HC Deb 08 March 1911 vol 22 cc1300-27

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Mr. HUDSON

moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Question the words "upon this day six months."

I move this Amendment not in any factious spirit, but because those who are seeking powers from this House are people who are amenable to the State, and who at least ought to set the best example of employers in the country in regard to Conciliation Boards and arbitration proceed- ings. This railway company come under the conciliation scheme as adopted in November, 1907. As a railway company they were parties to that scheme. A considerable number of men belonging to various grades of the service went through all the ordinary formalities in the way of making application for improved conditions of service. The matter was referred to the Sectional Board, then to the Central Conciliation Board, and eventually to arbitration before Lord MacDonnell in 1909. The company, on their side, were bound as parties to these proceedings, and they ought to have honourably carried the matter out. Indeed, they ought to be an example in this respect to the men who composed the other side of the board, but their position is this. They have claimed since the arbitration award, which took effect on 1st December, 1909, that they were entitled to go behind the representatives on the other side and use official influence to contract some men out of the award. It was quite natural that they were not going to contract them out of the award unless it was to their advantage. What was the real position? The goods workers at King's Cross, London, before the award had a ten-hour day, including a meal hour. A ten-hour day was awarded by the arbitrator, and he allowed pay for overtime at the rate of time and aquarter, and an advanced rate of payment for Sunday duty. As soon as the award took effect, the company placed those men on an eleven-hour day, including an hour for meals. The men naturally resented it. The company said, "That is the award," but it was not the award. They said to the men, "If you want to be out of it you may sign your right away, and we will relieve you of the award, and you can go back on these conditions." A very large number of men did so. I am quite prepared to give the company even the benefit of the statement that a vast majority, or nearly all, signed away their right to the award, and accepted these conditions. But these conditions were false—not true. Those who did not sign away their right had to be removed to another London station. The next step was that in the case of the carmen and draymen who serve the London markets. The same influences were brought to bear. What were they? The company applied a condition which was truly a bad misrepresentation of the award, and they must have known it. After the award the company extended the meal hour to such an extraordinary degree in the middle of the day that the men resented it. The company said, "Oh, well, that is the award, but if you want to be rid of it we can relieve you by signing it away." The company has admitted since that time that they were wrong, because they say now that the meal-time must be reasonable. That is their own admission. Well, is a meal-time of two hours and a-half a reasonable time in the case of men who only had one hour before? By extending it so inordinately the company thereby prevent the men from claiming any overtime at the rate of a time and a-quarter. The next step was with the Farringdon Street carmen. The same steps were taken in their case, and they were influenced to follow suit under the same misrepresentation of the application of the award. Eighty-five men were there contracted-out under these circumstances. The next step was with the passenger guards, and this is a most interesting feature. The passenger guards who worked from London to Doncaster or York before the award were allowed 1s. per day extra trip allowance. When their case came before the arbitrator they were requested to put in a schedule showing the wages of these men. They put in a return which included 1s. per day and represented the amount of total earnings. The arbitrator said distinctly that he was taking into account the additional shilling. So soon as the award came out the company stopped the 1s. per day to all these men, and said, "This is the arbitrator's award, but if you are prepared to sign away the right of working under the award then we will give the 1s. back again." Forty-four out of forty-six have signed on that condition, and got back the 1s. per day, and two have not yet signed. What does it mean? It means that the men who have signed out of this award go back to a normal twelve-hours' day. They lose extra payment for overtime, and they lose the advanced rate of payment, time and a quarter, for Sunday duty. The men who have not signed it have never been paid the 1s. per day since the award operated. They are working these men strictly to a 10-hour day without the payment of the shilling, which is dishonest in practice and a total misrepresentation of what was awarded. Even the ruling which has been given, on 19th December last, clearly admits the claim of the men that this shilling was not interfered with in any shape by the arbitrator, but was taken into account. The two men who have not contracted out of the award have lost about £10 during the last twelve months.

The next step was with regard to the third-class passenger guards. In this case a petition was typed and issued from the stationmaster's office at King's Cross and sent to those men to sign. But these men showed immediately a considerable amount of restlessness. The pressure that was put upon them had not the desired effect. In consequence, the petition was quickly withdrawn, and those men are working under the award to-day. With regard to contracting out the system set up by the President of the Board of Trade in 1907 was a system of collective bargaining. We are prepared to admit that alterations might be made in an award after it has been given by an arbitrator, provided that it is done by agreement of both sides of the central conciliation board. But we do say that one side has no right to go behind the other and contract out of the award in any way whatever. The company say, "We claim the right to do this without consulting the other side of the board at any time we choose to do it." That is the position. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that so long as the conciliation scheme is going to last we are prepared to do all we can honestly to carry it out, but it must be honestly carried out on the other side also. A conciliation scheme is not an instrument merely to keep the men quiet and allow the employers' side to do as they choose, but it ought to be respected equally on both sides. The question of meal time has I know been much disputed since the award was issued, and I am prepared to admit that there was considerable room for argument and difference of opinion when we took nearly twelve months to bring the company's side round to that sweet reasonableness in which they would discuss the matter, and agree to let anything go back to the arbitrator for his ruling. But the company adopted, irrespective of the opinion of the other side, a system of time that was contrary to all precedent in the ordinary working. Without booking the man a day previous to take his meals at certain times, at many centres of the company's system they merely gave an order to a guard who was stopped by congestion of traffic: "You take your dinner." Fifteen or twenty minutes afterwards, when the congestion was somewhat relieved, they would say: "You resume your work, and take the other portion of your dinner somewhere else."

On their own ruling, and in the evidence admitted to the arbitrator, they explain this in quite a different manner, and we are prepared to agree with what they have put before the arbitrator. But what we have got to say to them is: You do not carry that out. You do something contrary to it; and if you admit you have done wrong, and that you have deducted time which you never ought to have deducted, the only honest course now is to pay the men for that which you have deducted. That application has been made. A petition or memorial from various centres has been sent in to the management of the company. In one case that I know of—there might have been many more—an individual guard sent in an application for the payment of this money which had been wrongly deducted, and the following is the reply which he got from the District Superintendent:— Re the above application for pay, all meal-time operated from the 10th August. 1910, and was acknowledged by your letter so-and-so, from which date nothing has been deducted, so please note and return papers. That is the answer to his application for the repayment. Surely a railway company who might, under many circumstances, have had honestly a wrong view as to what was the meaning of the award, and who have been applying it in a wrong way, when told what is the right way, should, at least, carry out their own decision. There is a period of eight months over which a great deal of those deductions occur which still require to be paid over to those men, and I say with all due deference, that if that money is of any importance to the company, it must be necessarily of very much more importance to the men.

I very much desire to give one or two illustrative cases upon the question of their own ruling, which was submitted to the arbitrator in December of last year. One of the most important points that came before the arbitrator in 1909 was the question of working the seven days per week; or, in other words, seven times per week, for a week's pay. The arbitrator was desired to bring pressure on the company to alter the then existing state of things. He gave a considerable amount of elasticity to the company in working by refusing to give to the men a guaranteed day every time a man came out, but he said the ten-hours day was the standard he took, which must be calculated as a week of sixty hours. But he expected it would work pretty near the average standard of each day to be a day. He also thought that on the sixth turn of duty, if it went over into the Sunday, it should be considered as normal time, and that Sunday duty pure and simple should stand quite clear and distinct from the other work, and at an enhanced rate. Numerous cases have reached me during the last twelve months where men who were put on under the ordinary circumstances previous to the award for early Sunday morning duty at half-past twelve or nearly one, since the award have been booked on just a few minutes before twelve o'clock, and kept waiting about in order to avoid payment at the Sunday rate. I have a case which is a very technical one—that of a man who was booked on seven times in the week. He worked from Doncaster to London on the Friday, and he was booked on again on the Saturday night, with only eight hours and thirty-seven minutes interval of rest. Usually he was booked on the very train he worked back, after twelve o'clock, but in this case they booked him on fourteen minutes before twelve o'clock, in order to avoid payment on the Sunday rate.

The curious feature about the whole matter is this: there is no clause under the award that gives the company the right to take away Sunday payment, because a man was on the seventh turn of duty, and not on the sixth. He must either have been eighteen hours off duty before he entered on the shift which goes into the Sunday, or eighteen hours after that turn of duty, and consequently he was entitled to the Sunday rate whichever way you look at it. But the company has not paid it. I want also to call attention to an important matter in reference to the carmen and draymen at Deansgate, Manchester. It was admitted a short time ago that these men were entitled to a ten hours' day, the guaranteed day; but the company have not admitted, or they have not yet been convinced, I suppose, that these men ought to be paid up for back time ranging over a year, and that they had been paying them and treating them on a wrong basis. I hope that they have now, however, decided to put the matter right. Another important case is that of the ticket collectors. These men had a shilling a day as expenses before the award. Since the award was issued this shilling has been taken off the men. For a considerable time the company have not paid it; then, when they were convinced they were wrong, they resumed payment of the shilling. But they have not paid the men for the back time when the shilling was kept off them. Take another case, just to show how they interpret what is a reasonable time for meals. A man was booked on from Doncaster, taking his turn at 10.35 in the morning with the train to London. He returned from London to York, arriving there at 6.3 p.m. He returned from York at 6.50 to Doncaster, arriving there at 7.30 p.m. He was on duty nine hours. They ordered him to go home and take an hour for meals. He had then to resume duty at 8.40 p.m. and work fifty-five minutes in order to finish his day, and then go home again. I ask where is the reason of fixing a meal hour at the last of a man's turn of duty? There is neither logic nor reason in it. There was no good purpose served by bringing this man out again from his home for only fifty-five minutes. I can only assume, and the man can only assume, that it is done in a purely vindictive spirit to give annoyance.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

An arrangement was made that the Division was to be taken at a quarter-past nine. If the hon. Member takes up the whole of the time it will be impossible.

Mr. BOOTH

May I point out that I ant no party to that arrangement.

Mr. LANSBURY

And I am not.

Sir F. BANBURY

That was the bargain.

Mr. LANSBURY

We cannot help your bargain.

Mr. HUDSON

I am sorry, I am sure, if I am saying too much for the hon. Baronet, but this is the opportunity, and the only opportunity I have of stating my case, and I really do need it for bringing this matter before the House and before the people, who I think will have an impartial mind as to what the railway company ought to do in honesty, when they are parties to a conciliation board and an arbitration scheme. I desire to mention a difficult case in another grade—that of the waggon examiners, greasers, and oilers. Here is a case again in which ten hours a day was awarded, with meal times to be inserted, and we naturally expected that the company would loyally carry that out. What do they do? They say to the man, Yes, take your hour for meal, but you must be relieved by the man who is a greaser, and you have got to bear the responsibility of any mistake he may make, and the time you are getting your food must be booked off, and will not be paid for. Is that a fair interpretation of the award?

There is also a most important feature of this Bill, and that is what is going to happen under it with regard to Peterborough. We know from the provisions of the Bill that four lines are to be made through Peterborough, both through the station and over the river, to accelerate the working of the traffic. Presumably that is all right, and personally I welcome anything that would facilitate the working of the traffic and the safety of the line. I think, however, my hon. Friend and the Members even for Peterborough and that district, might look at another side of the question, and they will find, taking a broad view of what is in front, that Peterborough might very possibly become merely a wayside station, and not have the importance that it has now. The men of Peterborough have suffered considerably during the last four years from the removal of traffic. I ask what is going to happen by way of alteration if this Bill and its principles are carried out. It is quite true that the removal of traffic from that centre might have been due to certain causes, but some of the men have expressed the opinion that they think the removal of some of the traffic was through a debate that occurred in the house of one of the men in May, 1906, when certain long hours that were being worked at Peterborough were brought up, and which brought down a considerably amount of severity upon the devoted heads of those who were likely to be most dissatisfied with long hours. A number of trains were removed from Peterborough on to Colwick, being worked through to London afterwards. It has left Peterborough since then, so that the locomotive men have been on short time, and on very short time for a considerable time. For weeks and months they never worked more than five days per week, and it has also stagnated promotion. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) says what has that got to do with it. I presume it has got something to do with the interests of Peterborough. The matter is one that on an occasion like this we must call attention to. Let me say I am heartily in favour of a thorough system of conciliation provided that the Boards are equally balanced on both sides, with honesty of purpose on the part of both to carry it out loyally. When a system of this kind is set up and this is a system of collective bargaining, neither side can go round behind the back of the other and do the things that this company have been doing. I sincerely trust that the House will mark its displeasure of the action of the company in this direction. I beg to move.

Mr. WARDLE

I beg to second the Amendment. I realise that in doing so I have a somewhat difficult task. The House is, and perhaps usually wisely, anxious that railway Bills and private Bills of this character should go upstairs to be dealt with by Committee. We who are taking this action on this occasion realise that these Bills are of very great public importance, and that they affect large interests. Therefore, we have some diffidence at times in getting up to move their rejection, but it must be pointed out that these railway companies receive large powers from this House which enables them to carry on their business and to make the profits which they do make. When they come to this House with a new Bill, that is the only opportunity we have of criticising the powers which they have exercised in the past, and, therefore, we feel that this occasion cannot be allowed to go by. Further, there is not only the interest of the railway company and the large interests of the traders, but there are also the interests of large bodies of workmen who have a right to look to this House for protection in times like this. I think it cannot be denied that if there is any body of workmen in the country amongst whom contentment is an absolute necessity, if traffic is to be carried safely and if passengers are to be carried safely, it is amongst the railway workers of this country. We desire that they should be contented and there would not be unrest and discontent arising out of the settlement of November, 1907, if the Conciliation Board scheme which had been then set up had been carried out in the spirit in which we thought it would be. If that had occurred then, we feel we should not be standing up to-night to move the rejection of this Bill. This House has taken up a large portion of the time by discussing the case of Mrs. McCann and her two children, and of David Davies the shepherd—not the Ettrick shepherd, but still one single individual. We have had brought before us the case of the eviction of one man, James Gardner, a very serious case, no doubt, because of the principle involved. Therefore we feel that we have no right to apologise at all when we bring before this House the interests of a large body of men such as are employed on the Great Northern Railway.

As the representatives of these men, we are desirous only to see that they get fair play, and, so far as we can assure it we shall do so. It is said that as the result of the policy of my hon. Friend and myself and one or two other representatives have been taking in recent years that railway companies are getting shy of bringing Private Bills before the House of Commons. If that be so, why are they shy? Do they fear the light? Do they fear that this House will treat them unfairly? For my part, I believe that this House is always willing to hear both sides of a question, and if railway companies can make out their case the House will give them their Bill. I am sometimes wondering whether it was because they wanted to dictate their own terms to the House of Commons that they were chary of bringing forward their Bill. It seems to me that that largely accounts for it, and if it be so the House of Commons ought to be jealous of its power and its honour, and ought always when these Private Bills are before us to look carefully into both their origin and their scope. As I said, we are not animated by any spirit of factious opposition either to the railway companies themselves or to their Bills. We recognise the importance of these Bills dealing, as they do, with large public works, and probably with the employment of a large number of men; but, as my hon. Friend has said, these are the only opportunities we have of bringing these matters before the House, and, therefore, we are obliged to take advantage of them. I understand that one of the provisions of this Bill is to be withdrawn. I am very glad to hear it. It was a provision giving power to run omnibuses. Had that provision stood in the Bill, and had the Bill gone unopposed, it would have shown the danger of allowing railways Bills to go to Committee without careful scrutiny.

I will now come to the question immediately before the House. This railway company employs about 30,000 men, of whom about 11,000 came under the arbitration of Lord MacDonnell in December, 1909. It would be as well if the House had recalled to it the circumstances under which the conciliation scheme of November, 1907, was brought into being. No doubt it will be remembered that there was a large agitation throughout the country in regard to the conditions of rail- waymen; that there was a threatened strike, that negotiations took place between the Board of Trade, representatives of the men, and representatives of the company, and that between them a scheme was drawn up. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Lord Allerton, chairman of the Great Northern Railway Company, appended his signature to that scheme of conciliation; therefore, we feel that this company ought to be in honour bound by its terms. Our complaint is that they are not carrying out the scheme. What is that scheme? It is that the men should elect their own representatives on the one side of the Board, that the company should select their representatives on the other, that when the election was complete the men, if they had any grievances, should submit their case first to the management, then to the sectional Boards, finally to the Central Board, and from the Central Board to the Arbitrator—a pretty comprehensive and cumbersome scheme to begin with. It took two years for the men on the Great Northern Railway to get a decision of the Arbitrator. That is the way disputes are settled under this scheme. Our objection to the company's contracting out the men to whom reference has been made is based on the fact that the very men themselves whom they are now contracting out first of all took part in the election of their representatives or delegates, and we may say that, having done that, they ought to be bound by the result, and not allowed to contract out. What view does the company take of the matter? After long months of negotiation the general manager wrote to the chairman of the men's side of the Board in these terms:— With regard to the right of the company to make agreements with their men, differing from the terms of the Award, I wrote yon on 27th July that the company could not concur in the suggestion you had made, that such agreements required the sanction of the Central Conciliation Board. Further, at our interview here on the 3rd instant, I pointed out that the agreement to which you refer had been made at the request of the men concerned, and that it was moreover a condition of the agreement of conciliation and arbitration arrived at at the Board of Trade, that there should be no interference whatever with the right of any company to deal directly with their men. 9.0 P.M.

There is no such right at all conferred upon the company in the conciliation scheme. I say that that is an absolute travesty of a conciliation scheme. The powers of the company are as strictly defined as the powers of the men, and the company are bound, by their own signature, to the scheme to abide by the award of the Arbitrator. There have been one or two disputes in addition to that on the Great Northern Railway. The Board of Trade were the authors of the scheme, and we hold that they are bound to see that it is carried into effect and loyally abode by on both sides. I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade to-night what his position is with regard to the matter. There was a somewhat similar dispute in regard to contracting out on the Great Eastern Railway. The men on that railway had an interview with the President of the Board of Trade, there was an inquiry into the position, and they obtained a ruling from the Board. That ruling, which was given in writing, says:— The Board of Trade are asked for an interpretation of Clause 2 of the general principles of the scheme for conciliation and arbitration, in questions relating to hours and wages of labour, of certain classes of railway employés, which was signed by the Board of Trade on 6th November. 1907, and more especially—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

I think hon. Members must confine themselves in this discussion to something done or left undone by the Great Northern Railway Company, and not by the Board of Trade.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. Member is now referring to the Great Eastern Railway Company.

Mr. WARDLE

I only wanted to read the ruling of the Board of Trade regarding a very similar position which arose on another railway. I will simply state that the ruling in regard to that matter was that the company were not to be permitted to contract out of the Award which had been given, and I hold that if that is true in one case, it ought to be true in another. I want to deal for a moment with what I fancy will be put forward by the company. Their contention is, apparently, that they have a right to do as they like with men outside the Award, who desire to contract out, without any consent whatever of the Central Board. The scheme says exactly the opposite. What is the position? Let me take one illustration as an example. Here were the goods workers at King's Cross working a sixty-hour week. As a result of an arbitration, the Arbitrator said that they should have a sixty-hour week, plus time and a quarter for overtime, plus time and a quarter for Sunday duty. Prior to the award they only got ordinary payment for overtime. Does anybody want to make me believe, or any rational person believe, that when the arbitrator gives them time and a quarter, and enhanced Sunday pay, extra and above what they have had, that they want to contract out of the award on that account? Those were intended to be advantages to the conditions under which they have been working previously. But this is how it comes about that they sent a petition to the company asking to go back to the old terms. For their purposes, and no doubt from a genuine desire to mitigate the hardships of the men prior to the award, although their actual hours were supposed to be sixty per week the men working at nights were permitted to work only nine hours. In a ten-hour night they had one hour off for meals. That was a very sensible arrangement, and did great credit to the humanity of the Great Northern Railway management. I contend that night work ought always to be shorter than day work, as some compensation for having to work at night. But what did the company do? Immediately after seeing the effect of the award the company, instead of permitting these men to continue as they had been—one of the effects of the award was that they should not lengthen any hours—made these men work the full ten hours at night, which, with the hour for meals, spread the night over eleven hours. The men said: "Now that we have got six hours a week extra, the award is no good to us. It more than cancels the advantage we should have got for having time and a quarter for overtime and extra pay for Sunday duty." That is the real gist of the whole thing. That is the real reason why the men wanted to contract out. Such action, we say, on the part of the company is deserving of the greatest reprobation and censure. There is no wonder that the men want to contract out of the award when the company play fast and loose with the award and alter the terms of it. For my part I am as anxious as anybody that this dispute should be amicably settled. The company have the matter in their own hands. If they will only honestly, fairly, and squarely abide by the scheme which their own chairman signed, if they will strictly adhere to the letter of that scheme, which does not permit them to contract out or vary the award, then I for one will be quite ready to withdraw my opposition.

I beg to second the Rejection.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, who I understand is the Leader of hon. Gentlemen opposite, asked me if I would agree to this discussion coming to an end at 9.15, but hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken have taken up fifty-five minutes of that time.

Mr. WARDLE

If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester made that arrangement he has never appraised us of the fact, and we know nothing about it.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

That is not my fault. But under the circumstances the time at my disposal is necessarily very short, because, at any rate, I am going to abide by the arrangement made. The whole question is a very simple one. This is a Bill to provide for widenings at different places on the system of the Company. It will provide for a widening at Peterborough, and it provides for a bridge over the railway for road traffic, there being at the present time a level crossing. The inhabitants of Peterborough have for years asked the railway company to do this. The cost of improvements at Peterborough alone amount to £351,000. They will not put a shilling into the pockets of the railway company. At the present moment all the railway company's fast trains to the North have to slow down to ten miles an hour going through Peterborough. If these improvements are carried out the trains will be able to run through Peterborough at the ordinary rate of speed. The inhabitants will be able to go across the new road without being stopped by a level crossing, and the £351,000 to be spent will mostly go in wages and work. Widenings at Doncaster will cost £130,000. Widenings in the West Biding and on the Grimsby line will cost £183,000, and the completion of the Enfield and Stevenage new line will cost £680.000, making a total of £1,500,000. The Enfield and Stevenage line is not a new line in the proper sense. The improvements there have been carried out in order to avoid the making of new tunnels between Welling and London. It was thought that the alternative route would better conduce to the safety and the comfort of the public than if we spent money upon making new tunnels and a newviaduct. So far as the company are concerned they are going to get nothing out of the Bill, except increased facilities for travelling. We come to the objections raised by the hon. Gentleman. These turn entirely upon the question of the award. The award was made by Lord MacDonnell. It was alleged that the award had been wrongly interpreted. Lord MacDonnell was asked what was his interpretation of the questions in debate. On every one of the points in dispute he sided with the company, and said that they were in the right and the men were in the wrong. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman called contracting out, the company has not used, nor will it use, any influence on the men to depart from the terms of the award. The company is prepared loyally to carry out the terms of the award. But if any man comes to the company and says that he would rather have other conditions, and if the company say: "Very well, on consideration we are prepared to meet you," all that the company contend is that they have a right to do so. A great deal was made of the Conciliation Board, There was nothing to go to the Conciliation Board about, because there was nothing in dispute. The two parties to the question, the men and the company, were agreed. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill said that influence was brought to bear on the men after the award had been at work, and consequently the men, under this influence, signed a petition to ask the company to alter the terms. What are the facts? The award came into operation on 1st December, 1909. On 18th November, 1909—that is, before the award came into operation—the company received a letter from certain of the men saying that it was with regret that they heard of the result of the award of the Arbitration Board—that was not the fault of the company—so far as the signatories were concerned, checkers, porters, and others. They therefore asked that no change should take place in the present working arrangements. They had at all times been fully satisfied with their present system. On receiving this letter, of which I have all the signatures, although it cost the company more to comply with this letter than with the definite terms of the award, the company complied with the request made to them. As to the question of the first-class passenger guards which was raised; there are forty-one of them, I think, and of these thirty-eight came to us and asked us to go back to the old conditions. Three said they preferred to remain under the award. We said that thirty-eight men could go back if they liked to the old conditions, but the three who wished to remain under the award shall do so. What more can anybody want? We are also prepared to say if any man who has gone back to the old conditions comes to the company and says he is desirous of returning to the conditions under the award he shall be allowed to do so, having regard to the interpretation of the award. That, I venture to say, does not arise on the present occasion. The award was made by Lord MacDonnell, and he has given his own interpretation of his own award after due consideration. We only desire to be bound by the award and the interpretation, and the company say to the men: "If you are dissatisfied with Lord MacDonnell's award or the interpretation you can, if you choose, go to the High Courts and we will pay you your expenses." What more can we do? I will conclude my remarks now that it is a quarter-past nine by saying that the company never attempted to influence the men in the slightest degree, and I am prepared to give an undertaking that in the future the company will not bring any influence to bear upon the men. They are prepared to carry out the award loyally—there are 1,100 men—and in every case, except with regard to the three passenger guards, the whole of the men were unanimous. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] I say it is so. The hon. Member says it is not, and it is a question for the House to decide who to believe. The company feel they cannot continue to carry out their undertaking if they are not to be allowed when three men come and ask them to do certain things to agree with their men to do these things which they consider it is in the interests of the company, and the men to do. I repeat the company do not desire, and have not done so, to put any pressure upon their men either to remain in or go out of the award, and further than that they cannot go.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)

The name of the President of the Board of Trade has been brought into the discussion on this matter, and therefore it is right that I should say a few words upon the subject. I understand that as regards the merits of the Bill there is no difference of opinion. It involves very large expenditure upon railway improvements, and upon one particular matter which interests those who represent Peterborough, namely, the level crossing at one end of the town. Therefore, I support the Bill heartily as regards its merits. The question arises whether the particular point raised by my hon. Friends is one which they are justified in raising and bringing before the House on the Second Reading stage. I am entirely in accord with what both my hon Friends stated that this opportunity is a perfectly fair and legitimate one for raising grievances in connection with railways. It is, indeed, in the present condition of Parliamentary time, the only opportunity afforded to hon. Members to ventilate their grievances, and both sides of the House will feel that in the remarks they made they were not only entirely within their rights, but their speeches were such as were suitable to the occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) called the attention of the House to the railway scheme under which this matter has arisen at all. I need hardly say I am not going into the merits of the question raised by my hon. Friend with regard to the question of arbitration. It is outside my province; it was decided by the arbitrator and by the interpretation he gave, but the point has been raised that a certain part of the railway scheme of three years ago has not been carried out by the Great Northern Railway Company. However, I will say this in connection with the matter, that that agreement was come to in a very great emergency and under very great pressure. It was carried out in a moment of railway, and, indeed, of national danger, and to avert what I might call a national catastrophe. It was carried out almost at a few hours' notice, and it was quite clear, when it came into working order, that there were two omissions from that scheme. The first was if there was a difference in opinion in regard to the decision of the arbitrator there was no definite provision under which that difference of opinion should be referred back to the arbitrator for his interpretation. I am glad to know that the suggestions of the Board of Trade to the various companies where these disputes have occurred have been referred back to the arbitrator, and therefore that particular point does not now arise.

The other point to which reference was made was that there is no rule in the agreement which specifically shows that the company has no right to contract out of the terms of the award. The question arose first in regard to the Great Eastern Railway. The representatives of the men on the Great Eastern Conciliation Board drew my attention to the matter, and they asked for a ruling upon that point of the scheme. They asked "should the simple decision of the Arbitrator be binding upon all parties." The question was, "Did it mean the railway company on the one hand, and the Conciliation Board on the other, or the railway company and the in- dividual men?" The Board heard both sides, both the railway company and the men, and the decision which I, as President of the Board of Trade, came to has already been referred to, and although I do not wish to trouble the House with the whole of my decision, I may say shortly it was this: That in my opinion the parties to the agreement were, on the one hand, the railway company, and on the other hand the representatives of the men sitting on the Central Conciliation Board; and the reason I gave for arriving at this conclusion was that the Board of Trade was influenced by the consideration that the whole idea of the scheme is based upon the principle of collective bargaining, and that not only are matters in dispute referred to the Central Board, but the award is issued to the two bodies. The Great Eastern accepted that interpretation given by the Board of Trade. Then came the question of the Great Northern. The same question arose in a different way in regard to that company. My attention was drawn to the matter by the representatives of the men. At that time the matter of the interpretation of the award by Lord MacDonnell was still in question, and it appeared this question might be solved by the interpretation he gave. That was not so. The interpretation was given and this question was not solved. I made a communication to the railway company upon the matter and discussed it fully with them, pointing out the view I held and still hold in reference to this matter, and asked them what action they proposed to take. I had communications with the representatives of the men in regard to it.

The company take the attitude which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has just signified to the House. In their opinion this particular clause did not apply in the way which the Board of Trade and myself believed it did apply. As regards the case of the Great Northern Railway two other things were stated, and their position was different in this matter to that of the Great Eastern Railway. They had taken no part in the Great Eastern controversy and were not bound by that interpretation. That is perfectly true, because they had not an opportunity of stating their case, and no definite request has been made to the Board of Trade or the Master of the Rolls with reference to this particular matter. That is the position of the Board of Trade at the present moment. I do not wish to go into the merits of the case. My hon. Friend behind me said that the men had been induced to accept these terms or go back to the old terms, instead of the new, under some pressure. On the other hand, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London says that no pressure was exercised. That is not for me to give an opinion upon. I do feel that while my hon. Friends—if they will allow me to say so—are perfectly entitled to raise this matter in the very grave way they have, it should be remembered that this agreement, made three or four years ago, is open to different interpretations in one or two respects, and until it is possible to lay down a definite interpretation which will be binding on both parties, it is not within the power of the Board of Trade to enforce it one way or another. I make an appeal to my hon. Friends with reference to this Bill, not to press their opposition in this one matter to a conclusion in the Division Lobby. I say this on tactical grounds. If they are successful in throwing out the Bill they will prevent various railway improvements being carried out involving a large expenditure of money, which would otherwise employ a large number of men; if, on the other hand, they are unsuccessful and the House rejects the Motion—and I for one shall feel bound to vote for the Second Reading—I think it will be held by the Great Northern Railway Company that the House of Commons has endorsed their action in regard to this matter. I do not want to be placed in either of these two dilemmas, because I think it is a matter which ought to go to the Committee. I do not want either to destroy the Bill or be held to have endorsed the action of the Great Northern Railway. For these reasons I appeal to my hon. Friends after having had an opportunity of raising the question with the general assent of the House as a matter to be considered in the future not to press their Motion to a Division.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

The President of the Board of Trade has told us that he feels himself to be in a difficult position, and he has made an appeal to those who are responsible for bringing this matter forward. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has put us in an equally difficult position. We appreciate the very sympathetic attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted with regard to this matter, but may I point out that we are not dealing at the moment with the Board of Trade; we are not asking this House to express an opinion on any action which the Board of Trade has taken, but we are asking hon. Members to express an opinion upon the action of the Great Northern Railway Company. Therefore I submit that the House would be well advised to seriously consider, not only the merits of the conciliation scheme, but the deliberate attempt—and I say it with a full sense of responsibility—on the part of the Great Northern Railway Company to make this scheme abortive. What are the facts? Here is a scheme set up ostensibly to settle questions of dispute between a railway company and its employés. We have recognised from the commencement that not only is this scheme unfair in its application to the men, but it is undoubtedly the worst scheme of conciliation that any other employés have had to contend with. When the House remembers that in every conciliation scheme in operation today the employés have the right and privilege and opportunity to elect their own direct representative from their own trades union to argue their case and present it, when you recognise that that right is denied in this case, and the men have to rely upon the humble porter or platelayer stating the case of his fellows, surely with those disadvantages against the men the least we have a right to expect from even the Board of Trade and the railway company is that they will be fair in their interpretations of this agreement.

The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has himself answered our case. Here is a scheme of conciliation supposed to be an amicable settlement of the differences between capital and labour. The hon. Baronet's interpretation of conciliation is to say to the humble platelayer and porter "go to the Law Courts." What is the use to talk about conciliation. What becomes of the value of the statement made from the other side of the House that the Great Northern Railway Company were prepared to deal honestly with their men, when their interpretation on honesty is "go to the Law Courts to redress your grievances." [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am well within the recollection of the House when I say that not only was that statement made this evening, but when in the last Parliament I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade, before he could answer it, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London got up and said, "Is this House aware that we have offered to allow the men to go to the Law Courts"? When that spirit is in operation, when that spirit is actuating the railway company, is it any wonder that we feel, apart entirely from; the merits of the Bill, that this House should not give further powers to a body which has already prostituted the power which they possess. The President of the Board of Trade said that this scheme was hastily drawn up. That is perfectly true, and it is because it was hastily drawn up that we have recognised many of its imperfections. We have tolerated many of these things, and I ask the House this question. Here is the Great Northern Railway Company, who in their statement of the case which they have sent out to the members of this House, to influence them in their decision, say: "That they have only acted at the request of the employés." That statement was repeated this evening. Is there any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in this House who would assume for a moment that any man would petition his employer for a reduction in wages? Can anyone, speaking on behalf of the Great Northern Railway Company say that Lord MacDonnell gave a reduction for any single grade in the service? On the contrary, when he did not leave the conditions as they were, he gave an increase. Either the men's position was to remain as it was, or they were to have certain benefits as the result of the arbitration. Yet those responsible for this Bill say their own employés petitioned them to give them a reduction in wages.

Sir F. BANBURY

On the contrary, I say it cost the company more.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

If that is the explanation, there is the proof that the Arbitrator gave an award which cost the company more.

Sir F. BANBURY

I said nothing of the sort. I said the request of the men cost the company more than if they had remained as they were.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

If the Arbitrator did not give a reduction, how could it cost the company more to put the men back to their original position? The Arbitrator did not give a reduction.

Sir F. BANBURY

We say he did.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

On the point of Order, is the hon. Baronet, as one of the Members for the City of London, in order in speaking in this House as a railway director and in speaking of his shareholders as "we,' as though he sat here for a railway company?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)

That is not the point of Order.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

I want to remind the House, and I say it with a full sense of responsibility, that at one stage of this dispute the men were so dissatisfied and resented so keenly the manner in which the company treated them, that we had a wholesale request to our society to sanction a withdrawal of labour, and the answer was: "Do not prejudice the good principle of reconciliation." After considerable difficulty, we persuaded the men that conciliation, after all, was not to be damned by the action of one railway company, and we ask the House to say that a scheme which will bring peace to the railway service should not be rejected because one company is so autocratic as to interpret the position itself. The very basis of conciliation means two parties, but in this case the Great Northern Railway Company said "No, so far as we are concerned we absolutely refuse to allow you to meet to consider the position." That has been their action from the commencement. I regret we are compelled to bring this matter before the House and to discuss a question which does not entirely concern the merits of the Bill, but I do say that unless this House says that in this question of interpretation both employer and employee must act honourably and straight, you have no right to condemn the sectional strikes that take place from time to time in the country. It is because we want to stop these strikes and the men to recognise that there must be discipline from our standpoint as well as from the other standpoint that we ask the House to support our action by rejecting this Bill. We regret having to go against the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, but we believe we are acting in the interests of the men and the future of this scheme, more especially seeing that those defending this Bill have absolutely refused to recognise either equity, justice, or even common-sense in their decisions.

Mr. BOOTH

I should like to bring the attention of the House back to the Bill itself. I am interested in the Bill as a private traveller. My business rather depends upon it, and it also affects my Constituency. I therefore claim the attention of the House while I speak from no sentimental point of view. The borough I have the honour to represent—which is quite as ancient as that represented by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London—is keenly interested in this Bill. We are unfortunately placed with regard to through traffic, and I do appeal to the Great Northern Railway Company that at this time, when they are preparing by this Bill to reap an immense benefit from the opening up of a new coalfield in the Don-caster coal district, they should consider the ancient borough which lies immediately north. I therefore look upon this. Bill from a very matter of fact and business standpoint. The business firm with which I am connected puts much traffic on the line, and I am able to assure hon. Members of this House that, tied up as we are with the Great Northern Railway Company, we prefer to deal with that company, because they are considerate to us as traders and in all our requirements. It would be a great regret to me if by any vote on another issue the company were prevented from developing their line in this natural way. I appeal to hon., Members below the Gangway, as an employer of a considerable amount of labour. It is necessary that this company should be allowed to develop its own line, and I think they must see it is of the utmost importance that the company should be able to cope in an excellent business manner with the new developments in the Don-caster district. Only this last week business inconvenience has been caused, and' it has had its effect upon the wages of the working men we employ, owing to the company not having sufficient facilities a little to the south of Doncaster. I therefore make a joint appeal. I appeal to the representatives of the Great Northern Railway Company, whether it is not time to consider the historic borough of Pontefract in their deliberations. I am in the unfortunate position that if I stay to do my duty on a Friday until the House rises I cannot get home the same evening, and I appeal to them to consider my Constituency and to allow me to get home on a Friday night in order that in the country air I may recuperate after the awful strain of listening to the speeches in this House. I appeal to the Labour Members in particular, and I would like to draw their attention to an incident that occurred a little over two years ago to show them that the Great Northern Railway Company is not altogether unsympathetic to working men. We had, unfortunately, an accident—one of those unforeseen things which no one can explain—in connection with a blast furnace, and thereby some members of a trade union with which hon. Members below the Gangway are associated lost their lives, while many others had to be hurried away to Leeds Infirmary. The Great Northern Railway Company, with all speed, disorganised their ordinary traffic and placed special coaches at our disposal to convey the men to Leeds, and by that action some lives were saved. If that does not appeal to hon. Members, I will make another, speaking as a trader entirely dependent on the Great Northern line for the success of my business. They have made their protest in this House. I regret they have not had a more sympathetic reply. I say that quite candidly, but I do trust that the protest they have made will be conveyed to the Great Northern Board, and if they will pass this Bill, and their protest should prove of no effect, I will undertake, as one of the leading traders, to join with them in a deputation to the headquarters of the company.

Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD

I have listened to the Debate with great interest and some anxiety. Peterborough, the constituency which I have the honour to represent, has been referred to more than once, and, therefore, I think I ought to say a word or two on this question. The Corporation of Peterborough are extremely anxious that this Bill should go through. Anyone who knows the level crossing there must be aware that it is not only most terribly inconvenient, but that it is also a dangerous crossing, and the improvement which will be made if this Bill becomes law will be of inestimable value to the town. It is what we have been asking for for years, and it seems almost too good to be true that it has come within measurable distance of accomplishment. At the same time, there are a great many railway men in Peterborough. I look upon them as the backbone of my Constituency, and if it is proved to me that they are suffering from legitimate grievances, and that the company are unjustly treating them, and will not give ear to those grievances, if it proves also that the best way to put those grievances right will be to reject this Bill, I certainly would give my vote for its rejection. But I think it is impossible in this House properly to thrash out such a question as this. I have only received one letter from a constituent in regard to this Bill, and his objection to it was that Peter- borough might be made, in the words of the Mover of this Amendment, "a wayside station," because there would be so many through trains, and that would mean starvation for Peterborough men. With that particular objection I am not greatly impressed. I am assured that just as many trains will stop at Peterborough if the Bill is carried as before, and, in fact, there may be more as there will be an increased service of trains necessitated by the increased traffic. Another consideration which very much impresses me is that there is a kink in the line just as you go into Peterborough which necessitates trains slowing down to eight or ten miles per hour as they are coming into the station. That will be got rid of if the Bill is carried. There will be a new bridge over the river and trains will be able to go through at fifty miles per hour. I need scarcely say I give all possible weight to the grievances of the men, but I rather understand that this matter does not so much affect the locomotive men, because they are not under the award; it is a dispute rather with the carmen and carters. I would make an appeal to hon. Members who oppose this Bill. I would point out that if they take a division and the majority is against them, it may be suggested, as the President of the Board of Trade has said, that this House endorsed the action of the company. I am not interested in the company, but I do care for the employés. There is, however, a great overshadowing interest, and that is the interest of the general public, and when you come to examine this Bill under which the company are going to spend £1,500,000 sterling, and when also you consider how vitally important a matter to the country generally is railway improvement and extension, I do ask my hon. Friends below me whether, having made this protest, they think it worth while to divide the House upon it. I sincerely trust that they will not.

Mr. HUDSON

I wish to say I am amenable to the very wise suggestion which has been offered by the President of the Board of Trade. I understand that the contracting out of which we complain is entirely provided against, and I would like to know if the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is prepared to meet us as regards back payments.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 133.

Division No. 39.] AYES. [6.20 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Cator, John Greene, W. R.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cave, George Guinness, Hon. W. E.
Anstruther Gray, Major William Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Astor, Waldorf Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. Clive, Percy Archer Hamilton, Lord C J. (Kensington, S.)
Baird, J. L. Clyde, J. Avon Harris, Henry Percy
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Cooper, Richard Ashmole Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Baicarres, Lord Courthope, G. Loyd Heimsley, Viscount
Baldwin, Stanley Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Hickman, Col. T. E.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Craig, Norman (Kent) Hill, Sir Clement L.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Craik, Sir Henry Hillier, Dr. A. P.
Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V. Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Hills, J. W.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Croft, H. P. Hope, Harry (Bute)
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Dixon, C. H. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) Eyres-Monsell, B. M. Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Faile, B. G. Houston, Robert Paterson
Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase Fell, Arthur Hume-Williams, W. E.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Fleming, Valentine Hunt, Rowland
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish Forster, Henry William Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- Foster, Philip Staveley Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr
Bridgeman, W. Clive Gastreil, Major W. H. Kerry, Earl of
Bull, Sir William James Geider, Sir W. A. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Burn, Colonel C. R. Gibbs, G. A. Kirkwood, J. H. M.
Butcher, J. G. Gilmour, Captain J. Lee, Arthur H.
Byles, William Pollard Goldman, C. S. Lloyd, G. A.
Carille, E. Hildred Golasmith, Frank Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Gordon, J. Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Cassel, Felix Goulding, Edward Alfred Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Castlereagh, Viscount Grant, J. A. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)
Malcolm, Ian Remnant, James Farquharson Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Rice, Hon. Walter F. Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall) Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)
Morpeth, Viscount Robinson, Sydney Thynne, Lord A.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Touche, George Alexander
Mount, William Arthur Rolleston, Sir John Tullibardine, Marquess of
Neville, Reginald J. N. Ronaldshay, Earl of Valentia, Viscount
Newdegate, F. A. Royds, Edmund Walker, Col. William Hall
Newton, Harry Kottingham Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen) Watt, Henry A.
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) St. Maur, Harold Weigall, Capt. A. G.
Nield, Herbert Salter, Arthur Clavell Wheler, Granville C. H.
Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A. Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Sanders, Robert A. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Sanderson, Lancelot Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Parkes, Ebenezer Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wolmer, Viscount
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Perkins, Walter F. Smith, Harold (Warrington) Worthington-Evans, L.
Peto, Basil Edward Stanier, Beville Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Pole-Carew, Sir R. Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Yate, Col. C. E.
Pollock, Ernest Murray Staveley-Hill, Henry Younger, George
Primrose, Hon. Neil James Steel-Maltland, A. D.
Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs) Stewart, Gershom TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Moore.
Quilter, William Eley C. Swift, Rigby
Ratcliff, Major R. F. Talbot, Lord Edmund
NOES
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Devlin, Joseph Johnson, W.
Acland, Francis Dyke Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Addison, Dr. C. Dillon, John Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney)
Alden, Percy Doris, W. Jowett, F. W.
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Duffy, William J. Joyce, Michael
Ashton, Thomas Gair Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Keating, M.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Kellaway, Frederick George
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Kilbride, Denis
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) King, J. (Somerset, N.)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.) Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Elverston, H. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Barnes, G. N. Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lansbury, George
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Law, Hugh A
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) Essex, Richard Walter Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)
Barton, William Essiemont, George Birnie Leach, Charles
Beale, W. P. Falconer, James Levy, Sir Maurice
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Farrell, James Patrick Lewis, John Herbert
Bentham, G. J. Fenwick, Charles Logan, John William
Bethell, Sir J. H. Ffrench, Peter Lundon, T.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Field, William Lyeil, Charles Henry
Boland, John Pius Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Lynch, A. A.
Booth, Frederick Handel Flavin, Michael Joseph Macdonaid, J. R. (Leicester)
Bowerman, C. W. Furness, Stephen W. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Gill, A. H. Maciean, Donald
Brace, William Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brady, P. J. Goldstone, Frank MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Brigg, Sir John Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) M'Callum, John M.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Greig, Colonel J. W. N'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Bryce, J. Annan Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Burke, E. Haviland- Guest, Major Hon. C H. C. (Pembroke) Marshall, Arthur Harold
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Guiland, John W. Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Masterman, C. F. G.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Hackett, J. Mathias, Richard
Cameron, Robert Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Meagher, Michael
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Chapple, Dr. W. A. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Menzies, Sir Walter
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Molloy, M.
Clancy, John Joseph Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz
Clough, William Harwood, George Money, L. G. Chiozza
Clynes, J. R. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Mooney, J. J.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Haworth, Arthur A. Morgan, George Hay
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hayden, John Patrick Morrell, Philip
Corbett, A. Cameron Hayward, Evan Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) Munro, R.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) Neilson, F.
Crumley, Patrick Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Higham, John Sharp Nolan, Joseph
Davies, E. William (Elfion) Hinds, John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Holt, Richard Durning O'Dowd, John
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Hudson, Walter Ogden, Fred
Dawes, J. A. Hughes, S. L. O'Grady, James
Delany, William Illingworth, Percy H. O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel O'Malley, William
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Shaughnessey, P. J. Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
O'Sullivan, Timothy Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Wadsworth, J.
Palmer, Godfrey Mark Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Walton, Sir Joseph
Parker, James (Halifax) Roche, John (Galway, E.) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Rowlands, James Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Wardle, George J.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Samuel, J. (Stockton) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Phillipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Scanian, Thomas Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Webb, H.
Pirie, Duncan V. Sheehy, David White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Pollard, Sir George H. Sherwell, Arthur James White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Shortt, Edward Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Power, Patrick Joseph Simon, Sir John Alisebrook Wiles, Thomas
Price C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Smith, H. B. (Northampton) Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Radford, G. H Snowden, P. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Raffan, Peter Wilson Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Rainy, A. Rolland Soares, Ernest J. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Spicer, Sir Albert Winfrey, Richard
Reddy, M. Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Summers, James Woolley Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Redmond, William (Clare) Sutton, J. E.
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Kendall, Atheistan Tennant, Harold John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain
Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Thorne, William (West Ham) Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Toulmin, George

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 40.] AYES. [9.53 p.m.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Forster, Henry William Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Armitage, R. Foster, Philip Staveley Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Ashley, W. W. Gastrell, Major W. H. Perkins, Walter F.
Astor, Waldorf Geider, Sir W. A. Peto, Basil Edward
Baird, J. L. Gibbs, G. A. Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Gilmour, Captain J. Pollock, Ernest Murray
Balcarres, Lord Goldman, C. S. Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Baldwin, Stanley Goldsmith, Frank Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Gordon, J. Quilter, William Eley C.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Grant, J. A. Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) Greig, Col. J. W. Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Remnant, James Farquharson
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Guliand, John William Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Haddock, George Bahr Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Robinson, Sydney
Beale, W. P. Hambro, Angus Valdemar Roe, Sir Thomas
Beck, Arthur Cecil Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) Rolleston, Sir John
Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Royds, Edmund
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Rutherford, John (Lanes-, Darwen)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Helmsley, Viscount Salter, Arthur Claveil
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Henderson, J. M'D. (Aberdeen, W.) Sanders, Robert A.
Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine Hickman, Col. T. E. Sanderson, Lancelot
Boland, John Plus Hills, J. W. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Booth, Frederick Handel Hope, Harry (Bute) Shortt, Edward
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield) Soares, Ernest J.
Boyton, J. Houston, Robert Paterson Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bring, Sir John Illingworth, Percy H. Starkey, John R.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel Stewart, Gershom
Bryce, J. Annan Kerry, Earl of Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Knight, Capt. E. A. Swift, Rigby
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Larmor, Sir J. Talbot, Lord E.
Butcher, J. G. Lee, Arthur H. Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Buxton, Rt Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Lewis, John Herbert Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Byies, William Pollard Lewisham, Viscount Thynne, Lord A.
Campion, W. R. Lloyd, G. A. Touche, George Alexander
Carlile, E. Hildred Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Toulmin, George
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. M'Callum, John M. Valentia, Viscount
Chapple, Dr. William Allen McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Walker, Col. William Hall
Clough, William Malcolm, Ian Walton, Sir Joseph
Clyde, J. Avon Marks, G. Croydon Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Mason, David M. (Coventry) Waring, Walter
Corbett, A. Cameron Menzies, Sir Walter Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Courthope, G. Loyd Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Weigall, Capt. A. G.
Cowan, W. H. Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Wheler, Granville C. H.
Craik, Sir Henry Mooney, J. J. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Moore, William Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Dewar, Sir J. A. Mount, William Arthur Wolmer, Viscount
Dillon, John Munro, R. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Dixon, C. H. Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Neville, Reginald J. N. Worthington-Evans, L.
Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred Newton, Harry Kottingham Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Nield, Herbert Yate, Col. C. E.
Eyres-Monsell, B. M. Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Falconer, J. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Faile, B. G. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Younger, George
Fell, Arthur Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Fleming, Valentine Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Mr. Stanier.
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Crumley, Patrick Ffrench, Peter
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Field, William
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Davies, E. William (Elfion) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Delany, William Flavin, Michael Joseph
Barton, William Devlin, Joseph Furness, Stephen W.
Bentham, G. J. Doris, W. Gill, A. H.
Bowerman, C. W. Duffy, William J. Goddard, Sir Daniel Fora
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Goldstone, Frank
Brace, William Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Brady, P. J. Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Hackett, J.
Chancellor, H. G. Elverston, H. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Clancy, John Joseph Esmonde, Dr John (Tipperary, N.) Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Clynes, J. R. Esslemont, George Birnie Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Farrell, James Patrick Harwood, George
Condon, Thomas Joseph Fenwick, Charles Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Hayward, Evan Money, L. G. Chiozza Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) Morrell, Philip St. Maur, Harold
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Neilson, Francis Samuel, J. (Stockton)
Henry, Sir Charles S. Nolan, Joseph Scanian, Thomas
Higham, John Sharp O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hinds, John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Sheehy, David
Hunt, Rowland O'Dowd, John Sherwell, Arthur James
Johnson, W. O'Grady, James Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Snowden, Philip
Jowett, F. W. O'Malley, William Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Joyce, Michael O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Sutton, John E.
Keating, M. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Taylor, John W, (Durham)
King, J. (Somerset, N.) O'Sullivan, Timothy Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Palmer, Godfrey Mark Wadsworth, J.
Lansbury, George Parker, James (Halifax) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Leach, Charles Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Wardie, George J.
Levy, Sir Maurice Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Watt, Henry A.
Logan, John William Pickersgill, Edward Hare Webb, H.
Lundon, T. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W H. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Lynch, A. A. Power, Patrick Joseph White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Wiles, Thomas
MacGhee, Richard Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Radford, G. H. Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Raffan, peter Wilson Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) Reddy, M. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Mathias, Richard Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Meagher, Michael Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hudson and Mr. J. H. Thomas.
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Molloy, M. Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Bill read a second time, and committed.