HC Deb 15 June 1906 vol 158 cc1294-307


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

Order for Second Beading read.

*MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs) moved that it be read a second time six months hence. He declared that they had always had a system of very full inquiry into all cases of death by accident in Scotland. That system did the work which coroners in England did, and did it quite as well, and he failed to see why it should be superseded. The Bill did not appear at all events to attain the object of making the 1895 Act anymore effective than was the case at the present time. Undoubtedly the Bill would prolong inquiries, but beyond that it would do nothing, because it was laid down in the 1895 Act, and still held good, that the verdict of the jury could not be referred to in any kind of way in the case of subsequent proceedings. He could not for the life of him understand why the Lord-Advocate should have sought to extend the scope of the inquiry, and yet not provide that the verdict should be referred to in case of further proceedings. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had made the proposal without fully considering the effect liable to be produced. It would have been more desirable if the right hon. Gentleman could have seen his way not to make it absolutely essential that in every case there should be a public inquiry of the kind suggested, but only in certain scheduled cases or in cases in which it might be held to be necessary by the Lord-Advocate to order a public inquiry, or where such inquiry was demanded by the relatives or immediate friends of the deceased. He would like very much that the right hon. Gentleman, if he proposed to extend the Act of 1895, should further improve the Bill by having some arrangement following upon those lines. That would greatly minimise the grave inconvenience to which jurymen were often exposed. Whilst there was no objection to sitting upon a jury in serious cases, people did object to being summoned to attend an inquiry where no inquiry was really necessary. There were other people to be considered under the Bill. First there was the procurator fiscal, and secondly the person against whom fault or negligence might be found. Then there was also the court itself. Was the procurator fiscal to act simply as a public official, laying the facts before the jury, and leaving the question of fault or negligence to be decided by the jury and sheriff, or was he to act in accordance with his own opinion and endeavour to obtain a verdict in accordance with that opinion? If this official was only supposed to act in this official capacity, who 'was entitled to ask for a verdict? The absence of a clear definition of the duty of the procurator fiscal was a great defect in this Bill. Then, again, there was not a single provision in the Bill to provide that notice should be given to any person who might be found, by a jury, to have been guilty of fault or negligence. A man might be found guilty of manslaughter or even of murder and vet might know nothing about the inquiry, nor would he be given any subsequent opportunity of clearing himself. Let the House not imagine that the Bill before them would affect employers to any great extent, because in cases of fatality, where fault or negligence had been proved, it had almost invariably been shown that such negligence or fault was on the part of the deceased or a fellow workman. Only in rare cases had it been proved that death was the result of faulty machinery. This side of the question called for very grave consideration. Then there was the question of the working capacity of the sheriff courts. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realised that if these inquiries were largely extended very likely the ordinary sheriff courts in Scotland would not be able to deal with them. He found that the average number of inquiries during the last two or three years was in Aberdeen 35, in Edinburgh 55, in Glasgow 114, in Airdrie 42, and in Hamilton 74. These were the county courts in which under this new Bill the inquiries were more likely to be increased. The Lord Advocate had said that he had met with a sympathetic Chancellor of the Exchequer and a sympathetic Treasury in regard to the increase of the existing officials; but he would like to see the Treasury spending its money upon something more useful to Scotland than on an extension of the Act of 1895. He did not believe they could find a single procurator fiscal in Scotland who would not say that the Act of 1895 was a perfectly useless Act and ought to be repealed. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] Yes, that was just his point. No satisfactory Amendment could be made to it. It was an Act which ought to be repealed, and not, as was proposed by the present Bill, to be extended. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not see his way to repeal the Act, or if he could not do so, at all events to give his serious consideration to the points he had raised. In regard to the last clause in the Bill, it was certainly advisable that the Lord Advocate should have some machinery for instituting inquiries. The present system of public inquiry after a serious accident was complicated, and the Lord-Advocate had always to charge someone with culpable homicide in order to obtain an investigation. He made his proposition not as a politician, but as Chairman of his county. He had to pass all the accounts of the inquiries under the Act of 1895, and his Committee had never yet passed them without a grumble. He begged to move.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

said he desired very heartily to associate himself with what had fallen from his hon. friend the Member for Ayr Burghs. He had a very strong objection in principle to the Bill, and he expressed surprise that the Lord-Advocate had not given some further explanation of it, for the benefit of Members of the House who might not be conversant with the law and practice in Scotland. The Bill professed to alter a certain section of the Act of 1895, and proposed to extend the system of inquiry in the case of fatal accidents whore the Lord-Advocate thought such extension was desirable. Sub-section 7 of Section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act of 1895 was by this Bill repealed, and in lieu thereof the second clause of this Bill said that the jury, after hearing the evidence, should return a verdict setting forth— When and where the accident and the death or deaths to which the inquiry relates took place, the cause or causes of such accident or death, or deaths, the person or persons, if any, to whose fault or negligence the accident is attributable, the precaution, if any, by which it might have been avoided, any defects in the system, or mode of working which contributed to the accident, and any other facts disclosed by the evidence which, in the opinion of the jury, are relevant to the inquiry. That might or might not be the estimable object of the inquiry, but he objected altogether to the means by which the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to arrive at it. In the first place, he deplored very deeply that in the present Bill there was no provision whatever that notice should be given to the persons who might be most intimately concerned in the matter. Under the Act of 1895 it was provided that intimation of the inquiry must be given to the wife, husband, family, the nearest known relative, and the employer. As his right hon. friend knew, there were many cases—he had almost said the majority of cases—where it was not the wife, or family, or even the employer who was most interested, but the man with whom the fault was to be found; it might be a man in the same employment, and it was a great blot upon the present Bill that it did not provide that notice should be given to the man against whom fault or negligence might be found. Even worse than that, a man might go to an inquiry, offer himself as a witness, give his evidence, and then suddenly find that he was the man against whom the inquiry was directed, and against whom a verdict of negligence or fault was found; and that by his evidence he had incriminated himself. That was contrary to the whole spirit of the constitution, and so long as there was the possibility of such a thing happening, he had the strongest objection to any system which allowed it. He did not say that such a thing was probable, but it was possible. It was intolerable that such a contravention of the whole practice and spirit of the constitution should be put down in black and white as in the Bill now before the House. It might be said that this was a Bill to extend to Scotland a system of coroner's inquests; but it was not. If it had been, his chief objection might possibly have been removed. When a verdict of fault or negligence was found at a coroner's inquest, that verdict, as recorded by the coroner, operated as a warrant for the apprehension and trial of a man; but one of the greatest defects of this Bill was that the inquiry effected or warranted nothing. It must be remembered that every sudden death in Scotland was already the object of private inquiry by the procurator-fiscal, who reported the evidence to Crown Counsel. Then the Crown Counsel made up his mind as to whether it was desirable to have further inquiry made, or whether anyone should be prosecuted in relation to the death. The inquiry provided for in this Bill was in no way a substitute for the inquiry made by the procurator fiscal. The Bill sought to institute a complete change in the relation of the procurator fiscal to the judicial procedure in Scotland. The Bill would place a most intolerable burden on the procurators fiscal. Its machinery would be cumbersome, extremely expensive, and mean the doubling of the staffs in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland. The right hon. the Lord Advocate knew that representations had been made by the sheriffs as to the crowded state of business in their courts, and he must be aware that that business would be much further extended if this Bill passed. He would like to know, if a procurator-fiscal made up his mind to take proceedings against an individual for fault or negligence, and those proceedings failed, who was to be responsible for the expense? Supposing a fellow workman of the deceased thought it possible that in the inquiry he might be accused of neglect or fault, and that a verdict might be found against him. He would have to appear at the inquiry, and to instruct counsel to represent him. He might have further to incur heavy expense in travelling a long distance; but, if fault was not found against him on whom was he to fall back to recover all these expenses? Although the right hon. Gentleman might have imagined that he had framed this Bill in the interests of all classes, he contended that it would inflict an intolerable hardship upon poor men up and down Scotland. Unless on these points the Bill was amended he should very strongly object to it. Indeed, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to withdraw it altogether, and perhaps at some future time he would be able to re-cast it, and re-introduce it in a better form. He seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. Younger.)

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


said he was surprised at the kind of opposition to this Bill, and described most of the objections brought against it as mere Committee points of detail. So far back as 1897 the idea became prevalent that much was being done in Scotland under the system of private inquiry, which had two defects. In the first place, it was absolutely secret; and in the second place, the consequence of absolute secrecy was that sometimes there arose such anxiety and uneasiness in the public mind, and a desire for publicity, that it was necessary to go through the hateful process of putting a man upon his trial as a criminal, not because he was believed to be a criminal, but because it was the only way to satisfy the minds of the community. That was altogether inconsistent with the ideas of justice. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment had struck exactly the line of cleavage in regard to this" matter, which was whether the Act of 1895 should be gone back upon in the sense of making these people assist in a secret inquiry, or, on the other hand, whether the Act of 1895—which had never been gone back upon during the term of office of the Unionist Government—should be transmuted now, and made into a real active and helpful mode of inquiry. He would not be a party to reverting to the system of absolute secret inquiry in Scotland. On the other hand, he wished the House to realise that substantially the first part of this Bill was an Amendment of Sub-section 7 of Section 4 of the Act of 1895. That Act gave juries the power to return a verdict stating when and where the accident and death or deaths took place, and the cause or causes of such death or deaths. Nevertheless, it had been held by the sheriffs presiding over these trials that the jury were precluded from giving anything except a "formal verdict." A formal verdict was not what Scotland wanted. It was proposed to change the formal verdict into a verdict setting forth, in addition to the cause or causes of death— The person or persons, if any, to whose fault or negligence the accident is attributable, the precautions, if any, by which it might have been avoided, any defects in the system or mode of working which contributed to the accident, and any other facts disclosed by the evidence which, in the opinion of the jury, are relevant to the inquiry. Whatever judicial system existed, he could hardly conceive that it would be possible for a jury to be deprived of the right to return a full, real, and helpful verdict. Was not that hotter than reverting to the dark, secret system of inquiry? the other part of the Bill had reference to the occurrence of sudden and suspicious deaths not in industrial occupations. Such deaths could occur in Scotland without any inquiry following which the public knew anything about. He esteemed far more highly than he could describe the value of the system of inquiry by Crown counsel which had prevailed in Scotland for many years, and been a great advantage in the administration of the criminal law. There was a case in Glasgow where a number of persons in a lodging house were burnt to death, and the whole place was agitated and concerned as to how it could have happened. But, notwithstanding this, no public inquiry was made by any public authority, and the City of Glasgow, in order to satisfy the public mind upon the matter, instituted a public inquiry for itself. Could any testimony be more eloquent as showing the need for a general system under which all matters of that kind might be brought under the cognisance of the Crown by the machinery of this Bill? The whole of the facts relating to fatal accidents ought to be brought before the public in some way, and consequently he had introduced Section 3 of the Bill, which, he was glad to say, had the approval of the mover of the rejection of this Bill.


The qualified approval.


said he had introduced this clause in order to give power to the Lord-Advocate in case of suspicions deaths to order a public inquiry to satisfy the public mind. the rest of the points which had boon raised during the discussion appeared to him to be purely matters for the Committee stage.


said that what he objected to was that the Bill did not provide for giving notice to the man who might be found guilty.


said he considered that was a point for the Committee stage. In the Act of 1895 it was provided that amongst the list of persons who could assist were not only the employer but the persons engaged along with the deceased and any other person whom the sheriff might consider had a legitimate interest in the inquiry. The Lord-Advocate was empowered to order public inquiries in order to satisfy the public mind. In conclusion, he said the whole question was whether they should revert to secrecy or make the existing system helpful and a reality.

MR. GULLAND (Dumfries Burghs)

said the Bill was necessary to carry out the intention of the Act of 1895, which had been frustrated by the decision of the sheriffs that they would not allow a jury to state the cause or the causes of death in fatal accidents. The result had been that that Act had become a dead letter. He had had the good or bad fortune to be a juryman upon some of these inquiries. He did not like to act as a juryman at any time, but they were obliged to take their turn. The present law was futile. If a man was called upon a jury and hanged a man there was a certain satisfaction in it; there was much greater satisfaction if he could pronounce an acquittal; but if a juror was summoned and only allowed to say that a man had died through death, then he felt that his time had been absolutely wasted, and that was a position in which he had been more than once. It was because he was aware- of the futility of the present law that he supported the Second Heading of this Bill. There would be some satisfaction about the matter if juries were able to say that the accident was caused and the man lost his life because there was want of supervision. Then they would feel that they had been giving their time for a useful purpose and that it might have the effect of saving the lives of other men in the future. He appreciated very much Clause 3, which allowed the Lord-Advocate to institute a public inquiry if he thought that one should be held in the public interest. They did not want a coroner's inquest in every case, and he regretted what had occurred in connection with coroner's inquests in England, but they required this power to hold an inquiry. They were quite willing to trust their law officers with this additional power, knowing that they would only use it in the public interest.


said that all these questions were carefully considered when the Act now in force was discussed, and that Act was referred to a Scottish Committee, and he thought it was about the only Bill that over came before a Scottish Committee. The then law officers of the Crown, including the late Lord Kinross, were not very desirous of making any change in the law of Scotland in regard to public inquiries, as it was felt that the secret inquiries worked bettor. On the other hand, there were a good many objections to secret inquiries, because there were a large number of cases where irregularities had occurred. He thought the second section of the Bill now before the House might be amended in some respects, but the third clause he believed to be absolutely necessary. He would not go into some of the notorious cases which had occurred, but there was one case where a man coming out of a house, was knocked on the head and died a; week afterwards. He (the hon. Member) saw the widow of this man at the funeral and he ascertained that the death of that man was certified as having occurred through influenza, when as a matter of fact he died from a fracture of the skull. Lord Kinross subsequently held an inquiry, and in that case at any rate there was a miscarriage of justice. Had it not been for the fact that he went to see the widow, nothing would have been heard of the circumstances under which the man met his death. None of them were very desirous of changing the law on this subject, but he conceived it would be a great injury to the interests of justice in Scotland if the effects of legislation already passed were lost, and he most heartily supported the Bill now before the House.

*MR. SMEATON (Stirlingshire)

said that he rose to confirm the Lord-Advocate's reference to the sad fatality which had recently occurred in his constituency. The profoundest uneasiness was felt as to the secrecy of the inquiry which followed, and he had been asked to impress on the law officers of the Grown the necessity for the legislation now proposed. The townfolk of Grangemouth were indgnant at the hole-and-corner way in which the case had been dealt with. During a juvenile theatrical performance a young man by accident shot a little girl on the stage, in consequence of ball ammunition having been substituted for blank ammunition. It was a very extraordinary affair, and at the time it was attended with a certain amount of suspicion, although it was afterwards proved to be an accident. Nevertheless, there was a feeling amongst the public, who were only acquainted with half the facts, that there ought to have been a public inquiry to establish clearly how it was that there had been a change from blank to ball ammunition. Cases of this kind showed the need of a reform in procedure. He heartily supported the Second Reading of the Bill.

*MR. MORTON (Sutherland)

said the Act of 1895 was brought in by the then Government after he had moved the reduction of somebody's salary. He was induced to ask the Government to bring in that Act by the miners of Midlothian, who wanted a full and public inquiry with a verdict as given by coroners' juries in England. The moment he got back to the House he saw the Lord-Advocate and wrote to the Secretary for Scotland, and they immediately said they would proceed with this Bill to make the Act of 1895 effective. What working-men wanted after a fatal accident was an honest and immediate inquiry as to why the accident had occurred and who was to blame for it, in order that if there was any blame proceedings might be taken against the right party. Another object of such inquiries was to prevent similar accidents in the future. Since the passing of the Act of 1895 he had heard no complaints of accidents in Midlothian mines. The question of notice was a matter to be dealt with in Committee, and he quite agreed that proper notice should be given to all the parties concerned. He hoped that as this was not a Party matter the House would pass the Second Reading of the Bill, and that in Scotland they would before long have an effective Act which the sheriffs could not make a sham. He desired cordially to thank the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord-Advocate for so readily agreeing to amend the Act of 1895.

*MR. HUDSON (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

said he did not think anyone would have-greater pleasure in welcoming this Bill than the railway men of Scotland. He did not profess to understand Scotch law, but during his experience as president of one of the large national organisations of workmen, and for a number of years he had had reports through his hands from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and the inconsistencies in them were even to the mind of a layman most apparent. He hailed this Bill with the greatest possible pleasure, and especially that portion of it which gave an extended power to the sheriff to call parties to the inquiry and to examine witnesses. If the Lord Advocate could extend that provision a little he would greatly benefit railway men. Their difficulty was to get into the inquiry, and the Bill left that entirely discretionary. With the best and most experienced coroners they had no difficulty whatever. Their difficulty occurred with the coroners in country districts with their fossilised ideas. They should have the right of sending to the Court workmen's representatives who had technical knowledge of the industry and of the conditions under which the man worked who had suffered the fatal accident. What they desired more than anything else was prevention. They wanted to have administered Acts which were already on the statute book either with regard to the hours worked or the Prevention of Accidents Act of 1900. By bringing out those matters at the

inquiry—and they could only be brought out by technical porsons—they would confer great benefit upon the class of railway men for whom he spoke. He heartily supported the measure on behalf of Scottish railway men, and he hoped the Bill would go through without a division.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 123).

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Dalziel, James Henry Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Ainsworth, John Stirling Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hudson, Walter
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Delany, William Hyde, Clarendon
Ambrose, Robert Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Jackson, R. S.
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Dillon, John Jowett, F. W.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Dobson, Thomas W. Joyce, Michael
Barker, John Dolan, Charles Joseph Kearley, Hudson E.
Barlow, John Emmott (Somer't Donelan, Captain A. Kekewich, Sir George
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Duckworth, James Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohn H.
Barnard, E. B. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Beale, W. P. Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Laidlaw, Robert
Beauchamp, E. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) Lamont, Norman
Beck, A. Cecil Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Bell, Richard Evans, Samuel T. Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Berridge, T. H. D. Farrell, James Patrick Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Ferens, T. R. Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington
Billson, Alfred Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Blake, Edward Ffrench, Peter Lewis, John Herbert
Boland, John Flynn, James Christopher Liddell, Henry
Brace, William Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Branch, James Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lough, Thomas
Brigg, John Fuller, John Michael F. Lundon, W.
Brooke, Stopford Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford,S. Lupton, Arnold
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh) Ginnell, L. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire) Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbortJohn Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Bryce, Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen Goddard, Daniel Ford Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Grant, Corrie Mackarness, Frederic C.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Greenwood, Hamar (York) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Buxton, Rt.Hon.SydneyChas. Gulland, John W. MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.
Byles, William Pollard Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.
Cairns, Thomas Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. M'Callum, John M.
Caldwell, James Halpin, J. M'Crae, George
Cameron, Robert Hammond, John M'Kenna, Reginald
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis M'Killop, W.
Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Cawley, Frederick Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Cheetham, John Frederick Hart-Davies, T. M'Micking, Major G.
Cherry, lit. Hon. R. R. Harwood, George Maddison, Frederick
Clarke, C. Goddard Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Marnham, F. J.
Cleland, J. W. Hayden, John Patrick Meagher, Michael
Clough, W. Hazelton, Richard Meehan, Patrick A.
Collins, SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. Hedges, A. Paget Menzies, Walter.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Helme, Norval Watson Molteno, Percy Alport
Cooper, G. J. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Money, L. G. Chiozza
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S,) Mooney, J. J.
Corbett,C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Hervey.F. W. F. (BuryS. Edm'ds Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Higham, John Sharp Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Craig,Captain James (Down,E.) Hobart, Sir Robert Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cremer, William Randal Horniman, Emslie John Myer, Hortaio
Crombie, John William Horridge, Thomas Gardner Napier, T. B.
Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Summerbell, T.
Nolan, Joseph Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E
O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid. Rogers, F. E. Newman Thorne, William
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Rowlands, J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.) Runciman, Walter Ure, Alexander
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Russell, T. W. Verney, F. W.
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
O'Doherty, Philip Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Wallace, Robert
O'Dowd, John Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
O'Grady, J. Schwann, Chas.E. (Manchester) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
O'Hare, Patrick Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Seaverns, J. H. Waterlow, D. S.
O'Shee, James John Seddon, J. Watt, H. Anderson
Palmer, Sir Charles Mark Seely, Major J. B. Weir, James Galloway
Parker, James (Halifax) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) White, George (Norfolk)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel White, J.D.(Dumbartonshire)
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Silcock, Thomas Ball White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Sloan, Thomas Henry White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Power, Patrick Joseph Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) Snowden, P. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Priestley,W.E.B.(Bradford, E. Soares, Ernest. J. Wiles, Thomas
Radford, G. H. Stanger, H. Y. Williamson,A.(Elginand Nairn)
Raphael, Herbert H. Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk) Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Redmond, William (Clare) Steadman, W. C. Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd
Kees, J. D Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Richards,T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) Strachey, Sir Edward TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Richardson, A. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Sullivan, Donal
Balcarres, Lord Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.) Faber, George Denison (York) Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Forster, Henry William Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Walker,Col.W. H. (Lancashire)
Carlile, E. Hildred Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Castlereagh, Viscount Hay, Hon. Claude George
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. Hills, J. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Mr. Meysey-Thompson.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lane-Fox, G. R. Mitchell-Thomson and Mr.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Nield, Herbert
Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim.S.) Percy, Earl

Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.