§ MR. STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)said he had to move an Instruction to the Committee to which the Wallasey Urban District Council Bill had been referred. It would be within the memory of hon. Members that during the year 1898 there was a, great agitation throughout the length and breadth of the land on the part of members of friendly societies, in regard to the matter raised by his Instruction. The agitation was due to the action of the East India Docks Company in instituting a shop club, and making it a condition of employment 674 that their men should belong to it. They also sought to lay down a provision that such of their men as were already members of friendly societies should cease such membership. The feeling raised by that proposal was so strong that the Government appointed a Shop Clubs Committee, which reported to the House in March, 1899. It was quite clear that the general feeling of the country was entirely against the proposal of the East India Docks Company, and that compulsory shop clubs were deemed to be opposed to the interests, not only of working men, but of the great friendly societies. The Shop Clubs Committee, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, and which included in its members Mr. (now Justice) Cozens- Hardy, and the Registrar General of Friendly Societies, suggested that shop clubs should in future be registered under the Friendly Societies Acts. Now that was all that was proposed by the Instruction he was moving. What would be the effect of such registration? It would be to secure that no member of the club should be deprived of any pecuniary benefit by reason of his leaving his employment. This was of the utmost importance to working men, because, in the absence of such registration, a man who had joined a shop thrift or provident club, and had been in his employment for some years and contributed to the funds of the club, might be deprived of all benefit therefrom by reason of leaving his situation, and his contributions would be lost to him. The registration would also secure that the men should have a voice in the appointment of the committee of management of the club, and that, he suggested, was only reasonable. There were further provisions to secure the proper investment of the funds of the club, and to ensure that the organisation was on a solvent basis. The Report of the Committee to which he had referred recommended that the Registrar of Friendly Societies should, before registration, satisfy himself that the scheme of the club was satisfactory, not only to the employer hut also to the workmen. In the Bill now under consideration power was taken to form a Compulsory Superannuation Fund. The Shop Clubs Committee had recommended that it should not be lawful for any em- 675 ployer to make it a condition of employment that his workmen should join such a fund, and he certainly thought that, in any case where membership of a shop club was made compulsory, as under this Bill, the House would agree that it would only be fair and indeed necessary, in the interests of the employees, that registration, as ho suggested, should bo insisted upon. He was authorised by the National Conference of Friendly Societies to say that they unreservedly adopted the Report of the Shop Clubs Committee. Ho would like to remind the House that during the last Parliament the very clause he was now proposing was inserted in seven different private Bills, and even in the present session the Great Eastern Railway Company had accepted a similar provision, without any objection being raised on the part of the directors. That fact surely was sufficient proof that there could be no serious objection to the clause. They had been told in a circular issued by the Urban District Council of Wallasey that this proposal would render the scheme inoperative so far as the superior officers of the council were con-corned, inasmuch as it would admit the benefits to be granted under it in the form of superannuation and other allowances. But he would point out that the Wallasey Bill was not confined merely to a proposal affecting their more highly-paid officials. Their scheme was to apply to every man in their employ. He would have made no objection to the Bill had it merely provided for the superannuation of employees receiving salaries of £2 or £3 a week and upwards. There was another difficulty in dealing with questions of this nature in private Bills, and it arose from the fact that in these private; Acts the scheme itself was not set out so that the House or the Committee upstairs might judge whether or not it was fair. Instead of that the promoters of the Bill took power to set up a scheme after it had passed through the House. Was it right that anything of that kind should be allowed to be done? The promoters, in their circular, complained that if the Instruction were carried it would prevent them giving their higher-paid officials more than £200 in case of death, or a pension exceeding £50 a year on retirement, That was really not the ease, and the suggestion was merely a red herring 676 drawn across their path. The promoters said that the Bill already provided for the registration of their scheme by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. But that provision was a sham, for all that was provided was that the Registrar should register any scheme the Urban District Council chose to put forward, whether it was good or bad. He wanted the House to say that no scheme should be registered unless it was good, and met with the approval of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Then, again, the Wallasey Urban District Council com-plained that the clause was vague and indefinite. Surely if that were the case the Manchester Ship Canal Company would never have accepted such a clause, nor would other companies have done so. What was more, the very Instruction he was now moving went before a Committee in the last Parliament, and that Committee called before it the Registrar of Friendly Societies and asked him if it were a fact that the clause was vague and indefinite. His reply was that it was not, and that he himself personally approved of it. A clause in almost identically the same words was sent to him by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture while he held the position of Secretary to the Treasury, and ho therefore could not understand what objection there could be to it now. As he said at the beginning of his remarks, his reasons for asking the House to approve this clause were, first, that the National Conference of Friendly Societies, which met last week in Birmingham, had unanimously decided that its adoption would be in the interests of friendly societies. He would remind the House that that conference represented a membership of over three and a half millions, with a capital of over twenty-five and a half millions. It was therefore a body which had some right to be considered representative, and which certainly by its action in the past had shown itself anxious to promote the interests of the working men of this country. His second reason for asking the House to carry the Instruction was that it was in the interests of working men, whether they were members of friendly societies or not. It was not desirable that any corporation or company should have power to set up com- 677 pulsory thrift, provident, superannuation, or shop clubs, unless they were registered in the way he had suggested, the object of such registration being, of course, to ensure that the men got fair play and substantial benefits. If men were compelled, as a condition of employment, to join such clubs, it was only fair and just that they should be protected in the way ho proposed. He begged to move.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Wallasey Improvement Bill to insert the following Clause—
No scheme for the establishment of a superannuation or provident fund under this Act shall come into operation until it has been registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Friendly Societies Act."— (Mr. Strachey.)
§ MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange),in opposing the Instruction on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, first explained that the Member for Mid Cheshire, who was to have undertaken the duty, was unfortunately prevented by illness from being present that afternoon, and had asked him to state the objections which were entertained to the proposal. This Bill contained a proposal to establish a fund for the purpose of providing the servants of the Council with an allowance in case of death, or with superannuation on retirement, and the principles on which the scheme was based were duly set forth in the Bill, the employees of the Council having to contribute one half of the funds required for the purpose, while the Council provided the other moiety. The promoters of the Bill, in opposing the Instruction, disclaimed altogether any hostility to the Friendly Societies Acts. They recognised, on the contrary, that those Acts were extremely useful within their proper sphere. But they suggested that the Instruction would not be at all appropriate to this Bill, inasmuch as it comprehended not only persons be-longing to the working classes, but also a large number of superior officers under the Council—gentlemen who were receiving salaries of considerable amount, and for whom, therefore, the provisions contemplated by the Friendly Societies Acts would be entirely inadequate. There were no fewer than 107 of the em- 678 ployees of the Council who were paid by cheque and whose salaries amounted in the aggregate to £1,400 per annum. If the Bill were brought entirely under the provisions of the Friendly Societies Acts the result would be that no gross sum could be drawn by any servant of the Council exceeding £200, and no annuity exceeding £50 could be granted. The House would see, therefore, that the effect of adopting the Instruction would be to make the Bill altogether inoperative so far as the higher class officials were concerned. The hon. Member for South Somerset himself seemed to be in doubt whether or not that would be the effect of his own clause, He held in his hand the opinion of a Counsel of great eminence, to the effect that the result of the clause would be to entirely subordinate the Bill to the Friendly Societies Acts. The hon. Member had referred to the fact that he had succeeded in securing the insertion of the clause in other Bills, and ho had alluded especially to the Great Eastern Railway Company's Bill. He ventured to point out that there was no analogy whatever between railway companies or kindred industrial organisations and a public authority such as was promoting this Bill. The hon. Member might have succeeded in introducing the Instruction in other Bills, but he was informed that the concession had been obtained in such cases under great pressure, and was only made because the Bills had reached a stage at which, unless the concession was granted, there was a danger of the Bill being lost for a year. Those cases therefore ought not to be accepted as a precedent. The promoters of the Bill had gone as far as they could to meet the hon. Member, who had suggested that his desire was to secure that no scheme should be registered which was not a good scheme and approved by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The promoters were quite willing to agree to that, and in Clause 52 they had inserted words providing that no scheme under the Act should come into operation unless it was registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
§ MR. STRACHEYIt gives no discretion to the Registrar. He is bound to register any scheme presented by the Corporation.
§ MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR said it was open to the Registrar of Friendly Societies to point out any features which he thought undesirable or inequitable, and he was quite sure that it was the intention of the promoters of the Bill that he should do so. The House was asked to give, a mandatory instruction to the Committee to insert this clause. He ventured to think that it should not do so, but that it should leave the matter to be threshed out before the Committee, which was the proper tribunal to settle matters in which local questions were involved. If the House would agree to send the Bill to the Committee without the proposed Instruction he promised, on behalf of the promoters, that every opportunity should be given for the discussion of the points raised by the hon. Member for South Somerset.
§ MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)said it appeared to him that the arguments of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool were vague and required elucidation. Clause 52, to which he had referred, certainly did not to his mind convey the same meaning as the instruction of the hon. Member for South Somerset. The clause distinctly stated that the Registrar must register if he were satisfied that the scheme was in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. He, therefore, would have no choice but to register so long as the terms of the Bill were complied with. But the Instruction meant something different. It meant that the Registrar must be satisfied that in certain respectsthescheme was satisfactory. One of those respects was that the fund should be largely under the management of those who paid into it, and secondly that the men should be granted fair terms on leaving their employment. Those conditions would be secured by insisting on registration as provided for by the Instruction. If they were going to allow local authorities to set up these schemes, it was only right that they should take every possible precaution to secure that the terms were fair to the men concerned. The Instruction would secure the safeguard that the Registrar himself would have to be satisfied that the men were justly dealt with under the scheme. He did not think there was any absolute need for limiting 680 the benefits under the scheme. There was no objection to making an exception in the cases of highly-paid servants, and ho therefore hoped that the promoters of the Bill would fall into line with the practice of the House.
§ MR. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)also hoped that the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool would not press his opposition to the Instruction. A question of far-reaching principle was involved in this matter. The point was, whether in cases in which superannuation or provident funds were established under the authority of Parliament they should, or should not, be under the supervision of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. And he was bound to say that in his opinion such supervision was very desirable, seeing that the Registrar had at his command the most skilled actuarial experience that could be obtained, and was able to apply general principles to the various conditions which might arise in connection with great companies and corporations. He thought there must be some mistake in the interpretation which the hon. Member told them had been placed upon the legal bearing of the Instruction. So far as he gathered, the effect of the Instruction would be to secure registration by the Registrar of Friendly Societies merely, and it would not involve registration under the Friendly Societies Act. The clause had become common in the Bills of great railway companies, and ho saw no reason why it should not find a place also in the Bills of corporations. The Wallasley Urban District Council might not be a very great corporation, but there was a great principle involved, and it was desirable that it should be applied to all corporations, whether great or small.
§ COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton),who was almost inaudible from the Press gallery, was understood to advocate giving the Committee a free hand in the matter, and to point out that the Local Government Board was always represented before Committees dealing with these Bills. He hoped the Instruction would be rejected.
MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvilsupported the Instruction, although he 681 regretted the proposals contained in the Bill, fearing that the result of their adoption would be to postpone indefinitely that general scheme of old age pensions of which they had heard so much outside the House and seen so little inside it. The whole Bill seemed to have been loosely drawn, and his inclination would be to move its rejection altogether, in order to give the promoters time to reframe it in a more satisfactory manner, it seemed to him that if a, scheme of this kind we; established at all, it should be open to every class of workmen under the Council, and that it should not be in the power of anyone to say that certain well-paid employees should benefit under it, while the less we paid might be excluded from it. Then, again, the scheme proposed to deprive of all benefit from the fund any employee of the Council who resigned his position in order to escape being dismissed for fraud, dishonesty, or misconduct, He respectfully submitted that that was too wide a power to give to any council. If a man were dismissed for misconduct, surely the dismissal was the punishment, and he ought not to be still further penalised by losing any benefit from a fund to which ho had contributed during his service. The hon. Member for South Somerset had suggested that one of his objects was to safeguard the interests of the men by ensuring that the fund was actuarially sound. That, no doubt, was very important. He trusted that the House would agree to the Instruction, and when the Bill came back from the Committee, if it were still defective, they could refuse to pass it into law, and thus give the promoters time to put it in more acceptable form.
§ *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland,) Penriththought the House would be disposed to agree with his hon. friend that the Instruction was vague and indefinite. Even the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk disagreed with the hon. Member for South Somerset as to what would be its effect. The hon. Member who moved the Instruction said his point was to have the scheme registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, and that was the 682 real matter in dispute between him and the promoters of the Bill. There was a clause in the Bill which left it open to the Registrar of Friendly Societies to register the scheme, but the promoters were afraid that, if the Friendly Societies Acts were incorporated in the Bill, certain results would be, produced which were wholly unsuitable to the state of affairs in Wallasey. That would be wholly inapplicable to the case of officials who were drawing high salaries, and who served the borough in important positions. The argument of the promoters of the Bill was that if the Instruction of the hon. Member for South Somerset was accepted it would shut out from the scheme certain benefits 'which the promoters of the Bill intended to confer upon their servants. He did not believe that that was an object which the hon. Member himself would desire to see. He was opposed to the Instruction for the reason that the whole question would be and must be raised before the Committee to which the Bill had already been referred. The Registrar of Friendly Societies had reported against one of the clauses of the Bill—Clause 50—and that Report would be laid before, the Committee. The Committee would have an opportunity of summoning Mr. Braybrooke and hearing his evidence—an opportunity which they had not got in the House; and the Committee would thus be able to insert a clause which would go as far as possible to meet the views of the hon. Member for South Somerset. He might say that the Friendly Societies Act was to be incorporated in certain respects and not in others. That could not be done at the present stage, where they must either incorporate the whole Act or not at all. There is a via media which was the solution of the difficulty, but it could not be taken that afternoon. For that reason he would move, the rejection of the Instruction, and leave it to the Committee, after hearing the evidence of Mr. Braybrooke, to say whether all the sections of the Friendly Societies Act were or were not applicable to the particular circumstances, of this case.
§ *MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)said there was no doubt considerable dissatisfaction had been raised 683 throughout the country in regard to these superannuation schemes by local bodies, railway companies, and others. He thought the House was indebted to those who had brought them before the House before being sent to Committee upstairs, and that this should be a lesson to the local bodies to frame their schemes more carefully. In this Bill there wore eleven clauses under the head "Superannuation," and he could see that some of the phraseology was extremely crude and would have to be carefully considered in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Registrar of Friendly Societies had already objected to one of the clauses—Clause 50—but all of them would have to be carefully looked at. He thought that the debate should be adjourned so as to give an opportunity to the promoters of the Bill and hon. Members who objected to some of its provisions for consultation.
§ MR. CHARLES McARTHUR said he was authorised by the promoters of the Bill to state that they were willing that the Bill should be so amended that the Registrar of Friendly Societies should have the discretion of saying whether the conditions under the Bill were fairly reasonable.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)did not propose to go over the ground already covered by hon. Members who had spoken, but he represented a certain proportion of working men in Ireland, and he agreed with the mover of the motion. All those questions regarding superannuation ought to bo carefully discussed. There were often very curious
§ clauses in some of these "omnibus" or so-called Improvement Bills which superseded the ordinary law of the land. As the Gentleman in charge of the Bill was absent, that was a reason why the debate should be adjourned and an opportunity be given for conference. But there were certain penal clauses in regard to dairies and tuberculosis to which he wished to refer.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Instruction moved.
§ MR. FIELD said that the other day, in connection with a Great Eastern Railway Bill, an Instruction proposed to be moved had been withdrawn and the promoters had agreed to have a conference in order that the clause objected to should be amended. He moved the adjournment of the debate to permit of a conference between the promoters and those who took a different view from them in regard to this exceedingly important matter.
§ MR. DALY (Monaghan, S.)seconded the Amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Field.)
§ But Mr. SPEAKER being of opinion that the motion was an abuse of the rules of the House, put the Question thereon forthwith to the House.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 175. (Division List No. 82.)
687| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Causton, Richard Knight | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Clancy, John Joseph | Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- |
| Ambrose, Robert | Colville, John | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Austin, Sir John | Crean, Eugene | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Cullinan, J. | Joyce, Michael |
| Bell, Richard | Daly, James | Kennedy, Patrick James |
| Bignold, Arthur | Dillon, John | Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth |
| Black, Alexander William | Doogan, P. C. | Kitson, Sir James |
| Blake, Edward | Duffy, William, J. | Lambert, George |
| Boland, John | Duncan, James. H. | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Boyle, James | Ellis, John Edward | Leamy, Edmund |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Farrell, James Patrick | Leigh, Sir Joseph |
| Burt, Thomas | Ffrench, Peter | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Gilhooly, James | Lundon, W. |
| Cameron, Robert | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Grant, Corrie | M'Cann, James |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir: H. | Hammond, John | M'Crae, George |
| Carew, James Laurence | Hardie, J K. (Merthyr Tydvil | M'Fadden, Edward |
| M' Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Mansfield, Horace Kendall | O'Malley, William | Sullivan, Donal |
| Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe | O'Mara, James | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Murphy, J. | O'Shee, James John | Thomas, J. A. (Gl'm'rg'n.Govvr |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Partington, Oswald | Thompson, E. C.(Monaghan, N. |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Pemberton, John S. G. | Thomson, F. W. (York, W.K.) |
| O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | Priestley, Arthur | Weir, lames Galloway |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Reddy, M. | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Redmond, John E.(Waterford) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| O'Doherty, William | Redmond, William (Clare) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Roche, John | |
| O'Dowd, John | Shipman, Dr. John G. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.Field and Captain Donclan. |
| O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Soares, Ernest J. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Flower Ernest | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Graham, Henry Robert | Percy, Earl |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Perk's, Robert William |
| Arrol, Sir William | Groves, James Grimble | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Gurdon, Sir William Brampton | Pilkington, Richard |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Hain, Edward | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W (Leeds | Banbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Price, Robert John |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) | Henderson. Alexander | Randles, John S. |
| Hartley, George C. T. | Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead | Ratcliffe, R. F. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Hogg, Lindsay | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield,Brightsd. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Horner, Frederic William | Kidley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Howard, Capt. J. (Kent, Favers. | Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green) |
| Brigg, John | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) | Rigg, Richard |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Hozier, Hon. James Henry C. | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Round, James |
| Caine, William Sproston | Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Caldwell, James | Jacoby, James Alfred | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lines.) | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysl).) | Joicey, Sir James | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Kearley, Hudson E. | Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kimber, Henry | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albeit |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Knowles, Lees | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Chapman, Edward | Law, Andrew Bonar | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone,W.) |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Lawson, John Grant | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Leveson-Cower, Fredk. N. S. | Smith, H.C.(North'mb. Tynes |
| Crombie, John William | Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Bong, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.) | Spear, John Ward |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Lonsdale John Brownlee | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lowther, Rt Hn JW (Cum. Penr. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison | Tennant, Harold John |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Maconochie, A. W. | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | M'Kenna, Reginald | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hast'gs |
| Elibank, Master of | M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Elliot Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Majendie, James A. H. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Emmott, Alfred | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Tomkinson, Jame |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Valentia, Viscount |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Vincent, Col. Sir C.F.H. (Shef'd |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Dept ford | Walker, Col. William Hail |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Mount, William Arthur | Wallace, Robert |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir Wm. H. |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Finch, George H. | Murray, Col Wyndham (Bath) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Myers, William Henry | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Nicholson, William Graham | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E (Taunt'n, |
| Flanuery, Sir Fortescue | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L |
| Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Strachey and Mr. Chas. M'Arthur. |
| Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex | |
| Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Bir. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart. | |
| Willox, Sir John Archibald | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong | |
| Wilson, John (Glasgow) | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
§ Original Question put.
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Groves, James Grimble | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Shee, James John |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Hammond, John | Partington, Oswald |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Austin, Sir John | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Perks, Robert William |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Hayden, John Patrick | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Haydne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hogg, Lindsay | Priestley, Arthur |
| Bell, Richard | Holland, William Henry | Randles, John S. |
| Black, Alexander William | Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside | Ratcliffe, R. F. |
| Blake, Edward | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Rea, Russell |
| Boland, John | Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil | Reddy, M. |
| Boyle, James | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Brigg, John | Jacoby, James Alfred | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Joicey, Sir James | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh) | Joyce, Michael | Rigg, Richard |
| Bryee, Rt. Hon. James | Kearley, Hudson E. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Kennedy, Patrick James | Roche, John |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Caine, William Sproston | Kitson, Sir James | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex. |
| Caldwell, James | Lambert, George | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cameron, Robert | Layland- Barratt, Francis | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Leamy, Edmund | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Carew, James Laurence | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Cawley, Frederick | Leng, Sir John | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S. | Spear, John Ward |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Lewis, John Herbert | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Colville, John | Lloyd-George, David | Sullivan, Donal |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Crean, Eugene | Lundon, W. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Crombie, John William | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Daly, James | M'Cann, James | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan | M'Crae, George | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings |
| Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles | M'Fadden, Edward | Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan Gower |
| Dillon, John | M'Kenna, Reginald | Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Laren, Charles Benjamin | Tomkinson, James |
| Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark) | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Duffy, William J. | Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe | Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield |
| Duncan, James H. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Wallace, Robert |
| Elibank, Master of | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H. |
| Emmott, Alfred | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. |
| Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst.) | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Warner, Thos. Courtenay T. |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Murphy, J. | Wason, John C. (Orkney) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton |
| Fenwick, Charles | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Whiteley, Geo. (York, W.R.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Field, William | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Finch, George H. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Flower, Ernest | O'Doherty, William | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Wodehouse, Hn. Arimine(Essex |
| Garfit, William | O'Dowd, John | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Goudard, Daniel Ford | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Strachey and Mr. Harry Samuel. |
| Grant, Corrie | O'Mara, James | |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 18G; Noes, 114. (Division List No. 83.)
689| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(City of Lond. | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Arrol, Sir William | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Percy, Earl |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Hain, Edward | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Pryce-Jones, Lt.- Col. Edward |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W.(Leeds) | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Henderson, Alexander | Round, James |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Horner, Frederick William | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Howard, Capt J. (Kent, Faversh. | Sandys, Lt.-Col.Thomas Myles |
| Bignold, A. | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Bill, Charles | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.) | Smith, H. C. (Northmb, Tyneside |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex | Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) |
| Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Burt, Thomas | Kimber, Henry | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. | Knowles, Lees | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Law, Andrew Bonar | Thorburn Sir Walter |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Lawrence, William F. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lawson, John Grant | Tufnell, Lieut.- Col. Edward |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Cum. Penr | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Cullinan, J. | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison | Williams, Rt Hn. J Powell-(B'rm |
| Dimsdale, Sir Jos. Cock field | Maconochie, A. W. | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r) | Mount, William Arthur | |
| Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst | Mowbray, Sir Robert G. C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Charles M'Arthur and Colonel Pilkington. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Myers, William Henry | |
| Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Nicholson, William Graham | |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
§ MR. HORNER (Lambeth)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether it is allowable for a teller to stand at the door and say, "Those who are in favour of friendly societies come to the Aye Lobby."
§ *MR. SPEAKERThat is not a point of order, nor do I suppose that such a statement could mislead any hon. Member.
§ MR. HORNERI am quite sure it did.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Wallasey Improvement Bill to insert the following clause—
No scheme for the establishment of a superannuation or provident fund under this Act shall come into operation until it has been registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Friendly Societies Act.