake the coal industry. They were told that the industry was going to be ruined, and in view of that he asked whether it was advisable to put in any hours at all. By limiting the number of hours the output would unquestionably be limited also. The Hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, in a very eloquent speech on the Second Reading, said that the real reason for the figure "eight" was because it was desired to limit the output.

MR. FENWICK

said that he stated that the agitation for the limitation of hours began with that object.

MR. BANBURY

said that was what he thought. When, however, it was found that that was unpopular in the country, a cover was thrown over it. He thought the position was very serious. Only a few hours ago he had read a long article in The Times, written by an hon. Gentleman in reply to the Secretary of State for India, showing that the limitation of working hours in England was tending to destroy industries and manufactures. The main thing required to make a successful industry or manufacture was cheap coal, but the Bill before the Committee would not cheapen coal, and if coal were not cheapened how was the country to resist the great competition from other parts of the world? That was a consideration which should induce every hon. Member to pause before he voted for the question which would be put from the Chair—" That 'eight' stand part of the clause." The question of cheap coal applied not only to manufactures, but also to individuals, and especially to the working classes of the country, and he doubted very much whether if eight were retained they would be doing a service to the miners themselves. There seemed to be an idea that work was a hard things: and ought to be avoided. He maintained that that was false in itself. No man was so happy as when he was really working hard.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now approaching the point when I shall have to call him to order.

MR. BANBURY

said he would continue his observations as to whether it was advisable to insert any particular number of hours at all in the Bill. He had endeavoured to show that competition by foreign countries where the hours of work were longer was very serious. The question now arose whether it would not be more advisable to leave out the number altogether. That would not prevent hon. Members from inserting in Clause 2 any number they liked; but, it would give the Committee an opportunity of considering whether any number of hours should be inserted at all. If his hon. and gallant friend would withdraw his Amendment another Amendment could then be moved to insert the words "hours of labour."

*THE CHAIRMAN

If the Committee? strike out from the clause the words; "eight hours" there will be a vacancy which can be filled up.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said if the word "eight" remained he understood it would not be in order to move another number, but that it would be in order to move the addition of a half.

MR. BANBURY

said he was afraid that if they went to a division on the question "That 'eight' stand part of the clause" they would probably be defeated. The matter ought to be further discussed before stereotyping that number. If he could induce his hon. and gallant friend to withdraw his Amendment, then there would be no question before the Committee, and it would be possible for him to move to omit the words "eight hours."

*THE CHAIRMAN

If the Committee agrees to allow the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment, then another Amendment can be moved to leave out the words "eight hours" and insert some other words.

MR. BANBURY

said he would appeal to his hon. and gallant friend to withdraw his Amendment. He did not suppose there would be any objection to inserting the words "hours of labour." He hoped his hon. and gallant friend would consider his appeal, but if there were reasons against it perhaps his hon. and gallant friend would state them.

SIR JAMES JOICEY

said he would suggest that the better way would be to leave out the word "eight" and insert "limitation of."

*SIR ALFRED HICKMAN

said he strongly objected to the insertion of the words "ten hours," because no man was now in a pit ten hours, and he should be very sorry if he were. He thought the suggestion of the hon. Baronet was a very good one. His hon. friend who had just spoken objected to eight hours from bank to bank because of the difference it would make between various classes of labour. He should like to give the Committee a concrete case. He had a pit employing 600 men, and they had to be taken down in cages, twelve in a cage, a depth of 400 yards, which, with fifty cages, occupied half an hour. He had another pit employing 100 men, but they went down in five: minutes. The same applied when the men returned, and therefore the men in one pit were able to work fifty minutes longer than the men in the other. How could two collieries compete fairly when the men in one worked fifty minutes longer daily than the men in the other? At present men worked something less than seven hours, so that fifty minutes was a very large percentage indeed. But that was not all. When the men got down they had to get to the face of the coal. In one case the distance was one mile and three quarters, in the other only 100 yards. Although there was every possible mechanical contrivance to convey the men, the longer journey occupied forty minutes, whereas the 100 yards could be traversed under five minutes. That again meant a difference of seventy minutes per day. That was a very considerable time to be taken from the men's working hours. Would it be contended that a man who had worked for about five hours and was anxious to work longer should not be allowed to do so? That seemed to him to be preposterous. In the United States men worked eleven hours in the pits, and the price of coal was never more than half of the price of England. How was the manufacturing supremacy of England to be kept up if the article which enabled every manufacturer to carry on work was to be twice the price of the same article to his competitors? For his own part, he strongly deprecated long hours in the pits. He thought seven hours was quite sufficient, but he would not make a hard and fast rule. One of the first effects of the Act, if passed, would be that famine prices would rule, and that large sums would be paid into the pockets of the colliery proprietors, but ultimately the manufacturing supremacy of the country would be destroyed.

SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON (St. Pancras, E.)

said he desired to say a few words with reference to the effect of the limitation of hours in the county of Northumberland. In Northumberland they had the oldest coalfield not only in the kingdom, but perhaps in the world, and the conditions under which it was worked would be entirely upset if the hours were limited to eight from bank to bank. It would be impossible for the men to cut the amount of coal which would justify them in receiving the wages they ought to receive if their hours were limited to that number. The great argument which had been used with reference to Northumberland and Durham was that boys, of which there was one shift to work with two shifts of hewers, were, some of them, obliged to work more than eight hours. As a matter of fact, although the boys were ten hours in the mine, those were not all working hours. They took half to three-quarters of an hour to get to their work, and during that time they were taking healthy gentle exercise in an atmosphere which was far more healthy than the atmosphere of the House of Commons. It did them no harm, and he would draw the attention of the House to the fact that for twenty generations the collieries of Northumberland had been worked on conditions similar to the conditions which now prevailed. If any hon. Member went down to Northumberland he would find a finer, healthier, and hardier set of men than in any other mining district in the world.

MR. YOXALL

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

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 156. (Division List No. 249.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Ure, Alexander	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Stevenson, Francis S.	Walker, Col. William Hall	Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Strachey, Edward	Wallace, Robert	Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk. Mid.
Sullivan, Donal	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Taylor, Theodore Cooke	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.	Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Tennant, Harold John	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.	Weir, James Galloway	Young, Samuel (Cavan. East)
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr	Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.)
Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings	White, Patrick (Meath, North)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)	Mr. Yoxall and Sir Fortescue Flannery.
Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Tomkinson, James	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Furness, Sir Christopher	Myers, William Henry
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Garfit, William	Nicholson, William Graham
Allsopp, Hon. George	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cy. of Lond.	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Anstruther, H. T.	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Arrol, Sir William	Gore, Hn. G. R C Ormsby-(Salop	Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Balcarres, Lord	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Parker, Gilbert
Baldwin, Alfred	Graham, Henry Robert	Paulton, James Mellor
Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch	Greene. Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington
Banbury, Frederick George	Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)	Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)	Hain, Edward	Penn, John
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Pierpoint, Robert
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bond, Edward	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Plummer, Walter R.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Boulnois, Edmund	Heath, Arthur Howard (H'nley	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Brassey, Albert	Heath, Jas. (Staffords, N. W.)	Purvis, Robert
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Rankin, Sir James
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.	Higginbottom, S. W.	Reid, James (Greenock)
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hill, Arthur	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Cameron, Robert	Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)	Rentoul, James Alexander
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.	Richards, Henry Charles
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.	Hogg, Lindsay	Robinson, Brooke
Chapman, Edward	Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld, Brightside	Ropner, Colonel Robert
Coddington, Sir William	Houston, Robert Paterson	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter,-
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Joicey, Sir James	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Kitson, Sir James	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cranborne, Viscount	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Law, Andrew Bonar	Smith, H C (N'rth'mb. Tyneside
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lecky, Rt.Hon. Wm. Edw. H.	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggar
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Leveson-Gower, Fred. N S.	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Thornton, Percy M.
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Tollemache, Henry James
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Doughty, George	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)	Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffiel A
Doxford, Sir William T.	Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Duncan, J. Hastings	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Wason, John C. (Orkney)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	M'Calmont, Col. H L B. (Cambs.	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Edwards, Frank	Manners, Lord Cecil	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)-
Fardell, Sir T. George	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fenwick, Charles	Massey-Mainwaring. Hon. W F	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r	Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Morrell, George Herbert	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Fisher, William Hayes	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-	Mount, William Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Muntz, Philip A.	Lieutenant-Colonel Pilkington and Mr. Knowles.
Fletcher, Sir Henry	Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Question put accordingly, "That the I word 'eight' stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 153. (Division List No. 250.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Field, William	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Fison, Frederick William	Markham, Arthur Basil
Aird, Sir John	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Flower, Ernest	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)	Flynn, James Christopher	Milton, Viscount
Ambrose, Robert	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Minch, Matthew
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Mooney, John J.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Fuller, J. M. F.	Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)
Austin, Sir John	Gilhooly, James	Moss, Samuel
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbt. J.	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Murnaghan, George
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bell, Richard	Green, Walford D (Wednesbury	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Black, Alexander William	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Blake, Edward	Gretton, John	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.
Boland, John	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Griffith, Ellis J.	Norman, Henry
Boyle, James	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.
Brand, Hon. Arthur G.	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Brigg, John	Hammond, John	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Broadhurst, Henry	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Harwood, George	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, S T.)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James	Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Bull William James	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
.Burke, E. Haviland-	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Burns, John	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Burt, Thomas	Helder, Augustus	O'Dowd, John
Butcher, John George	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Henderson, Alexander	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Caldwell, James	Holland, William Henry	O'Malley, William
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)	O'Mara, James
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Horniman, Frederick John	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Carvill, Patrick George H.	Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Causton, Richard Knight	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	O'Shee, James John
Cawley, Frederick	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Partington, Oswald
Clancy, John Joseph	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Jacoby, James Alfred	Pickard, Benjamin.
Cogan, Denis J.	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U	Power, Patrick Joseph
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Kearley, Hudson E.	Price, Robert John
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.	Priestley, Arthur
Colville, John	Kennedy, Patrick James	Randles, John S.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Kinloch, Sir John George S.	Rea, Russell
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Labouchere, Henry	Reckitt, Harold James
Craig, Robert Hunter	Lambert, George	Reddy, M.
Crean, Eugene	Langley, Batty	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cremer, William Randal	Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth	Redmond, William (Clare)
Crombie, John William	Lawson, John Grant	Reid, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)
Crossley, Sir Savile	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)
Cullinan, J.	Leamy, Edmund	Remnant, James Farquharson
Dalziel, James Henry	Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Delany, William	Levy, Maurice	Robson, William Snowdon
Denny, Col.	Lewis, John Herbert	Roe, Sir Thomas
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Lloyd-George, David	Russell, T. W.
Dillon, John	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Donelan, Captain A.	Lough, Thomas	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Doogan, P. C.	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Duffy, William J.	Lundon, W.	Seton-Karr, Henry
Dunn, Sir William	MacDonnell, Br. Mark A.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Elibank, Master of	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Ellis, John Edward	M'Crae, George	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Emmott, Alfred	M'Dermott, Patrick	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)	M'Govern, T.	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan	M'Kenna, Reginald	Soares, Ernest J.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Ure, Alexander	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Stevenson, Francis S.	Walker, Col. William Hall	Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Strachey, Edward	Wallace, Robert	Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk. Mid.
Sullivan, Donal	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Taylor, Theodore Cooke	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.	Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Tennant, Harold John	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.	Weir, James Galloway	Young, Samuel (Cavan. East)
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr	Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.)
Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings	White, Patrick (Meath, North)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)	Mr. Yoxall and Sir Fortescue Flannery.
Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Tomkinson, James	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Furness, Sir Christopher	Myers, William Henry
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Garfit, William	Nicholson, William Graham
Allsopp, Hon. George	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cy. of Lond.	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Anstruther, H. T.	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Arrol, Sir William	Gore, Hn. G. R C Ormsby-(Salop	Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Balcarres, Lord	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Parker, Gilbert
Baldwin, Alfred	Graham, Henry Robert	Paulton, James Mellor
Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch	Greene. Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington
Banbury, Frederick George	Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)	Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)	Hain, Edward	Penn, John
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Pierpoint, Robert
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bond, Edward	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Plummer, Walter R.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Boulnois, Edmund	Heath, Arthur Howard (H'nley	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Brassey, Albert	Heath, Jas. (Staffords, N. W.)	Purvis, Robert
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Rankin, Sir James
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.	Higginbottom, S. W.	Reid, James (Greenock)
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hill, Arthur	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Cameron, Robert	Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)	Rentoul, James Alexander
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.	Richards, Henry Charles
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.	Hogg, Lindsay	Robinson, Brooke
Chapman, Edward	Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld, Brightside	Ropner, Colonel Robert
Coddington, Sir William	Houston, Robert Paterson	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter,-
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Joicey, Sir James	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Kitson, Sir James	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cranborne, Viscount	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Law, Andrew Bonar	Smith, H C (N'rth'mb. Tyneside
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lecky, Rt.Hon. Wm. Edw. H.	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggar
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Leveson-Gower, Fred. N S.	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Thornton, Percy M.
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Tollemache, Henry James
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Doughty, George	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)	Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffiel A
Doxford, Sir William T.	Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Duncan, J. Hastings	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Wason, John C. (Orkney)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	M'Calmont, Col. H L B. (Cambs.	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Edwards, Frank	Manners, Lord Cecil	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)-
Fardell, Sir T. George	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fenwick, Charles	Massey-Mainwaring. Hon. W F	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r	Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Morrell, George Herbert	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Fisher, William Hayes	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-	Mount, William Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Muntz, Philip A.	Lieutenant-Colonel Pilkington and Mr. Knowles.
Fletcher, Sir Henry	Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud	Ashton, Thomas Gair.
Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)	Ambrose, Robert	Atherley-Jones, L.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Arrol, Sir William	Austin, Sir John.
Bain, Col. James Robert	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Harwood, George	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	O'Malley, William
Bell, Richard	Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Mara, James
Black, Alexander William	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Blake, Edward	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	O'Shee, James John
Boland, John	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Partington, Oswald
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Helder, Augustus	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)
Boyle, James	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Pickard, Benjamin
Brigg, John	Henderson, Alexander	Pirie, Duncan V.
Broadhurst, Henry	Holland, William Henry	Power, Patrick Joseph
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Price, Robert John
Bull, William James	Horniman, Frederick John	Priestley, Arthur
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Randles, John S.
Burns, John	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Rea, Russell
Butcher, John George	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Reckitt, Harold James
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Reddy, M.
Caldwell, James	Jacoby, James Alfred	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Redmond, William (Clare)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.	Reid. Sir R. Threshie Dumfries)
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Kearley, Hudson E.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Causton, Richard Knight	Kennedy, Patrick James	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Cawley, Frederick	Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth	Robinson, Brooke
Clancy, John Joseph	Labouchere, Henry	Robson, William Snowdon
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.	Lambert, George	Roe, Sir Thomas
Cogan, Denis J.	Langley, Batty	Russell, T. W.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Colville, John	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Leamy, Edmund	Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)
Craig, Robert Hunter	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Seton-Karr, Henry
Crean, Eugene	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Cremer, William Randal	Levy, Maurice	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Crombie, John William	Lewis, John Herbert	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Crossley, Sir Savile	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cullinan, J.	Lloyd-George, David	Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Dalziel, James Henry	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Soares, Ernest J.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan	Lundon, W.	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Delany, William	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Denny, Colonel	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Stevenson, Francis S.
Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles	M'Crac, George	Strachey, Edward
Dillon, John	M'Dermott, Patrick	Sullivan, Donal
Donelan, Captain A.	M'Govern, T.	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Doogan, P. C.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Tennant, Harold John
Duffy, William J.	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Dunn, Sir William	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Elibank, Master of	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)
Ellis, John Edward Emmott, Alfred	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Minch, Matthew	Tomkinson, James
Ferguson, R. C Munro (Leith)	Mooney, John J.	Ure, Alexander
Field, William	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Wallace, Robert
Fison, Frederick William	Moss, Samuel	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Muntz, Philip A.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Flannery, Sir Forteseue	Murnaghan, George	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Flower, Ernest	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Wason, John C. (Orkney)
Flynn, James Christopher	Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Weir, James Galloway
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Fuller, J. M. F.	Norman, Henry	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Gilhooly, James	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Gretton, John	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd
Greville, Hon. Ronald	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Griffith, Ellis J.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Haldane, Richard Burdon	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Mr. Yoxall and Viscount Milton.
Hammond, John	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W)
	O'Dowd, John

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Nicholson, William Graham
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Furness, Sir Christopher	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Aird, Sir John	Garfit, William	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Allsopp, Hon. George	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Anstruther, H. T.	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Balcarres, Lord	Gore, Hn G. R. C Ormsby-(Salop)	Parker, Gilbert
Baldwin, Alfred	Gore. Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)	Paulton, James Mellor
Balfour, Maj K. R (Christchurch	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Banbury, Frederick George	Graham, Henry Robert	Penn, John
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)	Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds	Percy, Earl
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Pierpoint, Robert
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Hain, Edward	Plummer Walter R.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd	Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward
Boulnois, Edmund	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Purvis, Robert
Brassey, Albert	Heath, Arthur Howard) Hanley	Rankin, Sir James
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)	Reid, James (Greenock)
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.)	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bullard, Sir Harry	Higginbottom, S. W.	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Burt, Thomas	Hill, Arthur	Rentoul, James Alexander
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead	Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cavendish, V. C. V. (Derbyshire	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Hogg, Lindsay	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Chapman, Edward	Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Coddington, Sir William	Houston, Robert Paterson	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H	Smith. H. C (North'mb Tynes'de
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Kenyon-Slaney. Col. W. (Salop.)	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Kitson, Sir James	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Law, Andrew Bonar	Thornton, Percy M.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lawson, John Grant	Tollemache, Henry James
Cranborne, Viscount	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Dalkeith, Earl of	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Walker, Col. William Hall
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Ered Dixon	M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs.	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Malcolm, Ian	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Duncan, J. Hastings	Manners, Lord Cecil	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn-W. F.	Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Edwards, Frank	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Morrell, George Herbert	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r	Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Mount, William Arthur
Fisher, William Hayes	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Lieut.-Col. Pilkington and
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Myers, William Henry	Mr. Knowles.

And it being half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

cc211-2
1. QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD (JOINT COMMITTEE). 112 words